APAT Payout Structures

[Des]

Great post and debate and we welcome everyone"s views on this subject. I thought Will brought something new to the discussion. Will watch with interest.

[Sunseekers]

Interesting thred guys

Those of you who know me know that I am pretty blunt so here gos my two penny worth:=

Deal making is for (PxSSYS) er-hmm, all APATers over the seasons have gone for the win, so pls pls keep deal makin stamped out of APAT, Period. I am a big believer of jus going for it and winning.

Laddering is not in my nature. so Why change something that already works, APATs are mostly SELL OUT events and a consensus are people love the games.

win or bust out and go home boo hoo and take Dukie up on his 50% offer.

and finally agree with majority, play untill money on day 1, that way if i bust out, I can go out on the lash and not worry about playin the next day with a stonkin hangover.

if i had my way i would jus load up 1st prize with 90% of the money and jus get a trickle for the rest. Now that would really change the dynamics of the game. lol

[Honeybadg]

but seriously, the payout structure for the final table is not great. 9th getting paid the same as 4th takes away a whole dynamic of tournment poker.
If you were a good player with a decant stack on the final table, then you should be looking to exploit the people who are laddering for the extra £100 or so. The middle stacks hanging on for the shortie to go broke etc. That is exactly what final tables are all about, looking for any edge to help yourself get into the top 3.

Like the no deal rules, because i think deals takes away some of the prestegie of winning. I assume it would be different if i was playing for life changing money, but havent had the chance yet.

I think this is pretty spot on - if APAT is there to help people make the step up then the final table should be similar to other tours. Coming 4th of 425 runners should be worth a lot more than 9th of 425. The current dynamics give you the incentive to throw short/medium stacks into the middle and get lucky once you reach the final table.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I think George2Loose raises an interesting point about the "training ground" for bigger comps.  There"s no bigger comp where 9th-4th place pays the same money, so the final table dynamic is totally different to any of the comps you might be "training" yourself up for.

A more logical option for me would be to have a FT payout similar to the GUKPT events that the winners get awarded seats into.  At least then the payout structure would be linked to the added value element of the events.

Not that any of this affects me anyway - I"m still awaiting a cash in a live APAT event!

[Ant1966]

I think this thread could be an epic,some very well put points and counter points.Interesting that both Des,Leigh and Richard have already added comments,as if this topic was already on the APAT agenda.The one thing that makes this organisation uniqe is that they listen and take on board members comments and suggestions,always ever moving APAT forward,i like it,wether i agree or disagree with the changes made they have always been open to debate.

Fwiw here"s my tuppence worth....

I have always thought APAT live events are way too top heavy on the money side,with 9th to 4th getting the same pay out.I still don"t quite equate how making this flat payout impels people to go for the win.People want to win an APAT event full stop,the trophy,gold medal,Gukpt seat,COC seat,ranking pts and of course the "significant media exposure" are enough of an incentive,surely?.Then to get the lions share of the prizepool,imo,distracts from what "ameuter" is all about.
Everybody knows how tough it is to make a day 2 in any event let alone an f/t so i would like to see the top 3 payouts filtered down to reflect such achievements.

There have been numerous occassions where playing down to the money on day 1 has been a viable option and has never been more than 1-2 levels away.For the sake of people having to return on day 2 and not cash to claw back added petrol/hotel costs i"m sure they wouldn"t mind playing an extra level or 2.

Deal making,i think someone has already mentioned that having a standard f/t payout virtually negates against any deal making,it just wouldn"t be worth it.If people want to ladder that"s fine,as Will says its part of a final table dynamic who to exploit who to avoid.I witnessed Chan in Ireland clearly going ftw, fantastic,but i"m sure he could have applied more pressure on some had there been a payout structure to exploit.


So,
1, Better structured f/t payouts
2, No deals (see above)
3, Payouts start at people who make day 2.

would all get my vote.....if we were voting,which were not...but if.....

[gatso]

there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.

the best post on the subject on the blonde thread for those who haven`t seen it

If the majority of APAT players are happy with the "no deals" policy, then why do you need a "no deals" policy? You only need one person to say no to a deal and it doesn"t happen.

If you [Tighty] are right then I doubt a deal would ever take place if they were allowed.

basically if you don"t want to deal then don"t deal. simple

[jbworldwide]

I really want to add epically but I don"t think I can.

However, having made an FT (brag), I didn"t mind the flat structure and I wouldn"t mind a tiered one, but a tiered one that is flatter than most tournaments as some of the jumps are a bit steep.

[AMRN]

I really want to add epically but I don"t think I can.

However, having made an FT (brag), I didn"t mind the flat structure and I wouldn"t mind a tiered one, but a tiered one that is flatter than most tournaments as some of the jumps are a bit steep.

can"t be any steeper than an APAT 4th to 3rd jump!

