blackbelt poker or badbeat poker?????

[Chipaccrual]

The reason APAT wouldn"t get involved in something like this is the size of the investment required.  If there are say 50 people receiving staking at .50/1 cash games, what sort of "bankroll" would APAT need to provide to get those players going?  £1,000 each for starters?  That"s £50,000 invested with no guarantee of any return (although you"d hope there"d be some).

The main reason why APAT would not get involved at the moment in offering staking or allowing players to stake each other through the forum is purely due to a lack of control.  The last thing we want is for a player to get grimmed and for it to have happened on the APAT forum (although we don"t want anyone to get grimmed on any forum either).

Blonde put in place a 300 post rule for their staking threads.  I believe that this monitored, to try to ensure it is used by known players and therefore there is a level of trust within the transaction.

The new SAS scheme is fantastic, but it also has a control in place in that you must first prove yourself by playing a number of hands and then your stats are reviewed before joining the scheme.  Your daily cash is then controlled which reduces the chances of Blonde getting stung.

All of this requires administrative time.  Blonde have staff members who can do this, making them an ideal place for this scheme to be rolled out.

I don"t believe the size of investment would come into the discussion.

[kinboshi]

The reason APAT wouldn"t get involved in something like this is the size of the investment required.  If there are say 50 people receiving staking at .50/1 cash games, what sort of "bankroll" would APAT need to provide to get those players going?  £1,000 each for starters?  That"s £50,000 invested with no guarantee of any return (although you"d hope there"d be some).

The main reason why APAT would not get involved at the moment in offering staking or allowing players to stake each other through the forum is purely due to a lack of control.  The last thing we want is for a player to get grimmed and for it to have happened on the APAT forum (although we don"t want anyone to get grimmed on any forum either).

Blonde put in place a 300 post rule for their staking threads.  I believe that this monitored, to try to ensure it is used by known players and therefore there is a level of trust within the transaction.

The new SAS scheme is fantastic, but it also has a control in place in that you must first prove yourself by playing a number of hands and then your stats are reviewed before joining the scheme.  Your daily cash is then controlled which reduces the chances of Blonde getting stung.

All of this requires administrative time.  Blonde have staff members who can do this, making them an ideal place for this scheme to be rolled out.

I don"t believe the size of investment would come into the discussion.

I wasn"t talking about the player-to-player staking - I was just talking about the blonde SAS scheme.

The player-to-player staking is a totally different matter imo.

[Jon MW]

In reply to the OP

Look at the terms and conditions for each site - blackbelt, badbeat and blonde

Each one will suit different people. Mainly depending on how much time you can put in to it and how good you are.

If you have a realistic knowledge of where you stand with these two criteria then you should be able to work out which scheme you are best suited for.

[Chipaccrual]

The reason APAT wouldn"t get involved in something like this is the size of the investment required.  If there are say 50 people receiving staking at .50/1 cash games, what sort of "bankroll" would APAT need to provide to get those players going?  £1,000 each for starters?  That"s £50,000 invested with no guarantee of any return (although you"d hope there"d be some).

The main reason why APAT would not get involved at the moment in offering staking or allowing players to stake each other through the forum is purely due to a lack of control.  The last thing we want is for a player to get grimmed and for it to have happened on the APAT forum (although we don"t want anyone to get grimmed on any forum either).

Blonde put in place a 300 post rule for their staking threads.  I believe that this monitored, to try to ensure it is used by known players and therefore there is a level of trust within the transaction.

The new SAS scheme is fantastic, but it also has a control in place in that you must first prove yourself by playing a number of hands and then your stats are reviewed before joining the scheme.  Your daily cash is then controlled which reduces the chances of Blonde getting stung.

All of this requires administrative time.  Blonde have staff members who can do this, making them an ideal place for this scheme to be rolled out.

I don"t believe the size of investment would come into the discussion.

I wasn"t talking about the player-to-player staking - I was just talking about the blonde SAS scheme.

The player-to-player staking is a totally different matter imo.

I know you were.  I was merely stating the reason why APAT doesn"t offer staking is not one of investment, but one of control over potential grimming.

That"s all.