Season 6 Discussion

[SirPercival]

[Waz1892]

This would be superb imo -

edit -The National League Tournament!

[RicayBoy]

Live:

I don't play too many live events so can't say much on this. Living in Essex does make one feel like a poker leper though when the nearest individual live event this season was in Coventry! I'm presuming lack of suitable venues is to blame for this rather than a general hatred of everything South East (hopefully)

It makes sense for the Worlds to be in central England but I don't think it has to be at DTD if a better option can be found elsewhere.

Please keep the medals. I managed to win one in 2010 for an online event and it's a nice memento and something I'm proud of. It'll always be there whereas the money has been long since donated back.

I like the idea of a live online league but it would probably have to be at the expense of one of the other "team" events. I think it's how you balance keeping the members happy against finding new members that will determine the outcome of this.

I would prefer to see more UK events and less overseas, but that's a selfish view as I can't ever see myself travelling abroad to play one of these events.

I haven't heard many complaints about the blind/prize structures of the live events so if it ain't broke..

Online:

I would prefer to see fewer satellites to the online championships but with seats guaranteed to encourage higher turnouts. I always feel that I have more chance with 50 runners 5 seats than 10 runners 1 seat, but the only way to get the 50 in the satellite to start with is to offer the guarantee? Maybe that's wrong, I don't know.

Online League:

Sorry this is a moan, but in my view the reason for the decline in numbers this year is because the league has been (this season) less than well-run. Much of this has been out of our control with a couple of software failures, date changes, lack of notice of new times, players unsure of what site the games would be played on and now a different start time.

I know it's difficult but I really hope next year we can stick with one sponsor and set the dates in stone at the start.

Limiting the size of teams would be a shockingly bad idea in my view. The aim is to encourage new players in, not to say "Sorry No Vacancies". Only 4 players scores count towards team points, which negates the affects of the larger teams to a degree. If as was suggested that a team could only have a maximum of ten players, you stand to lose far more members than a team of four that gives up because it apparently has no chance. Perhaps the administrators could look to re-define team boundaries in an attempt to even up the numbers a bit?

I'm sure whatever happens next season will be a good one!

PS - Don't forget Aspers Stratford East London opens soon.

[Paulie_D]

PS - Don't forget Aspers Stratford East London opens soon.

For some reason I thought this was a year away...but he"s right. December 2011.

Add another option to the S6 venue list.

[TheSnapper]

Great post Brendan.  Can it work organisationally?

If by "organisationally" you mean, can online software cope with the logistics?

Not really qualified to give a definitive answer other than. it depends on where the league is hosted but its not rocket science and where there"s a will there"s a way.

[TheSnapper]

Limiting the size of teams would be a shockingly bad idea in my view. The aim is to encourage new players in, not to say "Sorry No Vacancies".

If you take the time to notice, the current format has failed miserably in terms of attracting new players. See Ger"s earlier post......

Online National League

Look at the statistics.

Week 1 Total players 210
Last night Total players 73

Only 4 players scores count towards team points, which negates the affects of the larger teams to a degree.

The results to date suggest otherwise and it is totally illogical to suggest that a team can equitably compete when outnumbered by 3 or 4 players to 1

If as was suggested that a team could only have a maximum of ten players, you stand to lose far more members than a team of four that gives up because it apparently has no chance. Perhaps the administrators could look to re-define team boundaries in an attempt to even up the numbers a bit?

The suggestion is to limit team size but clubs can field several teams and thus have no limit on their club numbers. Within each club you could run a player promotion relegation over the season so as club members togging out for Luton "C" team, could aspire to play for the "A" team. Maybe a club are free to decide what team a player represents week by week and can manage their resources strategically so as to tactically out-manoeuvre the opposition. This can add to the team ethos and instill loyalty and continued commitment to the Team, Club and League.

But again, wake up, the current format is not growing numbers and without change the league will not survive.

[RicayBoy]

[KarmaDope]

I have an idea for the online league: Random team selection.

Each player registers their interest and is assigned a number based on when they register, to be kept on a google spreadsheet document on the web. While this is taking place, x number of teams are chosen and names for said teams are thought of.

After an amount of time, a date is chosen and on that date, the numbers 1-y (y being the total amount of people registered) are randomly sequenced by http://www.random.org. Assuming there are 10 teams, the first person who registers will be on team 1, and the second on team 2...you get the point. This way, the only player difference assigned to teams will be one.

The tournaments are run as one big tournament every week and players score 1 point for winning. All players finishing positions count as then the lobby can tell the organiser who finished where.

The team members can choose captains if they wish, and lowest point scorers in individual teams win individual prizes.

Players who register after the league starts will be assigned to teams randomly based on all the teams who are one short.

[Des]

I"m sure no ill will was intended by Brendan as both points of view are on the money.  It"s important that we get this right so we very much appreciate that you both care enough to comment so passionately.

[PHIL_TC]

If teams regularly only get 4 or 5 players, then that is clearly unsustainable in any event. For example, Stockton could become part of the "North East Poker Club" which would include Sunderland. Organisers could look at this at the end of each season to decide if battle lines need to be re-drawn.