[AAroddersAA]

there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.

the best post on the subject on the blonde thread for those who haven`t seen it

If the majority of APAT players are happy with the "no deals" policy, then why do you need a "no deals" policy? You only need one person to say no to a deal and it doesn"t happen.

If you [Tighty] are right then I doubt a deal would ever take place if they were allowed.

basically if you don"t want to deal then don"t deal. simple

They may well have happened but it would be unusual at the moment. In the WCOAP main event this year the jumps were huge, the biggest that APAT have ever had. There was a tournament break with 4 players left and doing a deal would have been easy, or at least one of the players could have offered one. It didn"t happen. Neither did it happen in Ireland. I would be VERY surprised if there has been a deal done at a final table this season in any of the UK events.

[technolog]

I"d prefer a more normal payout structure.

I think we should play down to the money on day 1 - I still shudder when I think of my Cardiff odyssey in season 3!

Happy with no deals but not really fussed either way so long as play carries on for the medals.

Compulsory footpath walk on tournament Fridays. Non-attendees disqualified.

[rivertaff]

An interesting thread with some very good points very well made.

Marty719 said "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." and I couldn"t agree more.

We all turn up on Saturday hoping to win, but what the heck it"s just like a family gathering and we have a good weekend whatever happens bad beats and all. It is the people and nothing else that makes APAT APAT, and yes we would still all turn up if no changes were made to the current pay out structure etc

So how can it be improved?

Making deals?  

If this is not allowed then there will always be arguements wanting it. If it is allowed, then if any of those involved in the proposed deal can vote against it via the black / red card system, or something similar, then a deal will not take place. Therefore allowing deals seems to satisfy both "camps".

Money for Day 2"ers?

It makes sense that those who make day 2 are only those who make the money. You cannot register for the side game on the Sunday if you are still in the main event - you may be very low stacked and within an hour of day 2 starting you"re out, but too late to play in the Sunday event. You would know that unless you made the money in the main event that you could take part in the Sunday event or for those of us who take their partners with them, they could spent time on Sunday away from the casino exploring the local attractions. You"re either in the money or free to do what you want with Sunday.

I don"t think that the structure should be changed to square this circle, it would need a longer day 1, either starting earlier or playing later or both. I guess the casinos have some say in this?

Payment Structure.

I believe that the final table should be stepped from 9th to 4th at the cost of the first 3, even if it was only by £50 per position, if only on the basis that someone who came 4th should be rewarded more than the person who came 9th. I do not think that this would detract from the ethos of "going for the win".

Everyone who makes the final table is a competitive creature anyway and will still be trying to win, the difference between 9th and 4th prize money would only be a couple of hundred pounds, not like the WSOP main event where it would be £100,000"s where just sitting there playing fold"em could be life changing. It just gives 4th a financial reward over 9th, which seems to make sense to me

[thinsy147]

I haven"t cashed yet but Luton is going to be my third APAT event (3rd time lucky)  

Having read all the comments I will now give mine:

1. If pay only starts at 20 isn"t it a bit much to play down to that on day 1? I made day 2 at Luton last year and I think there was 34 of us when play stopped around 1am. Maybe you could play down to 27 (3 tables) with 21st-27th getting their buy-in value back!! (Thats only £525 off the prize fund based on a £75 buy-in)

2. I feel the prize fund should be different for 4th-9th.

example:

Position      Current      My Idea
4th             £1200        £1600
5th             £1200        £1400
6th             £1200        £1200
7th             £1200        £1100
8th             £1200        £1000
9th             £1200        £ 900

I know this is based on the World prize fund at DTD but obviously it can be adapted to suit the 200player events (total prize fund for these positions is the same)

3. I don"t think deals should be allowed, especially if the structure is tweeked  

[RioRodent]

there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.

the best post on the subject on the blonde thread for those who haven`t seen it

If the majority of APAT players are happy with the "no deals" policy, then why do you need a "no deals" policy? You only need one person to say no to a deal and it doesn"t happen.

If you [Tighty] are right then I doubt a deal would ever take place if they were allowed.

basically if you don"t want to deal then don"t deal. simple

Ahem!! You could have credited the author.  

[RioRodent]

Please change to a more conventional payout structure.

And....

Please, please stop paying 1 x additional £75 place for each alternate that plays. Either -

If payout structure changes... just add it to the prize pool; or

If payout structure remains... aggregate the £75"s and pay additional prizes a little less than the existing bottom payout ie. if 20th pays £300 and there are 5 alternates, then have 21st pays £225 and 22nd pays £150.

I really cannot see why anyone would be happy to go away with just their entry fee... if you need you entry fee back that bad, stay at home!

And, and...

As for savers for the bubble boy? That is just wrong... just say NO!

[RioRodent]

Great post and debate and we welcome everyone"s views on this subject. I thought Will brought something new to the discussion. Will watch with interest.

Which part? Criticism of the payouts or support for "no deals"?

(I"m assuming Will is WYoung83?)