Buyin Amount for Online Series Events?

[kinboshi]

No reason why a monthly $50 event couldn"t be completely separate from the main APAT series. 

It could be the FA Cup to the Premiership league.

A knock out cup?

Sounds like a Heads Up Shootout tournament?

Not actually a knockout (I guess it was a bad analogy).  Just a different thing to the main APAT points league.

Or maybe not part of any league at all - just standalone events?

[sharky_uk]

So after the 1st online event does anybody think that the buyin amount of $10+$1 is correct? I didn"t actually play in this event as I realised that with such a good structure it would be a 6 hour marathon and it could well be a case of playing for 5+ hours with little financial reward even if I managed to cash. Personally I think that the correct buyin amount should be decided by the members via a poll (Can somebody enable Polls??)

So what is the correct buyin for the 5000 chip, 15 minute clock online APAT events?

A) $10+$1
B) $20+$2
C) $25+$2.50
D) $30+$3
E) $40+$4
F) $50+$5

Looking at the previous comments in this thread I suspect that $20+2 will be the winner.....

[Chipaccrual]

Sharky,

I played on Thursday.  Cashed 12th and made $12 profit for my 5 hours play.  Frustrating, but I was more interested in the ranking points than the money.

With twice as many online events than season one, the decision was taken to half the buy-in to keep everyones monthly outgoing the same.

I agree with you that for that length of play ( The final table started at 1am and the heads-up finished at around 2:20am) the payout doesn"t seem to be value, but the online events are about more than just the cash, otherwise you would just play any $10+$1 tournament on the web that offered a reasonable starting stack.

I have read the discussions on other threads that questions the starting stack, not sure what the answer is, but I guess we will see what peoples views are on Saturday night and more interestingly for the next Thursday event.  If we get significantly less runners from the 239 for last Thursday, then I guess the people will have spoken.

Watch this space...........

Leigh

[RioRodent]

With twice as many online events than season one, the decision was taken to half the buy-in to keep everyones monthly outgoing the same.

Since the Thu night tournament was introduced to appease those who complained that Sat night was not good for them, then halving the buy-in hasn"t reduced their outgoings... since they weren"t playing Sat anyway.

No one has to play both Thu and Sat.

The frustrating thing is that this thread existed, showing overwhelming support for keeping the buy-in at $20 and yet it was still reduced.

And before anyone says that the number of entries on Thu night suggests that everyone is happy... I believe the increased numbers is simply down to the fact that there was no password or requirement to pre-join APAT.

[duncthehat]

If it goes back up to $20 can it be retrospective to include the austrian open???

[APAT]

With twice as many online events than season one, the decision was taken to half the buy-in to keep everyones monthly outgoing the same.

Since the Thu night tournament was introduced to appease those who complained that Sat night was not good for them, then halving the buy-in hasn"t reduced their outgoings... since they weren"t playing Sat anyway.

No one has to play both Thu and Sat.

The frustrating thing is that this thread existed, showing overwhelming support for keeping the buy-in at $20 and yet it was still reduced.

And before anyone says that the number of entries on Thu night suggests that everyone is happy... I believe the increased numbers is simply down to the fact that there was no password or requirement to pre-join APAT.

We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.  That, coming on top of the costs associated with participation in the new Regional series and the additional Championship events. 

This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate.  APAT is almost certainly more about the community and drive for ranking points and medals, than the actual financial return available for winning our online events.  Certainly there are far bigger guaranteed prize pools available elsewhere at either the $11 or $22 entry level.

[RioRodent]

We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.

So the way to get things done/changed is to send an email?? What is the point of having this forum and inviting opinions if you just ignore those who post here, but change things to suit "anumber of players" who sent "a number of emails"? Why couldn"t these people voice their opinion on the forum?

BTW, I didn"t even get a reply to the question I asked by email!!

Just because your paranoid... doesn"t mean there"s no one after you!!

[sharky_uk]

This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate. 

So if 99% of the members prefer a $20+$2 entry but 1% prefer a $10+$1 entry you will go with the 1% so as not to exclude members?

[APAT]

We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.

So the way to get things done/changed is to send an email?? What is the point of having this forum and inviting opinions if you just ignore those who post here, but change things to suit "anumber of players" who sent "a number of emails"? Why couldn"t these people voice their opinion on the forum?

BTW, I didn"t even get a reply to the question I asked by email!!

Just because your paranoid... doesn"t mean there"s no one after you!!

A relatively small number of APAT members post on the forum.  You will find that not all of those that do, would want it known that they do not have a bankroll to support an increase in the level of buyin required over Season One.  What question did you ask by email?  

[APAT]

This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate. 

So if 99% of the members prefer a $20+$2 entry but 1% prefer a $10+$1 entry you will go with the 1% so as not to exclude members?

I think if we put a vote to the membership on this topic, we would get a completely inconclusive response.  For example, a result of 20 for an increase in entry fee and 1 against would be be a tiny response level from the membership. 

APAT also has a responsibility to our members who do not use the forum and keeping the barriers to taking part low is part of that responsibility.  

[RioRodent]

This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate. 

So if 99% of the members prefer a $20+$2 entry but 1% prefer a $10+$1 entry you will go with the 1% so as not to exclude members?

I think if we put a vote to the membership on this topic, we would get a completely inconclusive response.  For example, a result of 20 for an increase in entry fee and 1 against would be be a tiny response level from the membership. 

APAT also has a responsibility to our members who do not use the forum and keeping the barriers to taking part low is part of that responsibility. 

So because the vast majority are apathetic we should ignore the majority of those who have a view? The silent majority must be in support of the vocal minority??

[JulioArca]

I think the events should be password protected to prevent "anyone" playing and then have a look at the numbers. I suggest a poll of members views via an email to everyone registered after a couple of the password protected events is a fairer way to go. If the numbers increase or decrease after the poll and subsequent change to the buy-in fee then it will give a fairer indication of what members want.
In a way I agree that the buy-in should not deter people from being able to participate as surely APAT is more than "getting a return" for your 6 hours play. If that was the case we would all be playing the Guaranteed tournaments or the Sunday millions!

[RioRodent]

There is an incredible amount to do as we approach our first anniversary and through this forum, APAT now invites members to participate in the direction that the Association will take going forward. 
.......

We look forward to working closely with members going forward.

[sharky_uk]

I think if we put a vote to the membership on this topic, we would get a completely inconclusive response.  For example, a result of 20 for an increase in entry fee and 1 against would be be a tiny response level from the membership. 

But surely the results would be useful and may even be representative of the membership as a whole if you were to get a reasonable level of response. If you don"t try you will never know! Also a poll could be anonymous.

To ensure that we don"t exclude members maybe all online events should be freerolls!

I vote for a poll with the options I stated in the above post plus the freeroll option.

[APAT]

I am going to speculate that your wish for an increased buy in online might be to primarily achieve one of the following:

a) a larger prize pool
b) a better quality field
c) a smaller field / shorter tournament

As a player, those are all very justifiable reasons for wanting a larger buy in.  If I was playing in these events, I would want an increased buy in also. 

However, the APAT management have to take a wider view to some of these decisions.  We have additional variables to consider, including but not limited to ensuring that we do not price out existing members - many of whom are less vocal, and I think labelling them apathetic is unfair - and that we have as few barriers as possible in our overall objective of bringing new players into online and then live poker. 

Strength in numbers will deliver the ever increasing value that we want to see in the live series and will be our best opportunity as a body to deliver the sort of change necessary in the live environment.