I"ve had this discussion in the past, and it"s probably a good idea to start a separate thread about it (possibly not, but I have anyway).
So what is a "poker pro"?
Is it someone who makes their sole income via poker? Is it someone that makes the majority of their income via poker?
What about someone who is unemployed, made redundant, retired, looks after a family, and also plays poker? Obviously it will me their main source (or only source) of income. But does that make them a pro?
What about someone who"s very wealthy, and so can play in the big events, and does try to play all of them? Are they a "poker pro"? What about someone who plays in all these events, but is a losing player? They can"t be a pro, surely?
To me there is no definite black & white division with pros on one side, and none-pros on the other. There is also a very large grey area. This is why a number of players have played in some of the early APAT events, but now no longer play in the "amateur" events as they are now considered "pros".
I have a friend who is an excellent player, and is currently what I"d guess we"d call a pro. He plays freerolls and low buy-in MTTs - and does remarkably well in them. He"s mentioned going "back to work" and when (if) he does this he"s said he"d love to play in the APAT events. It"s a shame that he can"t at the moment, but it makes sense. The funny thing is, if he does become a "non-pro", he"ll still be the same player.
To be honest, the argument might actually be a red herring as far as APAT is concerned. The pros we all know won"t want to play in a £75 amateur event. They can make a far better ROI in other events. In addition to this, I was lucky enough to get a chance to play in an EPT - and I was sitting in a room full of pros. I didn"t feel outclassed (well, no more than I do in the APAT events), the majority of the pros weren"t anything special. So should we be worried about a few players who people might consider to be "pros" playing in an event dedicated to amateurs? If I remember rightly, there were a few players in last season"s Welsh event who are no longer allowed (if that"s the right word) to play in the APAT events as they are now considered as being pros. They didn"t actually win - the title went to a luckbox from Blackpool (hi Lee
), a full-time soldier and exactly the sort of player these APAT events were devised for.
Haven"t written all of that nonsense it seems to boil down to two things. One, it"s difficult to define what a pro is, and secondly, should we be bothered if some "borderline" pros play in the APAT events. I don"t think I care.