Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: nosey-p on January 31, 2008, 20:17:14 PM
-
Season two as so far been a big improvement on season one, apart from the online games. Why have the numbers fallen? Is it because of it being on ipoker? Is it the cost or maybe the structure? What about it being on a Thursday as well as Saturday. Is there too many games? Why does there seem to be less interest in the online game. Is there too much emphasis on the live game? I know that APAT is all about getting us all out of our armchairs and into the casinos/card rooms but is the online game being over looked? If it was not for the internet, the majority of us would not be playing at all. So here is my early suggestions for season three.
1. One game a month/4 weeks
2. To be on a Saturday
3. To have a structure off 5000 chips and a 15 minute clock
4. Buy in of $50
5. To run $5 STT 24/7. To run $5 MTT on all other Saturday's (to qualify)
6. To have added money to the tournament (from the sponsor)
7. To have the top 20 places get points 1st 25, 2nd 22, 3rd 19, then 17 down to 1 ( to be the same as the live tournament)
8. To have a trophy for first (not on the same scale as the Nationals)
Am I talking rubbish?
Any thoughts
-
You always talk rubbish, but there are some valid points in that post.
-
I like your idea"s, my suggestions....
1-4 Have one $50 buyin game per 4 weeks on a Saturday with chip stack and blinds as you suggest.
5. Why not have the sats on a week night
6. Obviously keen to have value added by sponsor
7. Nationals should earn more points than regionals and online events, because of the added prestige, also a $50 online is not comparable to a £75 live event. - Whether points system need to be looked at I feel should have a thread all of it"s own.
8. Not sure why we need a trophy, as top three already get a medals.
In addition I would also suggest a smaller online tourney also every 4 weeks say $25, for those with smaller bankrolls or those that want to play twice a month.
Look forward to other peoples views/suggestions
Benet ;D
-
.......Why does there seem to be less interest in the online game. Is there too much emphasis on the live game?........
Strange that you should think that way, Wayne. Personally, I think there"s a lot of bias towards the online game, and not enough to the live game - although that has improved for season two.
I gave up playing online a number of years ago because it just wasn"t real to me. Having played 3 of the season 2 online events my views remain the same. Nothing against BlueSquare or the software, just that online poker is not for me.
If the numbers playing the online events have dropped off, maybe it"s because they"ve seen the error of their ways and are now playing more live ? ;D
APAT did change the tourney dates, times and structures at the request of the membership prior to and, in some minor cases, during season two. I would suggest that you give it until the end of the season. I"m sure that if the membership and APAT think that changes are necessary for season three, then they"ll be discussed.
Am I talking rubbish?
Ahem........ :D
-
I gave up playing online a number of years ago because it just wasn"t real to me.
Yes, but when did you give up playing live as well?
;D
-
I gave up playing online a number of years ago because it just wasn"t real to me.
Yes, but when did you give up playing live as well?
;D
The only time I play well live, is when Wayne is on my table :D
For the most part, I just leave the playing to Caz ;D
-
The reason why I have brought these suggestions up now is that I read (somewere on here) that APAT have already started discussing season three
-
Ian how did you do in Manchester? ;)
-
I"m not taking anything away from season 2, or the great effort put in by a lot of different people, but surely suggestions from the membership should be encouraged, also we are trying to begin debate regarding series 3....we"re not trying to get changes made to season 2.
I agree with you that with 50 online tourneys and only 5 regionals plus 7 national/international ranking events, that there is a bias towards online events.
I would love to see far MORE regionals in MORE casinos, and I"m sure that this will happen with time. Ideally one every month would suit me!
-
The reason why I have brought these suggestions up now is that I read (somewere on here) that APAT have already started discussing season three
I remember that as well, Wayne, not sure where however. I think it might have been in relation to live events though. I"m sure I"ll be corrected if I"m wrong.
Don"t get me wrong Wayne, you do right to bring concerns up and generate discussion, I"m not criticising your posting or views. :o
Ian how did you do in Manchester? ;)
Ohhh, below the belt sir, below the belt.
In my defence, I was on medication that knocked me out for 12+ hours a day at the time. But, it was my choice to play and, quite frankly, I was rubbish !! :D
-
I didn't think you was criticising me
-
As for a bias to online, I am suggesting that they are less games but with more at stake hence the point's structure
-
If the points structure was brought into line with the National points structure, then I would suggest that the number of online events that could count to your points total should be capped, as with the live.
-
Agreed
-
definately agree! ;D
-
To have a trophy would give it more of an event. Top three get medals at a live game as well.
The added money could be in the form of a National seat.
I know this could not be dun with 50 games but if this was reduced to 7 as live, it would give the online game more importance and there for the field should be greater than it is now (well that's the theory)
-
Season two as so far been a big improvement on season one, apart from the online games. Why have the numbers fallen? Is it because of it being on ipoker? Is it the cost or maybe the structure? What about it being on a Thursday as well as Saturday. Is there too many games? Why does there seem to be less interest in the online game. Is there too much emphasis on the live game? I know that APAT is all about getting us all out of our armchairs and into the casinos/card rooms but is the online game being over looked? If it was not for the internet, the majority of us would not be playing at all. So here is my early suggestions for season three.
1. One game a month/4 weeks
2. To be on a Saturday
3. To have a structure off 5000 chips and a 15 minute clock
4. Buy in of $50
5. To run $5 STT 24/7. To run $5 MTT on all other Saturday's (to qualify)
6. To have added money to the tournament (from the sponsor)
7. To have the top 20 places get points 1st 25, 2nd 22, 3rd 19, then 17 down to 1 ( to be the same as the live tournament)
8. To have a trophy for first (not on the same scale as the Nationals)
Am I talking rubbish?
Any thoughts
Definitely not talking rubbish and I agree with pretty much all of your suggestions...
3. Without the antes on ipoker, 5000 chips / 15 min clock will get to be a very long tournament if we start getting 200+ players again.
5. STT satellites is a good idea but @ $5 even the 1st place won"t win a complete buy-in - $50 + $5. How about a $7.50 + $0.75... 1st wins $55 seat and 2nd gets $20.
7. As others have said, this is topic on it"s own.
8. Trophy Schmophy... lets just have a decent added cash prize from the sponsor.
8)
-
There will be significant changes in the format of the online series in S3. Can"t go into the specifics, but the events will become much more meaningful.
-
I have only played 1 online game this season, so am probably the sort of person you want the feedback from.
There are 3 main reasons why I haven"t played most of them:
- On Saturdays, I am usually socialising with friends. I find this an odd choice of day to have an event like this as I would expect Saturdays to be a bad day for most people. I"d be interested to know how popular it is as I was surprised to see it suggested as the only day for these tournies.
(I ought to make more Thursdays than I do).
- I find the long blind structure extremely dull. It"s fine when playing live, but online, it"s just too slow.
- I no longer receive the reminders for these online events. Is it APAT's policy to stop sending them now?
1. One game a month/4 weeks
Possibly, but maybe one every fortnight might suffice.
2. To be on a Saturday
Ugh. I definitely won"t be able to make any.
3. To have a structure off 5000 chips and a 15 minute clock
What is it now? 20 mins? A shorter clock will be an improvement IMO.
4. Buy in of $50
The cost isn"t a factor for me, although I do prefer like the $10 buyin. I think $50 will put more people off.
5. To run $5 STT 24/7. To run $5 MTT on all other Saturday's (to qualify)
As above. Would prefer to keep as is.
6. To have added money to the tournament (from the sponsor)
This would always be nice, but I don"t think it"s really necessary to make the online tournaments work.
7. To have the top 20 places get points 1st 25, 2nd 22, 3rd 19, then 17 down to 1 ( to be the same as the live tournament)
This is a good idea.
8. To have a trophy for first (not on the same scale as the Nationals)
Would be nice, but I think the medals will suffice.
I just want to stress that these are purely my own personal opinions. I"m sure other people have different circumstances and will therefore with what I"ve said.
-
There will be significant changes in the format of the online series in S3. Can"t go into the specifics, but the events will become much more meaningful.
Are you going to tell us next week Des ;)
-
No, next year :)
-
I really enjoyed playing the online tourneys in season one and while i have played most of season twos,i dont look forward to them quite as much.
After a wee think my reasons for this are-
Its hard to get excited about a ten dollar buy in,
Not a fan of the blue square site,
No antes-no good,
One a fortnight is ample.
Thats the main ones anyway. Dont mean to criticise,just my views.
-
There will be significant changes in the format of the online series in S3. Can"t go into the specifics, but the events will become much more meaningful.
That"s good to here
- On Saturdays, I am usually socialising with friends. I find this an odd choice of day to have an event like this as I would expect Saturdays to be a bad day for most people. I"d be interested to know how popular it is as I was surprised to see it suggested as the only day for these tournies.
Playing on a Saturday seems to be the best option. It's up to every individual if they stop in and play or go out and get drunk, just as it's up to every individual to go and play live or stop at home (but they don't seem to be a problem in selling out in 2 minutes). During the week some people have to be up at 4/5/6 am for work. The only other alternative would be an earlier time.
3. Without the antes on ipoker, 5000 chips / 15 min clock will get to be a very long tournament if we start getting 200+ players again.
5. STT satellites is a good idea but @ $5 even the 1st place won"t win a complete buy-in - $50 + $5. How about a $7.50 + $0.75... 1st wins $55 seat and 2nd gets $20.
I see your point about the STT/MTT, so yes it could have a bigger buy-in
The structure as it is now works fine (4000, 12 minute) for a $10 buy-in but with a $50 maybe it should go back to the old version. But like you say Rio if the fields go above the 200 mark and having no antes then yes this could be too much.
-
Can"t say I have any strong views on most of the suggested alterations to the structure, but if the online tournaments go up to $50, I"ll be waving goodbye to APAT.
-
Can"t say I have any strong views on most of the suggested alterations to the structure, but if the online tournaments go up to $50, I"ll be waving goodbye to APAT.
I have to agree, $20 would possibly be my max, but I also think that there should be less medals, or that maybe there should be a monthly league where your best 2 or 3 results count.. I dont know, but at $50 per game I wont be playing.
-
I"m looking forward to Season 3 as I haven"t been able to play much this time round. I have to agree with most of the comments though. I do think that the online series has lost it"s prestige that it had in Season 1. As someone said, it"s hard to get excited at a £5 buy in. I think reducing the frequency of them and increasing the buy in is definitely the best option.
I completely disagree with the suggestion of reducing the levels. To me, part of the attraction of Season 1 online was a decent starting stack and a good structure - there"s plenty of crapshoots out there for people who haven"t got the patience for a 5000 stack tournament.
The main reason I haven"t played online this year though is that I detest ipoker software. But that"s just my own opinion and I"m sure that there"d be plenty of people out there to argue the toss.
Steve.
-
There will be significant changes in the format of the online series in S3. Can"t go into the specifics, but the events will become much more meaningful.
Is that for real? Does this mean it"s pointless anyone offering up alternative structures and ideas for next season if you"ve already decided on how things will change?
Can you not even give us a clue? Making significant change without consulting anyone has historically caused one or two teeny tiny bones of contention. Come on give us a clue..how many syllables?
I"m not an online player, but I do think since so many people prefer online poker to the live events, the online series really ought to be structured to give it as much prominence as possible to make the events worth winning. The $10 games I don"t think have worked in addressing the criticisms of season 1.
It"s very difficult to get enthusiastic about a £5 game, so the ideas already put forward about bigger buy-in monthly event, with three weekly satellites for those who don"t want to pay the bigger buy-in, sound like a good solution.
It looks like the only real objection to a Saturday night game is that people like to get mullered on a Saturday, but if it"s once a month I"m sure those people can miss a weekend - give your liver a breather etc.
-
The regional games as been the biggest improvement in season 2 (when some of the casinos get there act together) but because of the variances in field sizes and the locality of the venues (some people have to travel up to 3 hours for a £20 game) the points should not be included in the overall championship. They should be kept as a separate championship and as a qualifier for the Nationals. Maybe each casino could have its own? I know each region as it's own but when they is 80 runners in Manchester and no event in Blackpool (although that is a one off) but still 80 runners in one place and 20 in another does not seem fair, does it? Are am I talking rubbish again :)
-
With respect to the online events, I have to say that playing an online deepstack game for 4+ hours for a $10 buy in is a little arduous. As a regular player who justifies playing every night to the missus by the size of the contribution to house keeping, I would prefer to use my Thursday nights playing $50 SnGs and returning a few quid.
I tend to agree with some of the posts on this thread. Make the online series a little more attractive by beefing up the buy in and adding a satellite structure, and reducing the volume to make them more special. The regionals and nationals are brilliant and well worth waiting for - not sure I would say the same if they were twice a week though.
Other option would be to add a National ticket to top place for the online games - the concept of Clickfest avoidance should keep the interest up. Clearly though, unless the prize pool was increased through higher buy ins, this would have to be a sponsor provision.
-
A lot of this makes good sense and is in keeping with our current thinking. S3 is still a long way away, so please keep the ideas coming.
-
Perhaps, in keeping with the APAT ideal, what ever buy-in is chosen for S3>, the "headline sponsor" could host the online tournaments "juice free"?
-
Other option would be to add a National ticket to top place for the online games - the concept of Clickfest avoidance should keep the interest up.
Not sure I"m keen on that idea - that would give online players a distinct advantage of having 3 methods of qualifying for a live event (online national events, online qualifiers and clickfest), whilst the live player only gets 2 (live regional events and clickfest).
As somebody who only plays live, why should I be disadvantaged ?
Perhaps, in keeping with the APAT ideal, what ever buy-in is chosen for S3>, the "headline sponsor" could host the online tournaments "juice free"?
That strikes me as a good idea. Surely the relatively few number of APAT online tournaments that the sponsor hosts wouldn"t have that great an impact on their profits ? Also, with the added number of new players being attracted to the sponsors software, it"s inevitable that a lot of those new players would take part in other games held by the sponsor, recouping any lost profits in the process.
-
When you say the "online" player would have more chances to qualify than the "live" player, im not sure i understand, can you really class some people "online" players and others "live" players, surely it would just be one more way for apat members to qualify in general?
-
There are players that do play both live and online, but there are also numerous players who would consider themselves online or live only.
All I"m asking, is for an equal chance for those players that consider themselves in one camp or the other.
-
When I suggested a seat to the nationals, it was only an idea one-way of getting add value to the on line game. When playing live you get a seat to the GUKPT so it would seem like a natural progression. Online-Nationals-Gukpt. It makes people like you Ian take more of an interest in the on-line game
-
Ah, but why should I be forced to play online to give myself a better chance of playing live ? It"s totally illogical to me. The two styles (live and online) are so different they may as well be two different games.
When I rule the World, I"ll be banning online poker ;D
-
I think a seat to the National is a great idea.
Ian, I"m starting to hate online poker as well, but we do have to accept that online is part of APAT, and they dont have to be 2 different areas, but also can be run as 2 different areas.
I like the idea, you could say that online players have an advantage as they get Sat entries which take away a few seats from the clickfest, should this be stopped to make it and even playing field? An online player might say you have more chance because he/she wont play live, but you can do all 3..
-
Ian, I"m starting to hate online poker as well, but we do have to accept that online is part of APAT, and they dont have to be 2 different areas, but also can be run as 2 different areas.
I do accept that online is part of APAT, I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is if APAT became more biased towards the online player, and I see an extra seat being available via the online nationals as just such a move.
I like the idea, you could say that online players have an advantage as they get Sat entries which take away a few seats from the clickfest, should this be stopped to make it and even playing field? An online player might say you have more chance because he/she wont play live, but you can do all 3..
....and those of us that don"t play online wont do all 3.
All I"m looking for is fairness here. Ok, those players that play online and live have the advantage, and I accept that.
Those of us that only play online or live have 2 methods of getting into the Nationals and that, IMHO, should remain static.
-
So long as the total seats available / total entrants ratio was the same for live and online I don"t see that you"d be disadvantaged.
-
Just my opinions. If the buy in increased along with the field, the tourney would get less prestigious in my view. People will just start buying in to the tourney as a standard $50 MTT and go for the prize pool. (I also have a smaller bankroll which would effect my level of buy in). People will play with no real concern of the field or structure they are up against
Can we not make these tournaments password protected so that it is specific for members?
I like the idea of an added value prize based on points for a league type say a a free seat into a National...
Lots of different ideas, but here are mine: -
24 tourneys per year (2 per month). 5,000 stack 12 min blinds. $25 buy in
Winner gets a free seat into a national event, 2nd - 9th gets a free regional seat at a live event. Top 20 get league points for table & winner of all on-line, get free seat into an overseas APAT (e.g the one in vienna?).
I personally dont need a reason to play the APAT as I like raising my game to play people who play proper poker (thats what im told people do at APAT ;)), But i think the on-line schedule is to much at the moment, needs to be toned down a little to have less on line, but more reason to play for everyone.
Medals still the same, think they are an excellent idea, but due to the ammount of tourneys on line they mean less for people (still looking forward to the bronze one coming through).
-
The reason why I started this thread was to try and find out why the online game as lost its popularity. And what can be dun to try and get people excited about the online side of the game. All I can see is online vs. live. There as got to be a balance of the two. Why should live get add money (GUKPT) and online get zero? Like I said earlier if you cut the games to mach the live game. Keep the GUKPT seat for the Nationals (£75 buy in) and have a seat for the Nationals for the online game (£20 buy in) every ones a winner Yes or No?
-
Yes I agree.
-
So long as the total seats available / total entrants ratio was the same for live and online I don"t see that you"d be disadvantaged.
As it stands now......
10% of field qualify per online qualifier - individuals can enter both qualifiers for each National.
10% of field qualify per live qualifier - individuals may only enter one live qualifier for each National.
Can we not make these tournaments password protected so that it is specific for members?
All BlueSquare users are regarded as members of APAT, and therefore no password is required.
If membership was to paid for, as in season 1, then I suspect the password situation would have to be revisited.
24 tourneys per year (2 per month). 5,000 stack 12 min blinds. $25 buy in
Winner gets a free seat into a national event, 2nd - 9th gets a free regional seat at a live event. Top 20 get league points for table & winner of all on-line, get free seat into an overseas APAT (e.g the one in vienna?).
This sounds, to me, like bias towards the online player again.
My suggestion might be to reduce the number of online nationals to the 24, quoted above, and have points given from 1st down to 18th, as in the live Nationals. Leave the online and live qualifiers as they are, and limit the number of events that points may be counted into the overall championship, for both live and online events, to 5 or 6 events - If you play live only, then your best 5 or 6 live events count. If you play online only, then your best 5 or 6 online events count. And if you play both, then your best 5 or 6 results, regardless of whether they are live or online, count.
Phew, I need to go lie down now. :D
-
......All I can see is online vs. live. There as got to be a balance of the two. Why should live get add money (GUKPT) and online get zero? Like I said earlier if you cut the games to mach the live game. Keep the GUKPT seat for the Nationals (£75 buy in) and have a seat for the Nationals for the online game (£20 buy in) every ones a winner Yes or No?
I agree Wayne.
Also, as Alan stated above, why should online players have to pay the juice when we live players at APAT events don"t ?
-
The reason why I started this thread was to try and find out why the online game as lost its popularity. And what can be dun to try and get people excited about the online side of the game. All I can see is online vs. live. There as got to be a balance of the two. Why should live get add money (GUKPT) and online get zero? Like I said earlier if you cut the games to mach the live game. Keep the GUKPT seat for the Nationals (£75 buy in) and have a seat for the Nationals for the online game (£20 buy in) every ones a winner Yes or No?
yep agree
-
As anybody got views about the points structure?
Ian, did you get an email about software?
-
I"ve only played 3 online games this season and I"ve found them a little bit disappointing. I looked forward to my first one after just joining APAT but I"m afraid I soon lost interest.
The standard is good and the software doesn"t seem to be the evil dog that some people think. The thing I don"t like is the lack of incentive to do well. The £5 buy in is ridiculously low if APAT want these tournaments to be classed with any kind of prestige. Also there are just too many of them. I won a bronze medal in my first one late last year. Who knows?? And to be fair who cares??
If there was just 1 every month then it would be worth the effort to cancel other things to try to win something that doesn"t come up too often. It might also be worth a mention in one of the poker magazines. With 50 per year I would only play them if I had nothing better to do. Very sorry to say this but it"s the truth :-[
I believe that to generate more interest in the online games they need to carry the same weight as the regional events. Why not have the online events the day after each regional or maybe the following Saturday. Make the buy ins, structures, points and prizes the same. National seat prizes would have to be looked at if numbers were high because of limited availability but if online gets restricted to 5 seats then restrict the regional too.
This would IMO be a much fairer way of doing things. It gives players who have difficulty getting to the regionals the chance to play an online game with exactly the same incentives.
It would maybe also get rid of the few donkeys who play the online games as a £5 mtt and encourage more of the players who actually care about the fact that it"s an APAT event with added incentive. I know APAT want to encourage new members but if a chunk of the prize pool is donated to seats in nationals then people are only going to play if they really want the seat.
Unfortunately I won"t be playing any more online games until things change (or unless I"ve got nothing else on. