APAT UK Team Championship - January 2010

[Paulie_D]

But that doesn"t solve the basic problem, in fact, it makes it worse next year.

The problem isn"t getting in next time, it"s getting in...in the first place!

10 teams who don"t finish in the top 5 this year are less likely to be picked next year.

Define "less likely"...If a forum finishes 6th, does that mean they have a better chance of being picked that the team that finished 10th? And how do those rankings affect teams that haven"t played at all (as they couldn"t get in)?

We are still left with the criteria for being picked in the first place which leads into the criteria for selection next year.

Other than APAT and B&SW no team has the "right" to a place. So how does APAT intend to make objective decisions as to who should take part, this year or next?

[BubblePoker]

The Bubble Poker League Would Like To Put A Team In

[mod - link edit]

[karrde]

Other than APAT and B&SW no team has the "right" to a place. So how does APAT intend to make objective decisions as to who should take part, this year or next?

In your opinion.

My interests in this are on record, but I would have thought it was obvious to invite at the very least any team that cashed to come back and defend that honour  

To go to the next logical step, there is a perfectly sensible argument to have the top half the field from last time to come back and run qualifiers for the other half of the field each year.  That wouldnt be a scandal in a sporting world.  Its certainly sensible enough to be discussed without dismissal out of hand.

[Baldus New]

Sorry about this, didn"t mean to start World War III, just wanted to see if it was possible to get more teams in to make it a real team event.

Not sure how many teams have already put themselves forward but I expect there will be more that miss out than those that get in.

Where"s Kerry Packer when you need him to start a rogue tourney!!!!!!   (Only joking APAT!!!!!  )

[Paulie_D]

In your opinion.

Granted, but I was referring to the actual known "guaranteed" teams

My interests in this are on record, but I would have thought it was obvious to invite at the very least any team that cashed to come back and defend that honour  

Obvious to you...If I make 3rd at an APAT National Event, I don"t get a right to a seat at the next National, that is reserved for 1st place (AFAIK). I see no reason to extend automatic entry to "cashing" teams.

To go to the next logical step, there is a perfectly sensible argument to have the top half the field from last time to come back and run qualifiers for the other half of the field each year.  That wouldnt be a scandal in a sporting world.  Its certainly sensible enough to be discussed without dismissal out of hand.

I"m not dismissing it out of hand but you have now extended (in your "logical" example) the automatic entries to 8 teams (or 10 if there were 20 as last year).

Once again...how are forums objectively selected if they have not played in this event before?

Perhaps qualifiers for all teams (except the previous winner) for next year. but I"m not sure how this would work without some extremely difficult and impossible to manage/police organisation. Qualifying works fine for individuals but not for teams, the make-up of which is often not known until the last minute.

[Chipaccrual]

Sorry about this, didn"t mean to start World War III, just wanted to see if it was possible to get more teams in to make it a real team event.

Not sure how many teams have already put themselves forward but I expect there will be more that miss out than those that get in.

Where"s Kerry Packer when you need him to start a rogue tourney!!!!!!   (Only joking APAT!!!!!  )

As always, it"s a simple matter of demand for APAT events exceeding the available seats.

This is a fantastic event not only for everyone that gets to play in it, but also for APAT.  It allows us to promote what APAT is about to a wider audience.  The fact that the demand is so high for a tournament with exceptional value makes me think maybe we should be asking potential teams, "What can you offer to promote APAT within your own community to justify having a team ?"

I can see both sides of the discussion.  It would be nice for everyone who would like to enter a team to be able to play, but also, if you reduce the numbers per team too much it can dilute the "team" feel about the tournament.  I thought last year, ten per team was a good number, eight may be okay too, I think five is too few.

It"s good to get everyone"s views before the final list is drawn up and teams confirm.

[karrde]

I know I extended the example to the limits of where it could realistically go... because I think it should be out there in its entirity for discussion, it can be debated down to a more agreeable level.

If you want any kind of objective criteria for entry, then previous performance has to be the major factor surely.  There is no other objective criteria that is fair.  At which point we discuss a cut off. 

The only alternative is to have a random draw (and its a poor alternative imo)... and if that is the case though, then it should be announced as such asap, as any discussion is pointless. The event may or may not have the best teams in it and good luck to all lottery ticket holders!

[Marty719]

I know I extended the example to the limits of where it could realistically go... because I think it should be out there in its entirity for discussion, it can be debated down to a more agreeable level.

If you want any kind of objective criteria for entry, then previous performance has to be the major factor surely.  There is no other objective criteria that is fair.  At which point we discuss a cut off. 

The only alternative is to have a random draw (and its a poor alternative imo)... and if that is the case though, then it should be announced as such asap, as any discussion is pointless. The event may or may not have the best teams in it and good luck to all lottery ticket holders!

They r using previous performance as an criteria by inviting the defending champions.  Depending on how many forums enter, I think a select few that APAT feel can contribute well/have a wide reach to potential new menbers as well as a solid base of current shud b chosen (ie the big forums), and then the rest shud go into a random draw.  Unfort, people will b disapointed but as with many similar set-ups - random = fair!

