The 2nd National Online League of Season 6

[hi_am_chris]

What number of players did most "regions" generate last season?

[cashman]

What number of players did most "regions" generate last season?

spreadsheet of who was in what team/region

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsZm7g1dE_xpdGdmOHE3V2VaaVlGb0ctOGZLWUtfcWc#gid=0

[galo5767]

I think we should try something leaning towards option B rather than A.
A lot has been said about keeping players interested, if you had 50 - 60 teams with 6 players surely no team could run away with the League.
Also, if your team is lucky enough to win something, at least with teams of 6 you will each receive a prize. How many of the 107 Scots actually received anything?
Whatever is decided, I will play because I like playing Poker.
What about an Individual Online League? ( no excuses about team numbers, people not turning up, etc )

[hi_am_chris]

I think you could do A and B teams for regions ? (obv more with the bigger teams) Agree a cap on the amount of players a team can have and as soon as they hit that total the team is complete. Maybe cap it at a maximum of 40 or 50 players, most regions will still just have the one team? Maybe have players state their first team they are eligible to play for and their second in order of preference. If their first choice is full up then it is down to luck to whether their second choice has already filled their alotted spaces with people that have had it as their first choice. With regards to the bigger teams i think preference would have to initially be given to those who supported their team throughout season one over players who are new to the league.

FWIW if you cap it at 40 or 50 players it encourages the teams who got slightly below that last time to introduce new people to APAT to fill their squad up and increase the evergrowing numbers of APAT members

[GiMac]

Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.

[ian.ski309]

Option A. It was my first time playing and was a great experience. Keep it the same and lets hope it"s an exciting finish.

Between Wales and Scotland? If the format and the teams are the same that is what is going to happen. Although I think Scotland will win it somewhat more easily this time.

Personally I would like to see a format that gives everybody a chance. If you live in certain parts of the country you are out of the running before you start.

Totally agree Rodders.

If it"s left in it"s current format, it will be interesting to see how the numbers compare to last season. I suspect that there will be quite a few who just won"t bother which would be a shame.

[GiMac]

Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.

Just for clarity if this was done using last seasons figures an example of combined numbers would be as follows:

EMids/WMids     35+47  = 82
EofE/London      54+34  = 88
Ireland/Europe   32+33  = 65
SE/SW             89+49  = 138
NE/Yorks          79+47  = 126
NW                                94
Scotland                       107
Wales                            82

It"s not perfect but might be a viable option.

Of course an alternative would be for those smaller teams to recruit their non APAT poker playing friends to play for their team, like Scotland & Wales did. I also know that NE recruited via a local poker forum and doubled the size of their team during the season, and look how they stormed the 2nd half of the season.

Certain teams were desperate to keep their autonomy last year, but have then failed to deliver the numbers. It may seem harsh but I think those that are complaining should concentrate on growing their team, or they should lose it rather than penalising teams who have been actively obtaining new members. When you see the numbers in some teams with the pool of population they have to work with it"s quite frankly pathetic. I mean come on are you saying there are only 34 poker players who would play this in London, with a population of 9m?

[AMRN]

Notwithstanding the fact that some teams/regions have done really well with recruitment....  part of the problem for some regional teams is that they have lost some of their regular local APAT players to the country teams.

The rule was amended to allow players to play in their home region or their birth region. Realistically, this just creates additional catchment for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. I"m not asking that the debate be re-opened, but merely pointing out that when that debate was had, some of us identified that the rule change would significantly favour the country teams at the expense of the regional teams.

So...... Team England please!



Neither Option A nor Option B will keep players involved to the end of the season - there will always be a drop off as teams fall out of contention. Changing from current scenario to a new smaller team scenario will not fix this.   However, playing in small teams of "mates" rather than larger regional teams worked really well in the recent competition, and could be explored further.    BUT, it would of course negatively impact the attraction for individuals who show an interest in joining APAT.

[Curlarge]

Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.

Gordon, valid points as always, BUT...the whole reason that Luton was disbanded as a team was exactly because of this. Waz was so successful in running the team that it was deemed that us and a couple of other teams had an unfair advantage. All that has happened is the the boundaries have moved and we have exactly the same result once again with 4 big teams and others that have little chance. So we either go back to how it was, or change it completely, hence option B been the only viable alternative.

[GiMac]

Notwithstanding the fact that some teams/regions have done really well with recruitment....  part of the problem for some regional teams is that they have lost some of their regular local APAT players to the country teams.

The rule was amended to allow players to play in their home region or their birth region. Realistically, this just creates additional catchment for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. I"m not asking that the debate be re-opened, but merely pointing out that when that debate was had, some of us identified that the rule change would significantly favour the country teams at the expense of the regional teams.

