APAT Payout Structures

[AAroddersAA]

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.

Good post - I know you are not alone in your thinking here.

I would agree with this but couldn"t APAT say that deals can only be done for the cash. I don"t see a problem with this. As you say the gold medal provides an incentive all of its own so I believe the play would remain. You still have he GUKPT seat to play for as well.

I really don"t think you lose anything from these events by changing the payout structure, this is just my opinion of course, I am still new to APAT so if more established members have different opinions I a happy to be told I am totally wrong :-)

Just thought that if everybody was of the same kind of opinion (which does seem to be the case when he APAT regs post on Blonde) then maybe APAT would want to look at changing it next year, if not, then its still all good and we will all still be playing no doubt.

I do think it would be better to have a structure where everybody who comes back for day two is paid. The reality of this I think is that is easier said than done sometimes like with an event like WCOAP main event. It might be possible in some events though?

[Marty719]

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?

Agree with all this.

[nosey-p]

I was lucky to come 3rd in the worlds this year for 4K, 4th place got 1.2K that for me is too big of a jump. When the final table started the only thing on my mind was 1st place but as we got down to 5 players left (I was the short stack at this point) my goal was 3rd place, and I hung on. Now if the pay structure was different (not as big a step as 2.8K) then my play could/would have been different.

For making deals none was offered by me are anybody else, but given the difference off 1.2K for 4th and 9K for 1st and if I was offered a deal then I would have to consider it. Rightly or wrongly

I played in a local tournament, 180 runners when we got down to 16 players someone asked for a deal, only 1 refused.  

[Paulie_D]

Just thought that if everybody was of the same kind of opinion (which does seem to be the case when he APAT regs post on Blonde) then maybe APAT would want to look at changing it next year, if not, then its still all good and we will all still be playing no doubt.

I agree that if EVERYONE (or at least a significant majority) were in favour of changing it then it should be done. Polling the membership is going to be tough though.

It"s only the loudest voices (of which I am unashamedly one) that are being heard at the moment..the same is true on Blonde (I know...I"m lurking there too).

[Cf]

The structure Claw posted was my suggestion. It wasn"t thoroughly thought out (%s might be slightly off) but it illustrates the point. Will repeat the post for those who don"t read blonde.

(This is only really concerning the 9th-4th being paid the same thing)

The sample on their site is:

1st: 3500
2nd: 2500
3rd: 1500
4th-9th: 700

1st place gets 5 times what 4th place gets. Even DTD (who i think are maybe too top heavy at times) isn"t that harsh. 3rd gets more than twice as much as 4th!

I"ve just off the top of my head made up what I think would be a flatter payout structure using the same amounts of money:

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

For me that"s much better. Obviously first isn"t as much but you say it"s not all about the money in these events. Using such a structure I think people would be more likely to play for the win and there probably wouldn"t be much talk of deals.

[AAroddersAA]

Just thought that if everybody was of the same kind of opinion (which does seem to be the case when he APAT regs post on Blonde) then maybe APAT would want to look at changing it next year, if not, then its still all good and we will all still be playing no doubt.

I agree that if EVERYONE (or at least a significant majority) were in favour of changing it then it should be done. Polling the membership is going to be tough though.

It"s only the loudest voices (of which I am unashamedly one) that are being heard at the moment..the same is true on Blonde (I know...I"m lurking there too).

Yep, I agree 100% - and to be fair there are never any complaints about the payout structure at he events themselves which suggest that the most important people (ie the people who actually play the events) are happy. I am guessing we will get some more opinions tonight when more people log on and read the thread.

Don"t expect many of them to be silent either :-)

[Claw75]

Yep, I agree 100% - and to be fair there are never any complaints about the payout structure at he events themselves which suggest that the most important people (ie the people who actually play the events) are happy.

that"s debatable really.  I"d be surprised if any regular APATers, whatever their personal views, would feel comfortable raising the issue of a deal at a final table knowing that it is frowned upon by APAT.  I certainly wouldn"t feel comfortable bringing it up, unless I personally knew everyone else involved and that they were open to the idea - those conditions are unlikely ever to be met (getting to a final for a start!).  Even then I"d imagine any discussions would be done "behind the scenes" - it seems a shame that that would have to happen though for a bunch of players that want to chop the money to be able to do it.

