Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: quinnybobble on May 20, 2011, 21:30:10 PM
-
Have been asked by a friend if he is able to play any of the APAT tournaments as he is thinking of going pro.
-
Someone more informed than me will know doubt tell you better, but my understanding is if your friend"s income isn"t soley from playing Poker then he can, as long at the time of the event that is still the case.
-
There is another thread somewhere asking the same thing.... I started one... As I queried about the amount of regular winners on the APAT circuit.. aren"t they pro"s or at least semi pro"s.. It was a good thread.
-
There is another thread somewhere asking the same thing.... I started one... As I queried about the amount of regular winners on the APAT circuit.. aren"t they pro"s or at least semi pro"s.. It was a good thread.
Interesting thread Scousebill, I have passed on this info and it seems APAT should change there name to PAT following the success of recent winning "profesionals" playing the tour.
-
There is another thread somewhere asking the same thing.... I started one... As I queried about the amount of regular winners on the APAT circuit.. aren"t they pro"s or at least semi pro"s.. It was a good thread.
Interesting thread Scousebill, I have passed on this info and it seems APAT should change there name to PAT following the success of recent winning "profesionals" playing the tour.
The discussions around professional players is a regular one within APAT. Unfortunately, comments like this, only stir up unnecessary debate.
The "recent winner" I assume that you are referring to, fits within APAT's rules on the eligibility of players in our tournaments. That particular situation has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, and there are no issues as far as APAT is concerned.
APAT has a simple rule on professional players. If your sole income is from poker, then you are considered to be a professional player, and therefore ineligible to play APAT events (Other than those designated as open to all). Any individual cases brought to our attention either by the player involved or a third party will be looked into, and where appropriate, dealt with.
In the past, this has pretty much been self policed, with players who decide to "go pro", effectively self-excluding themselves from APAT events.
-
There is another thread somewhere asking the same thing.... I started one... As I queried about the amount of regular winners on the APAT circuit.. aren"t they pro"s or at least semi pro"s.. It was a good thread.
Interesting thread Scousebill, I have passed on this info and it seems APAT should change there name to PAT following the success of recent winning "profesionals" playing the tour.
The discussions around professional players is a regular one within APAT. Unfortunately, comments like this, only stir up unnecessary debate.
The "recent winner" I assume that you are referring to, fits within APAT's rules on the eligibility of players in our tournaments. That particular situation has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, and there are no issues as far as APAT is concerned.
APAT has a simple rule on professional players. If your sole income is from poker, then you are considered to be a professional player, and therefore ineligible to play APAT events (Other than those designated as open to all). Any individual cases brought to our attention either by the player involved or a third party will be looked into, and where appropriate, dealt with.
In the past, this has pretty much been self policed, with players who decide to "go pro", effectively self-excluding themselves from APAT events.
This mean The Mole for example can play then as he has other forms of income? I always thought it was stated that it was your main source of income. I must admit I found it strange that a guy that advertises himself as a professional and offers coaching should pass the test. Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
-
Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
I"d completely agree with this.
-
Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
I"d completely agree with this.
+1
-
There is another thread somewhere asking the same thing.... I started one... As I queried about the amount of regular winners on the APAT circuit.. aren"t they pro"s or at least semi pro"s.. It was a good thread.
Interesting thread Scousebill, I have passed on this info and it seems APAT should change there name to PAT following the success of recent winning "profesionals" playing the tour.
The discussions around professional players is a regular one within APAT. Unfortunately, comments like this, only stir up unnecessary debate.
The "recent winner" I assume that you are referring to, fits within APAT's rules on the eligibility of players in our tournaments. That particular situation has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, and there are no issues as far as APAT is concerned.
APAT has a simple rule on professional players. If your sole income is from poker, then you are considered to be a professional player, and therefore ineligible to play APAT events (Other than those designated as open to all). Any individual cases brought to our attention either by the player involved or a third party will be looked into, and where appropriate, dealt with.
In the past, this has pretty much been self policed, with players who decide to "go pro", effectively self-excluding themselves from APAT events.
This mean The Mole for example can play then as he has other forms of income? I always thought it was stated that it was your main source of income. I must admit I found it strange that a guy that advertises himself as a professional and offers coaching should pass the test. Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
Think the rule has always been worded that way Eck, which make it pretty pointless tbh. The only person i can think of that it would exclude is Cambridge Alex, a .50/1 live grinder lol.
An APAT bink would be pretty massive to him too, open it up to all to save confusion imo.
