APAT Payout Structures

[George2Loose]

APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.

It makes sense to me...and although I have deep and abiding love for APAT...it"s not a MAJOR tournament. Perhaps that"s EXACTLY the reason why it"s different...because we are amateurs and are playing for the medals...the cash is a bonus.

Disagree. No way people play for medals only. Why have an entry fee at all if this is the case? In fact take out any sort of financial incentive then see how over subscribed APAT is

[Joker161]

Top ten percent get paid and most at the top. That"s fine by me, although the one time I did make the FT it did seem odd that 9th got the same as 4th. Great if you"re a short stack, but not ideal in terms of quality of play.

I"m just happy to get to the FT!! And a medal...!

[Claw75]

My view.  I don"t like the final table payout structure.  Here"s the suggested payout structure that I believe Rod intended to cut and paste in his earlier post:

1st: 2700
2nd: 2000
3rd: 1500
4th: 1200
5th: 900
6th: 800
7th: 750
8th: 700
9th: 650

with the COC seat and medals added to the top three positions as appropriate. 

My biggest gripe is not really with the payout structure though, rather with the "no deals" policy, which I"ll go on to address in a moment, but I actually think that if APAT wish to continue to discourage deals being discussed then a payout structure such as the one suggested would go some way to avoiding those issues.

Now deal making.  For a start, I don"t think that allowing deals would in any way take away the desire of finalists to play for the win.  As long as any deals were exclusive of the added seat and the medals/title had to be played for then I really can"t see how allowing the players to do a deal with the prizepool, if all wanted it, would affect that at all.  If there are concerns about people not feeling able to be the sole dissenter to a deal and being pressurised to accept, then the red/black card idea is a good one.  Let"s be clear - allowing deals to be made is not in anyway suggesting that deals HAVE to be made, but it does seem absurd that a bunch of adults can"t be allowed the autonomy to make a decison on what to do with the prizepool that they have paid into.

Also worth bearing in mind is that the pro and open events that have been running alongside the amateur APAT events in recent years have no such restrictions, with deals being allowed to be openly discussed and agreed by the players and I do have to say that I find that rather patronising as an amateur - it"s either an APAT rule or it"s not.

Finally, I"d encourage anyone who has a view on this issue to please contribute to this thread.  I know this issue has been raised on and off in the past, but it"s always been discussed on the basis that it"s an APAT rule which we like or lump.  I hope Rich doesn"t mind me linking the the original thread on blonde that prompted this one being started, which shows that APAT are open to listening to players" views on this subect.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=49981.0

[AAroddersAA]

Just to post my take on this discussion so far.

I do feel that deals should be OK (the pro events allow them) but either way I would not stop playing the events as they are excellent. I don"t think too many APAT regs would vote with their feet for the same reason. I would like to hear the opinions of some APAT regulars. I completely understand what George is saying and I don"t disagree with him in a lot of it.

However one thing I would say is that the medals mean a LOT to players, George is right that removing the cash incentive would cause the number of players to drop but so would the removal of APAT medals.

APAT is not a starting place for everybody, some people are quite happy with playing at this level and play these events for the enjoyment of meeting up with the other players and because the events are run well, structured well and of  fairly good standard of play. APAT is not just about the tournaments or the tour.

With this in mind I am sure we would not want to do is change anything that takes anything away from APAT, most importantly the people who turn up to every event. I am still interested in what a lot of the APAT members think of the structure as it makes for a good discussion. What do people actually prefer? Is it the existing payout structure or a more traditional one? Obviously most of us are going to play the events whatever as the payout structure is not the thing that defines if we do or not.

Also why are the structures different online to live?

[Paulie_D]

Perhaps that"s EXACTLY the reason why it"s different...because we are amateurs and are playing for the medals...the cash is a bonus.

Disagree. No way people play for medals only.

I didn"t suggest that we were playing ONLY for the medals just the fact that I get a medal means a lot more than to me than the extra £200 or whatever that I got for beating the 4th place finisher.

Opinions differ...ofc.

[Paulie_D]

Now deal making.  For a start, I don"t think that allowing deals would in any way take away the desire of finalists to play for the win.  As long as any deals were exclusive of the added seat and the medals/title had to be played for then I really can"t see how allowing the players to do a deal with the prizepool, if all wanted it, would affect that at all.

In general I don"t care about deal making as I"m only going to agree to something that at least benefits me as well (or better) than I deserve.

However, as long as you"re going to put a qualifier on it (such as no deals for the final 3 as has been mentioned above) then where do you draw a line? Not everyone will agree to the line being in the same place.

I"d much rather have two separate discussions...one for the Structure and a second for Deals.

[Paulie_D]

I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie.  I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different.  Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment.  A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.

My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.

I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.

fwiw I dnt think you would lose ANY people, and I dnt see how it would alter enjoyment.

I didn"t suggest that we would lose people, and as I said, I"m not entirely sure what we would lose...the APATness I guess would be the right word. If you make APAT the same as every other event then there is nothing special about it.

