APAT online

[RioRodent]

Perhaps, in keeping with the APAT ideal, what ever buy-in is chosen for S3>, the "headline sponsor" could host the online tournaments "juice free"?

[HaworthBantam]

Other option would be to add a National ticket to top place for the online games - the concept of Clickfest avoidance should keep the interest up.

Not sure I"m keen on that idea - that would give online players a distinct advantage of having 3 methods of qualifying for a live event (online national events, online qualifiers and clickfest), whilst the live player only gets 2 (live regional events and clickfest).

As somebody who only plays live, why should I be disadvantaged ?

Perhaps, in keeping with the APAT ideal, what ever buy-in is chosen for S3>, the "headline sponsor" could host the online tournaments "juice free"?

That strikes me as a good idea. Surely the relatively few number of APAT online tournaments that the sponsor hosts wouldn"t have that great an impact on their profits ? Also, with the added number of new players being attracted to the sponsors software, it"s inevitable that a lot of those new players would take part in other games held by the sponsor, recouping any lost profits in the process.

[hi_am_chris]

When you say the "online" player would have more chances to qualify than the "live" player, im not sure i understand, can you really class some people "online" players and others "live" players, surely it would just be one more way for apat members to qualify in general?

[HaworthBantam]

There are players that do play both live and online, but there are also numerous players who would consider themselves online or live only.

All I"m asking, is for an equal chance for those players that consider themselves in one camp or the other.

[nosey-p]

When I suggested a seat to the nationals, it was only an idea one-way of getting add value to the on line game. When playing live you get a seat to the GUKPT so it would seem like a natural progression. Online-Nationals-Gukpt. It makes people like you Ian take more of an interest in the on-line game    

[HaworthBantam]

, but why should I be forced to play online to give myself a better chance of playing live ? It"s totally illogical to me. The two styles (live and online) are so different they may as well be two different games.


When I rule the World, I"ll be banning online poker  

[tumblet]

I think a seat to the National is a great idea.

Ian, I"m starting to hate online poker as well, but we do have to accept that online is part of APAT, and they dont have to be 2 different areas, but also can be run as 2 different areas.

I like the idea, you could say that online players have an advantage as they get Sat entries which take away a few seats from the clickfest, should this be stopped to make it and even playing field? An online player might say you have more chance because he/she wont play live, but you can do all 3..

[HaworthBantam]

Ian, I"m starting to hate online poker as well, but we do have to accept that online is part of APAT, and they dont have to be 2 different areas, but also can be run as 2 different areas.

I do accept that online is part of APAT, I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is if APAT became more biased towards the online player, and I see an extra seat being available via the online nationals as just such a move.

I like the idea, you could say that online players have an advantage as they get Sat entries which take away a few seats from the clickfest, should this be stopped to make it and even playing field? An online player might say you have more chance because he/she wont play live, but you can do all 3..

....and those of us that don"t play online wont do all 3.

All I"m looking for is fairness here. Ok, those players that play online and live have the advantage, and I accept that.

Those of us that only play online or live have 2 methods of getting into the Nationals and that, IMHO, should remain static.

[technolog]

So long as the total seats available / total entrants ratio was the same for live and online I don"t see that you"d be disadvantaged.

[Trademans]

Just my opinions.  If the buy in increased along with the field, the tourney would get less prestigious in my view.  People will just start buying in to the tourney as a standard $50 MTT and go for the prize pool.  (I also have a smaller bankroll which would effect my level of buy in).  People will play with no real concern of the field or structure they are up against

Can we not make these tournaments password protected so that it is specific for members?  

I like the idea of an added value prize based on points for a league type say a a free seat into a National...

Lots of different ideas, but here are mine: -

24 tourneys per year (2 per month).  5,000 stack 12 min blinds. $25 buy in
Winner gets a free seat into a national event, 2nd - 9th gets a free regional seat at a live event.  Top 20 get league points for table & winner of all on-line, get free seat into an overseas APAT (e.g the one in vienna?).

I personally dont need a reason to play the APAT as I like raising my game to play people who play proper poker (thats what im told people do at APAT  ), But i think the on-line schedule is to much at the moment, needs to be toned down a little to have less on line, but more reason to play for everyone.

Medals still the same, think they are an excellent idea, but due to the ammount of tourneys on line they mean less for people (still looking forward to the bronze one coming through).

[nosey-p]

The reason why I started this thread was to try and find out why the online game as lost its popularity. And what can be dun to try and get people excited about the online side of the game. All I can see is online vs. live. There as got to be a balance of the two. Why should live get add money (GUKPT) and online get zero? Like I said earlier if you cut the games to mach the live game. Keep the GUKPT seat for the Nationals (£75 buy in) and have a seat for the Nationals for the online game (£20 buy in) every ones a winner Yes or No?        

[tumblet]

Yes I agree.

[HaworthBantam]

So long as the total seats available / total entrants ratio was the same for live and online I don"t see that you"d be disadvantaged.

As it stands now......

10% of field qualify per online qualifier - individuals can enter both qualifiers for each National.

10% of field qualify per live qualifier - individuals may only enter one live qualifier for each National.

Can we not make these tournaments password protected so that it is specific for members?

All BlueSquare users are regarded as members of APAT, and therefore no password is required.

If membership was to paid for, as in season 1, then I suspect the password situation would have to be revisited.

24 tourneys per year (2 per month).  5,000 stack 12 min blinds. $25 buy in
Winner gets a free seat into a national event, 2nd - 9th gets a free regional seat at a live event.  Top 20 get league points for table & winner of all on-line, get free seat into an overseas APAT (e.g the one in vienna?).

This sounds, to me, like bias towards the online player again.

My suggestion might be to reduce the number of online nationals to the 24, quoted above, and have points given from 1st down to 18th, as in the live Nationals. Leave the online and live qualifiers as they are, and limit the number of events that points may be counted into the overall championship, for both live and online events, to 5 or 6 events - If you play live only, then your best 5 or 6 live events count. If you play online only, then your best 5 or 6 online events count. And if you play both, then your best 5 or 6 results, regardless of whether they are live or online, count.

Phew, I need to go lie down now.  

[HaworthBantam]

......All I can see is online vs. live. There as got to be a balance of the two. Why should live get add money (GUKPT) and online get zero? Like I said earlier if you cut the games to mach the live game. Keep the GUKPT seat for the Nationals (£75 buy in) and have a seat for the Nationals for the online game (£20 buy in) every ones a winner Yes or No?        

I agree Wayne.

Also, as Alan stated above, why should online players have to pay the juice when we live players at APAT events don"t ?

[Trademans]

The reason why I started this thread was to try and find out why the online game as lost its popularity. And what can be dun to try and get people excited about the online side of the game. All I can see is online vs. live. There as got to be a balance of the two. Why should live get add money (GUKPT) and online get zero? Like I said earlier if you cut the games to mach the live game. Keep the GUKPT seat for the Nationals (£75 buy in) and have a seat for the Nationals for the online game (£20 buy in) every ones a winner Yes or No?        

yep agree