-
The "recent winner" I assume that you are referring to, fits within APAT's rules on the eligibility of players in our tournaments. That particular situation has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, and there are no issues as far as APAT is concerned.
APAT has a simple rule on professional players. If your sole income is from poker, then you are considered to be a professional player, and therefore ineligible to play APAT events (Other than those designated as open to all).
This mean The Mole for example can play then as he has other forms of income? I always thought it was stated that it was your main source of income. I must admit I found it strange that a guy that advertises himself as a professional and offers coaching should pass the test. Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
I"d completely agree with this.
Nicely swerved Leigh. Let"s just remove the "restriction" and end the debate. "Main income" appears to have morphed into "sole income". There aren"t many pro"s who"s sole income is poker. So it"s not really worth stating.
-
Phil Ivey"s mum gives him $100 for his birthday. Being the good boy that he is he decides to put it in a bank account earning him 0.1% interest per year.
Welcome to APAT Phil ;D
-
The problem with who is and isn"t professional......
In snooker there are 96 professionals.... There are many guys who I"m sure go round playing challenge matches/playing in tournaments and earning solely from snooker, but they are NOT a professional.
Are you profesional because you earn more money at poker than any other income? Does this mean if a young lad enters his very first £336 DTD deepstack and wins £24,500 which exceeds his wage of £12,000 a year he is a professional??
If a man earns himself £300,000 a year from his business but also enters a dozen EPT events showing £290,000 winnings and a profit of say £250,000. Is he considered NOT to be a proffesional?
To be honest, I wouldn"t care if pro"s did play.... Bring it on ;D
-
This mean The Mole for example can play then as he has other forms of income? I always thought it was stated that it was your main source of income. I must admit I found it strange that a guy that advertises himself as a professional and offers coaching should pass the test. Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
Some good and interesting points here. I would firstly say that to police this would be impossible for APAT and they do a very good job already.
I don"t know if there has been any issue with The Mole playing APAT but based on the criteria and the fact he does have other sources of income outside of poker I would be surprised if he was not allowed to play. Again that"s purely based on my understanding of the rules (which may or may not be correct).
A player being a poker coach does not make him a professional player. It would often make him a pretty good player but having a good understanding of shoving and calling ranges etc is a small part of what make a pro player, you could not coach discipline and patience that easily. You could have the knowledge to be a coach but lack other parts of the game that are required for being a pro player.
An alternate example might be Ray Norton (Mondatoo on Blonde). He is confirmed eligible for APAT and he is clearly somebody who is very capable of surviving solely off PLAYING poker, it is well advertised that he does in his blog (which I would argue makes him better than anybody currently playing APAT) and if he is allowed to play them there should be no question about anybody who played this season. Ray is a great bloke and all that but being a great bloke does not change the fact he is what a lot of people would call a professional poker player. This also serves to show it"s so subjective and just because I think this does not mean APAT agree (or should agree).
As for would pro"s be interested in a £75 event, why wouldn"t they? I mean they are not going to travel to go to one, but if it happened to be in their local area why would they not play it? They would have a pretty big edge on your average APAT player so it would be worth it - dunno about time factors against grinding online of course but most pros spend some time playing live. Would have thought taking that sort of edge would be a no-brainer. I know they could do it anyway if nobody knew them but they are still currently discouraged.
My take on it is that I don"t not really want pro"s to be playing APAT, seems to defy the point and the practice whilst it can"t be stopped should continue to be discouraged. Leave it as it is, or better yet make the rule that a pro is a pro if their MAIN income is from poker, which would make more sense and is actually what I thought it was. Again it would have to self police but nothing APAT can do about that as at the end of the day you don"t know what somebody is making from the game.
Doesn"t seem to fit with most peoples views but there we go :-)
-
For me the clue is in the name "AMATEUR POKER ASSOCIATION & TOUR"
If you describe yourself as a professional player and believe yourself to be a professional player, then really you shouldn"t play or you"re basically taking the piss. Regardless of the rules.
However, our name kinda dictates that we need to define Amateur for our purposes. So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. "Sole Source of Income" would let a lot of "Professionals" in, so is pretty pointless IMO. "Main Source of Income" is probably more restrictive but still open to debate.
It"s not easy to define a pro poker player but......
People generally make a statement of turning professional by giving up their job. Those who continue to work whilst they earn more from poker aren"t professionals - they likely haven"t decided if they"ve found themselves on the +ve side of variance yet! They"re basically keen amateurs IMO. Whatever their poker income is.
Similarly those who have lost their job (or never had one) and play poker in the meantime aren"t professionals until they give up all thoughts of the world of work. Only they will know when they"ve crossed that void.