So...... Team England please!

Smoke screen alert!!!!!

You"ll be lucky if there are even 10-15 players who play for a team outside of where they live and that"s out of nearly 800 players who participated so that is a red herring and sorry but your argument also falls flat when Team London can only recruit 34 members from a population of 9m, or EMIDs only has 35 members from a 4.5m+ population, or WMIDS 47 with 5.4m, or South West 49 players with population of 4.9m, and Yorkshire 47 players from 5.5m. Yet the North East got 79 players from a 2.5m population pool.

Stop moaning and get recruiting!!!

[GiMac]

Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.

Gordon, valid points as always, BUT...the whole reason that Luton was disbanded as a team was exactly because of this. Waz was so successful in running the team that it was deemed that us and a couple of other teams had an unfair advantage. All that has happened is the the boundaries have moved and we have exactly the same result once again with 4 big teams and others that have little chance. So we either go back to how it was, or change it completely, hence option B been the only viable alternative.

Erm you can"t have a Team Luton in a regional competition. But I understand you all play in one regional team, which if it had another team amalgamated with it would make it stronger. So again this is a misnomer. With my idea you would get 8 super teams, as opposed to 4 strong and 9 weak ones.

I"m sure Des would have the figures but, live events aside, I bet this league was one of the best recruiting tools of this year and it would be a shame to break that.

[Curlarge]

Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.

Gordon, valid points as always, BUT...the whole reason that Luton was disbanded as a team was exactly because of this. Waz was so successful in running the team that it was deemed that us and a couple of other teams had an unfair advantage. All that has happened is the the boundaries have moved and we have exactly the same result once again with 4 big teams and others that have little chance. So we either go back to how it was, or change it completely, hence option B been the only viable alternative.

Erm you can"t have a Team Luton in a regional competition. But I understand you all play in one regional team, which if it had another team amalgamated with it would make it stronger. So again this is a misnomer. With my idea you would get 8 super teams, as opposed to 4 strong and 9 weak ones.

I"m sure Des would have the figures but, live events aside, I bet this league was one of the best recruiting tools of this year and it would be a shame to break that.

This is not the case at all. Some of us have been put in the SE team, some in EofE and a few in EMIDS.

[GiMac]

Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.

Gordon, valid points as always, BUT...the whole reason that Luton was disbanded as a team was exactly because of this. Waz was so successful in running the team that it was deemed that us and a couple of other teams had an unfair advantage. All that has happened is the the boundaries have moved and we have exactly the same result once again with 4 big teams and others that have little chance. So we either go back to how it was, or change it completely, hence option B been the only viable alternative.

Erm you can"t have a Team Luton in a regional competition. But I understand you all play in one regional team, which if it had another team amalgamated with it would make it stronger. So again this is a misnomer. With my idea you would get 8 super teams, as opposed to 4 strong and 9 weak ones.

I"m sure Des would have the figures but, live events aside, I bet this league was one of the best recruiting tools of this year and it would be a shame to break that.

This is not the case at all. Some of us have been put in the SE team, some in EofE and a few in EMIDS.

Yes but this discussion has already been had, so I cannot see the reasons for raising it again.

As I understand it APAT are looking for a solution to the problem a few people seem to have which is having weak teams in the league format. I think my proposed solution, whilst not perfect, definitely goes a long way to resolving that issue, should lead to a more competitive league, thereby keeping players involved throughout the league and making it attractive for new players to join in.

Rather than raising previous issues and opening old sores, can we not try and deal with the matter at hand?

[Starshine]

Yes but this discussion has already been had, so I cannot see the reasons for raising it again. APAT are looking for a solution to the problem a few people seem to have which is having weak teams in the league format. I think my proposed solution, whilst not perfect, definitely goes a long way to resolving that issue, should lead to a more competitive league, thereby keeping players involved throughout the league and making it attractive for new players to join in.

I can understand your idea, but personally I can just say, that putting Europe now together with Ireland, will stay the same what I already said, I would not play it at all. Some stated that it is to identify with the region, Europe is a bit to big as a region to identify with, and it does not get better when now ireland comes to it as well. And honestly ermmm Ireland is not my neighbour region lol, my neighbour region is Austria lol, and a lot of parts in England are closer to me than Ireland

So yes I honestly think as it is a team event, that feeling sort of well in the team, and being able to sort of identify with the team is important, making the regions now even bigger, I am not sure if this helps with it.

Well I shall sit and wait what happens. I love the idea Sugarfree posted, even though I would say each captain can pick 20 - 30 and the rest be put in random.

If it stays with the old regions, I just won"t play, but be there as a cheerleader

[Chipaccrual]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

Announcement coming, errrrrrr, soon.

(I have been trained well)