[Paulie_D]

If you want any kind of objective criteria for entry, then previous performance has to be the major factor surely.  There is no other objective criteria that is fair.  At which point we discuss a cut off.

Prior performance is OK if you get to take part the first time but then you are self-selecting next year to the detriment of teams who couldn"t get in.

Equally, if the whole team (i.e. the same players) don"t take part from one year to the next then prior performance is irrelevant.

The only prior performance that should matter is the outright winner. Even that distinction (if you take my repeating team item into consideration) is open to debate but I"ll let that go. Anything else is just a matter of degree.

The only alternative is to have a random draw (and its a poor alternative imo)... and if that is the case though, then it should be announced as such asap, as any discussion is pointless. The event may or may not have the best teams in it and good luck to all lottery ticket holders!

I"m fine with a random draw...it"s very objective.

[suzanne]

The B&SWMU team HAVE stuck to the same team members as last year which is a bit frustrating for other members who would love to play in this but perfectly understandable as they want to defend their title.

[Jon MW]

But that doesn"t solve the basic problem, in fact, it makes it worse next year.

The problem isn"t getting in next time, it"s getting in...in the first place!

10 teams who don"t finish in the top 5 this year are less likely to be picked next year.

Define "less likely"...If a forum finishes 6th, does that mean they have a better chance of being picked that the team that finished 10th? And how do those rankings affect teams that haven"t played at all (as they couldn"t get in)?
..

lol - I hadn"t really thought it through that thoroughly, it could just provide a sound framework and underpinning of a methodology.

It wouldn"t be hard to establish a logical flow to decide on the likelihood of which teams would be entered - but ultimately I don"t think it would be a formula to decide which specific teams/forum were entered it would give a basis of teams that were definitely in the following year, teams that were likely to be in and teams which could be in. The final selection being down to APAT's judgement as to which is the best mixture.

[Paulie_D]

It wouldn"t be hard to establish a logical flow to decide on the likelihood of which teams would be entered - but ultimately I don"t think it would be a formula to decide which specific teams/forum were entered it would give a basis of teams that were definitely in the following year, teams that were likely to be in and teams which could be in. The final selection being down to APAT's judgement as to which is the best mixture.

My real issue is this sense of entitlement for non-1st place teams that seems to be prevailing over other teams who couldn"t get in previously and there is an argument that could be made that no team should be so entitled.

After all, does the WSOP ME winner get a guaranteed entry next year? Do the winners of the FA Cup get an automatic entry into the semi-finals? No, they have to start all over again. The last is a poor analogy as I know nothing about football.

In all honesty, I"d exclude the APAT team too and let them take their chances in a random draw for the remaining slots. A tad harsh perhaps (and nothing against the APAT personnel) but this seems to be the fairest way to choose from a wide selection where places are exceeded by teams wishing to participate.

I"m not wishing to put down B&SW or APAT, I"m just emphasising a point.

[Jon MW]

It wouldn"t be hard to establish a logical flow to decide on the likelihood of which teams would be entered - but ultimately I don"t think it would be a formula to decide which specific teams/forum were entered it would give a basis of teams that were definitely in the following year, teams that were likely to be in and teams which could be in. The final selection being down to APAT's judgement as to which is the best mixture.

My real issue is this sense of entitlement for non-1st place teams that seems to be prevailing over other teams who couldn"t get in previously and there is an argument that could be made that no team should be so entitled.
...

I would put something like the top 5 to help protect the smaller teams - if they are good (without necessarily being the best) they can come back year after year.

I don"t think a random ballot would be a good idea, not out of any sense of "fairness" simply because having larger forums in the team championship will generate more coverage and encourage more people to join the rest of the tour. Most things about APAT might be about what"s "good for the game", but some things at least should also be about what"s "good for APAT" and it"s future development.

Having said that, logically a larger pool of talent to draw from means you are more likely to be able to put forward a stronger team. As the nominal aim is to find the "best" team then excluding some forums because they missed out in a ballot would be unfair if they are likely to have been able to provide a strongly competitive team.

[Glorious]

I"d recommend teams of 5. (I"ve run several live team events and teams of 5 worked well).

If required, use a "captain"s clickfest" to decide places, the same way APAT does any other event they know will be oversubscribed. Teams would have to be posted in advance to prevent every member of the team trying to click in.

Thoughts?

[teamdobb]

teams of 5 players will reduce the value and prestige of the tournament imo.

It was always obvious that the next one of these competitions was going to be over subscribed and how the powers to be decide on selection is going to be just as difficult. I suppose that comes down to what APAT want from the tournament. We at Newcastle Poker Forum ran a similar event in late February which was a huge success and plan to run it again giving 1st option to teams that played in it last year. I think this tournament cant really be chosen along those conditions although Im sure that the decision makers within APAT once they decide the type of tournament they want will come to a fair and satisfactory conclusion.
The event is not too far away and to be fair to everyone a decision needs to be made to enable all concerned to begin making their plans. Picking a single team of 10 from our forum will be an absolute nightmare as so many members would love to play in it but to me this is what gives the tournament the appeal and prestige to play in and to be crowned the APAT UK Team Champions.
Good luck in how the decision is reached but one thing for sure is you will never be able to satisfy all applicants no matter what you do