There is a problem with knowing what the majority of players would prefer though.  It"s safe to say that the views of the majority of APAT members/players on this subject are unknown, but finding out what the general preference is isn"t logistically easy.  Threads like this are a great start though, and hopefully lots of people will put their two penneth in whatever their view.

[George2Loose]

Yep, I agree 100% - and to be fair there are never any complaints about the payout structure at he events themselves which suggest that the most important people (ie the people who actually play the events) are happy.

that"s debatable really.  I"d be surprised if any regular APATers, whatever their personal views, would feel comfortable raising the issue of a deal at a final table knowing that it is frowned upon by APAT.  I certainly wouldn"t feel comfortable bringing it up, unless I personally knew everyone else involved and that they were open to the idea - those conditions are unlikely ever to be met (getting to a final for a start!).  Even then I"d imagine any discussions would be done "behind the scenes" - it seems a shame that that would have to happen though for a bunch of players that want to chop the money to be able to do it.

There is a problem with knowing what the majority of players would prefer though.  It"s safe to say that the views of the majority of APAT members/players on this subject are unknown, but finding out what the general preference is isn"t logistically easy.  Threads like this are a great start though, and hopefully lots of people will put their two penneth in whatever their view.

This

[duke3016]

my view

First off, I will continue to play as many APAT events as is humanly possible (whatever the payouts)

I personally think the that we should play day one down to the money (at whatever point that is)

I think that the final table payout structure could be better. (however not overly ar$ed about it, but I would welcome the change along the lines of CF"s post)

If deals were allowed I am not sure how you would continue with only medals/added value cos when the pressure is off play would inevitably change totally. So to nail my colours to the mast I believe no deals is correct.

APAT is and will always be, for me anyway, about the people whatever the concensus of opinion, I have no fears that any change will either decrease or increase interest.

Summary of changes I would like

1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals oops not a change
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks

[AMRN]

1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks

Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.

[George2Loose]

1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks

Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.

Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure

Also why doesn"t the online payout structures mirror the live ones?

[Jon MW]

The two issues are (i) the payout structure and (ii) deal making

(i) The Payout Structure

I don"t mind the payout structure as it is but...

IIRC one of the key principles of this payout structure was to discourage laddering up the places and encourage people to play for the win.

But in practice a lot of APAT final tables have been played tightly with a lot of tight players on, if you add to this the argument that the extra positions should give you an extra reward then I can see a pretty strong argument for changing the payouts.

(ii) Deal Making

IMO there"s a strong argument for changing the official APAT stance on this as well.

But with safeguards to protect APAT, it"s members and the sponsors, maybe with the introduction of a standard. APAT deal for example.

Obviously the added value, the medals and the trophy would have to be excluded from any deal making.
To make sure that this doesn"t too adversely affect the players left something like 10% of the total left should be reserved for the winner - the remainder shared out by chip count.

The black/red card deal making idea is a good one.

And finally deal making would only be allowed after the tournament reaches a certain level to ensure that any premature early talk of deals doesn"t unnecessarily slow down the table.

[Paulie_D]

Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure

Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet!

[AAroddersAA]

1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks

Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.

You want more than 50% off? This is a major handicap to The Duke imo, he would be morally outraged if he left the bar to play poker.

On a serious note great to get opinions of two long standing and much respected APAT members. I do see the concern about the play changing if you allow deals but believe the fact we have all of the added value, GUKPT seat, CoC seat and the Gold Medal would still encourage people to play for the win, which was the whole point in the payout structure to begin with.

More opinions for more APAT players would be great.

[daveyb147]

I was a 4th place finisher this year and was happy with the pay structure,,dont change it imo,,i like top heavy,,and NO DEALS for me,,,do agree that day 1 should play down to the money when possible