I like to think that what makes APAT the fun place and events we like to attend is that is IS different to the other alternatives.

[Claw75]

Now deal making.  For a start, I don"t think that allowing deals would in any way take away the desire of finalists to play for the win.  As long as any deals were exclusive of the added seat and the medals/title had to be played for then I really can"t see how allowing the players to do a deal with the prizepool, if all wanted it, would affect that at all.

In general I don"t care about deal making as I"m only going to agree to something that at least benefits me as well (or better) than I deserve.

However, as long as you"re going to put a qualifier on it (such as no deals for the final 3 as has been mentioned above) then where do you draw a line? Not everyone will agree to the line being in the same place.

I"d much rather have two separate discussions...one for the Structure and a second for Deals.

perhaps I didn"t word it very well - it was just a suggestion that the money could be dealt with separately from the titles/medals (eg, 3 players left, all roughly the same chip stacks agree to take 1/3 of the prizepool left each and play on for position + added seat).  No, not everyone will agree, but that"s why discussion is good!

[Marty719]

I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie.  I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different.  Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment.  A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.

My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.

I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.

fwiw I dnt think you would lose ANY people, and I dnt see how it would alter enjoyment.

I didn"t suggest that we would lose people, and as I said, I"m not entirely sure what we would lose...the APATness I guess would be the right word. If you make APAT the same as every other event then there is nothing special about it.

I like to think that what makes APAT the fun place and events we like to attend is that is IS different to the other alternatives.

I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness."  Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one.

[Paulie_D]

.....at least means those who make the second day make a bit to cover their expenses for playing.

This was an interesting point which sort of got overlooked in all the kerfuffle and is deserving of some attention IMO.

I do think that the number of people brought back on the second day needs to be re-examined. It is disheartening to have to come back on Day 2 and not make any money. It"s happened more than once.

I know it"s something Tighty, Des and Leigh are aware of but perhaps playing a little longer to make sure would mean that those who bust out without a cash can at least plan a little bit better for the next day.

[Paulie_D]

perhaps I didn"t word it very well - it was just a suggestion that the money could be dealt with separately from the titles/medals (eg, 3 players left, all roughly the same chip stacks agree to take 1/3 of the prizepool left each and play on for position + added seat).  No, not everyone will agree, but that"s why discussion is good!

I agree....discussion is good.

APAT will do what APAT will do...but we do know that they take opinions on board. My only concern (if you will) about the deal making is that it devalues (at least to my mind) the achievement in winning.

Perhaps I"m alone in this (or just the voice of the otherwise silent majority), I don"t know...but there"d always be a nagging thought in my mind about a winner who"d done a deal to take 1st.

[Paulie_D]

I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness."  Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one.

You"re taking the whole thing out of context..or at least extrapolating one comment to your interpretation of what I"m saying.

The different structure DOES add to the APATness because it sets us apart from the rest. Is APAT all about the people and attitude...of course...but by changing the things that make APAT what it is to conform with "traditional" tournaments...you will change the attitude of the people and that leads into changing the APATness.

If it"s "just another tournament"....then it"s not APAT anymore..it"s an "insert generic name" tournament.

Seriously, I"m NOT against change...it"s changing to confirm just because "we"re not the same" that isn"t a good enough reason for me.

[Marty719]

I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness."  Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one.

You"re taking the whole thing out of context..or at least extrapolating one comment to your interpretation of what I"m saying.

The different structure DOES add to the APATness because it sets us apart from the rest. Is APAT all about the people and attitude...of course...but by changing the things that make APAT what it is to conform with "traditional" tournaments...you will change the attitude of the people and that leads into changing the APATness.

If it"s "just another tournament"....then it"s not APAT anymore..it"s an "insert generic name" tournament.

Seriously, I"m NOT against change...it"s changing to confirm just because "we"re not the same" that isn"t a good enough reason for me.

Fair enough and I get where u r coming from.  Then again, being different for the sake of being different makes no real sense.  Have to remember that things are "the norm" for a reason.  I also have to disagree that changing the payout structure would change the attitude of the people.

Some people have given good reasons for changing structure, so its not change for the sake of it.  It is demoralising being paid the same for 4th and 9th.  I dnt wana sound like Im angry and against the old structure - love APAT events and what they bring for the table, just feel there is always room for improvement.

[George2Loose]

Correct me if I"m wrong but the payout structure doesn"t contribute one iota to APATness? And APATness doesn"t mean changing the goalposts of how poker should work does it?

[Paulie_D]

Correct me if I"m wrong but the payout structure doesn"t contribute one iota to APATness?

OK...you"re wrong!

And APATness doesn"t mean changing the goalposts of how poker should work does it?

I don"t see it as changing the goalposts..I see it as a different set of goalposts on a different playing field playing the same game....but, hey, that"s just me....and I haven"t been to Specsavers in a while.

Come on folks...have a say!

Agree with me...don"t agree with me...don"t be silent.