ARRGH!! Really really difficult.
The APAT line of self-policing is probably the only sensible/practical way to go unless we change our name. Until then, we can console ourselves that anyone who enters an "amateur" event when they consider themselves a pro player is basically a cheat (whatever the small print says). And the advantage that many pro"s have over amateurs is similar to the advantage that drugs give to athletes. Small but significant. The good thing is that THEY know they"ve cheated. The bad thing is the rest don"t.
-
Wow wish I hadn"t raised the point some serious amount of guff in here.
Nobody cheated and lol @ Ray being better than anyone on APAT because he is grinds 45 man sng"s.
-
Wow wish I hadn"t raised the point some serious amount of guff in here.
:D :D :D :D :D
You love dropping bombs and running away ;D
-
... So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. ...
(1) why?
and (2) why?
-
... So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. ...
(1) why?
and (2) why?
What"s the point of a rule that is not (1) nor (2)? Would be a pointless rule.
-
I personally couldn"t give a flying f*** who turns up to play in an APAT tournament
-
I personally couldn"t give a flying f*** who turns up to play in an APAT tournament
^^This
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro and I would welcome the chance to play against them
-
... So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. ...
(1) why?
and (2) why?
What"s the point of a rule that is not (1) nor (2)? Would be a pointless rule.
It tells people what is expected - if they don"t abide by it, it isn"t catastrophic but maybe a little disappointing.
People have already said that they don"t really care if a pro infiltrates an APAT tournament, it makes perfect sense to me that a self-policing rule that professionals can"t play doesn"t have to be enforceable or enforced when it doesn"t make a difference if any do play.
Maybe it"s a semantic point - replace "rule" with "guideline" and there"s clearly no problem.
-
There are rules in things like snooker and golf that effectively can"t be 100% enforced or enforceable - doesn"t cause a problem there. One in particular would be that their are several times where only the snooker player playing the shot might know he accidentally fouled whilst lining up a shot - if some players don"t declare it, it"s disappointing, but it doesn"t stop the whole rule being invalid.
-
Bejesus, let "em come, I"d love to sit at the same table as a Pro, I play for fun, not to earn a living, and to sit at the table and watch the best then great! We have some of the best amateurs playing the game on this tour, and I am sure they"d love to pit their wits against the pros!
-
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro
Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.
-
Surely, the ethos of APAT is that its a starting place for those with little or no live poker experience, to play deep stack tournament poker? When we have one or two events won by people who advertise themselves as pros, does that not dissolve that ethos somewhat?
A budding new player would see pros winning and consider APAT just like all the other events.
-
Bejesus, let "em come, I"d love to sit at the same table as a Pro, I play for fun, not to earn a living, and to sit at the table and watch the best then great! We have some of the best amateurs playing the game on this tour, and I am sure they"d love to pit their wits against the pros!
They already can. There are plenty of affordable events where the top APAT players could challenge the pros if they wanted too, and plenty do. APAT should not be that place though (imo). You already have DTD and the UKIPT gives good level APAT players a good chance to qualify for a "bigger" tournament. If amateur players want to challenge the pros they should be going into the pro game, not bring the pros into the amateur game. It works this way in other games like pool, snooker and I think darts. Not easy easy in poker of course but the concept should still apply.
I still don"t understand why people think pros would not want to play a £75 tournament. I know that they may not want to travel for it as covering the expenses over a season is unrealistic even for the best on the APAT tour. If they have an APAT in their local area though would they not see a good value tournament full of players, most of which they are better than and play? APAT's are well run good structured tournaments as well which may well attract more pro"s than if it was just a £75 casino donkfest. The only downside I can see is the time these things take, I am not sure how much of an issue this would be to a pro.
@ Ray being better than anyone on APAT because he is grinds 45 man sng"s.
OK, this would not automatically make somebody better than anybody on APAT but it does mean they would have the discipline and the mindset required to be a pro - which I still say is more important than understanding players hand ranges and knowing push and fold spots as far as actually BEING a pro player goes, and also why I question some players being called pro"s. BUT perhaps thats not so important in a one off tournament (APAT or otherwise) so might not be that relevant. There are certainly some players at APAT who on their day can play at the same level as a pro, they would just not be as consistent. It seems very very hard to do and I don"t think we should be assuming there are any number of players within APAT who could do it.
My point remains a pro still has a big edge over the field. APAT has a valuable place within UK Poker and I feel it should remain.
