Clearly there wasn"t an issue with Liv"s previous APAT experiences and I think if common sense is applied, there may not be an issue if she wanted to appear in further events in Season Two.
I think it is fair to say that Absolute Poker signed Liv for her media background and game show popularity as opposed to her ability on the poker table. If they were going to sign a player based solely on their ability to earn a sole income from poker winnings, then I suspect that there were many online and live candidates that may have had a better case for that position, based on results.
The fact that Liv has gone on to win a major title on the Ladies circuit suggests that she has the potential to go on and become a significant player in the game, and I"m sure we would all be delighted if she did so. But right now, I would interpret her status as that of a media professional wearing an Absolute shirt as opposed to a poker professional. We should not forget that Liv was jetting off introducing online coverage of the European Poker Tour last season and that her introduction to the game came by way of a gameshow on TV. There has also been a far greater media response in the UK to her signing for Absolute, than Sorel Mizzi at Betfair for example. She has received magazine covers and double page features which were not due to results - important and all as finishing 6th in Cardiff was
One of the most important objectives of APAT is to give players the ability to experience the "real thing" for a low buy in. We claim to be the proving ground for talented players. We"ve seen George go from being the first out of an APAT event to winning the most recent Gala British Poker Tour event, we"ve seen Jon lead a WSOP event with two tables left, John Tabatabai finish runner up in the WSOPE, Alan Lake cash in a 2,500 player WSOP event, Phil Starrs cash in the EPT, Nick Wright cash in the WPT, we"ve had countless players final table GUKPT events, Baz has finished 3rd in an online World Championship event and we"ve also got a monthly PokerStars TLB winner and a PokerStars Sunday Million winner amongst our membership.
All of these players have played APAT events prior to their successes. We are a proving ground and I think we should be careful not to exclude a member from continuing their development because they"ve picked up a sponsorship not 100% based on playing ability.
Now that"s my view as opposed to an official APAT position. It"s an interesting debate and one we were likely to have sooner rather than later given the results that some of our players are starting to churn out.
What do you think?