I really hope this was said massively tongue in cheek. Im sure Al and his team would hate to lose their Sunderland team name and for us, basically a pub team of mates who after proudly winning promotion into Div 1 and staying there to be then merged into a "North East Poker club" would be a joke... I mean haway.. you"ll  be saying merge Newcastle as well into it next... lol.... a Stockton / Sunderland / Newcastle team.. just picking myself off the floor laughing. And I"m sure you"d get the same reaction from other smaller clubs joining local rivals.

Agree with Brendan again it really is time to take notice that the current scoring / team system is not working. Just look at the current league table for Div 1 there"s 11 teams. 6 of those 11 teams have 1 point or less after 10 weeks? Does that sound like everything is working perfectly to you?

[Fatcatstu]

If teams regularly only get 4 or 5 players, then that is clearly unsustainable in any event. For example, Stockton could become part of the "North East Poker Club" which would include Sunderland. Organisers could look at this at the end of each season to decide if battle lines need to be re-drawn.

lol geddddoooouttahere! Cant go dismantling teams of APAT regulars really can you? Stockton are overacheiving if anything.

[BOINGBLITZ]

If there is some sort of "National League Live" event, will the West Midlands have to have just one hole card instead of two as a Handicap for being successful ??

Are Wales gonna be stopped from playing the live team events because they keep winning ?

Oh.....as an aside, we have lost a lot of our regular players this season due to the problems early in the season with 888 and their running of tournaments.

It is always going to be a problem for teams at the lower end of a league to keep interest and numbers up and nothing you can do or say will change that.

If APAT think the Online League isn"t working then scrap it, because if you have a North-East team, a North-West team et-al, the same will apply in that the lower teams wont get many runners if they have no chance at the season"s-end.

[TheSnapper]

I can assure you I am wide awake!

Touchy? If your gonna get upset when your points are challenged maybe tucked up in bed is the best place for you, or maybe you could step out of your defensive position and open your mind sufficiently so as to understand the intended context for those two words in my post.

The League in its current format had plenty of players in week one. You have put forward your view for the decline to the latest event and I put forward mine.

Your view being...

"in my view the reason for the decline in numbers this year is because the league has been (this season) less than well-run. Much of this has been out of our control with a couple of software failures, date changes, lack of notice of new times, players unsure of what site the games would be played on and now a different start time."

Yet we had various members post their concern about the League format HERE prior to these recent hiccups.

You have arrogantly assumed yours is correct and dismissed mine.

Lighten up ffs, its an opinion on a card game not world peace. Fwiw you give freely of your opinion as do I. Our opinions differ and I have tried to make a reasoned counter to your position, seems pretty standard and reasonable debate to me but if there's any particular words that caused you offence I'll happily revisit.

In my view the larger teams should have some advantage over the smaller teams. If a team captain or team members work hard to recruit new members to their team, they deserve some reward for it. This season a method was put in place to only give points to the top 4 scorers from each team. Perhaps that could be tweaked further, but I don't think it's far out.

So far you have opined on what you don't want to happen, what tweaks would you like to bring to table?

If teams regularly only get 4 or 5 players, then that is clearly unsustainable in any event.

Wow we agree on something . The team size point is more about being inclusive and thus sustainable. I have acknowledged the very valid point previously, some Team Captains have played a storming recruitment game but the Captains efforts is not the only variable in success or failure in recruiting players indeed a hugely successful recruiter would likely fail miserably when fishing in a lesser stocked pool (metaphor alert: this is not about Angling).

With the competitive teamsize bar currently set at 20 plus we lessen our chances of growing the numbers. Lowering the bar will make a competitive team attainable in more areas. Lets not be blinded defending current positions of strenght over striving for a genuinely competitive and vibrant League. What will be more satisfying, effortless domination of an ever declining League or stretching yourselves to the last day in a super competive League.

Not saying my proposal delivers that but imho changes are needed and I put it forward only as a starting point.

[AJDUK]

Scrap the online team league. Or seriously revamp it. There"s been more back biting sniping nasty ill thought out divisive and often incorrect remarks made about this one event than anything else. Certainly that"s how it felt to me as a Walsall player. Just not good for APAT and god knows what any new players must have thought about it all. Merging the Birmingham team into the Walsall team was an own goal (initially I thought it was a joke), and I half thought it was done to shut up the constant moaning of the Birmingham players about Walsall. It"s kinda ironic that most of WM"s points appear to be coming from the Birmingham side of late! And the merger just gave more "super team" ammunition to the rest.
I stopped playing the league a while ago. It"s just not what I joined APAT for.

I don"t see how you can make a league work as well at the end as at the beginning. As soon as a few teams are stuck at the bottom they will struggle to maintain their numbers. Happens in all the leagues I"ve ever played in, even in leagues that are made up of individual players never mind teams. Perhaps if the league was very short, say 4 or 6 weeks a time so that lots are still in with a chance at the end, it might just work.

If they do go on, I think more thought has to be given to how to ensure "added value" is distributed fairly amongst all participants in a winning team. If you"re in a winning team you should win something, but the current arrangement only rewards a few. I"m therefore not a fan of the current seat prizes, although APAT could rule that any winnings from seats get distributed e.g. 50% to the seat player and 50% to the rest of the team in relation to points gained. Another option would be just to have a prize pool awarded to the winning team in relation to points. It wouldn"t be hard to manage?

[MintTrav]