-
Let me get a couple of things straight please
Niall Farrell was representing Black Belt Poker in the forum team Champs were pros were ALLOWED to play. The BBP captain checked this with me beforehand, and the "pros allowed" criteria was mentioned on the forum. It was for forums to pick teams from their membership.
So, that does not conflict with the Amateurs only ethos of our national championships
Ben Young was an Amateur when he won the WCOAP and subsequently had a spell as a Pro. During this time he began to work with the Firm Poker as a coach. The Firm of course is out to win business, it advertises all its coaches as Pros, and continues to do so. This is despite the fact, as we discussed it with Ben before Newcastle, that Ben is now working, alongside his poker roles. Therefore, not a Pro again and eligible. Ben is a successful player, going places but he is NOT currently a Pro. He is playing in Cardiff next weekend. Unless he tells us he is now poker only. Which knowing him he might :-)
You wouldn"t expect The Firm to change their advertising material for this "not a Pro, but might be again one day", but that is the situation
I regard it as a compliment to APAT, its community and its events that Ben wants to play APATs.
As has been said the Pro issue largely self polices, I can think of at least 10 individuals who self exclude, some having played APATs previously when Amateur.
If ever we have an issue, they are discussed with the individual behind the scenes and rarely made public.
On a wider basis, with the Pro-Am events and the Forum Champs there is definitely room for ALL poker players to be members of APAT but the National Championships, the core of the live offering, remain Amateur only and is unlikely to change
-
Surely there"s no actual thing as a Poker Professional really. Not in the strictest sense. Not in the same way there are Pro Golfers or Snooker players or Boxers etc. There"s no Poker governing body you have to register with, no courses to take or fees to pay or taxman to tell.
It"s just a term of reference really. A "Pro" is some one that probably spends most of his time playing poker and probably would struggle to pay the bills without his poker earnings. But in reality in the eyes of the law he"s unemployed. And in a 200 runner event his edge is minimal anyway. It"s not Tiger Woods playing a round in West Oxfordshire.
This is why this has to be a judgement call and why it has to be self policed. And I can"t see how this has ever been a problem so far or ever really can be. The rewards of APAT nationals will never be lucrative enough to attract such a volume of full time players as to take the fun out of and essentially remove the amateur status of, the event...so in effect, who gives an actual fook.
I"d still ban shades though and hoodies.
-
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro
Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.
you think there was only 1 pro playing newcastle
-
<3 these threads :) fwiw - I think the rule could be lifted, and it would not make that much difference to any of the tournaments. The fields may pick up 1 or 2 low level pros who may take it seriously and have a very small edge.
-
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro
Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.
you think there was only 1 pro playing newcastle
Yeah, pretty sure i was sat opposite Gaz Walker..... and saw a god few others....
All these people moaning about playing these so called "PROS" is pretty sad IMO....
Maybe if they put as much effort into improving their poker as moaning about the matter they would"nt need to be posting such utter B*******
-
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro
Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.
you think there was only 1 pro playing newcastle
Yeah, pretty sure i was sat opposite Gaz Walker..... and saw a god few others....
All these people moaning about playing these so called "PROS" is pretty sad IMO....
Maybe if they put as much effort into improving their poker as moaning about the matter they would"nt need to be posting such utter B*******
stop moaning Dan and go & improve your game ;)
-
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro
Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.
you think there was only 1 pro playing newcastle
Yeah, pretty sure i was sat opposite Gaz Walker..... and saw a god few others....
All these people moaning about playing these so called "PROS" is pretty sad IMO....
Maybe if they put as much effort into improving their poker as moaning about the matter they would"nt need to be posting such utter B*******
People aren"t moaning about playing pros. They are moaning about pros playing the event. There is quite a big difference imo
-
If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro
Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.
you think there was only 1 pro playing newcastle
Yeah, pretty sure i was sat opposite Gaz Walker..... and saw a god few others....
All these people moaning about playing these so called "PROS" is pretty sad IMO....
Maybe if they put as much effort into improving their poker as moaning about the matter they would"nt need to be posting such utter B*******
People aren"t moaning about playing pros. They are moaning about pros playing the event. There is quite a big difference imo
Smokescreen for the same thing IMO
Either way it still doesn"t register with me what the problem is. If we didn"t have the "pro" rule we wouldn"t be having this tireless discussion and I"m pretty sure the same about of pro"s will turn up next season as they did/will this season.
-
Leigh and Tighty have chimed in and that should be the end of it.
Further discussion is proving increasingly pointless and verging on trolling.
[/close to locking off]
-
Don"t worry Paulie, i"ll pull the trigger.
Locked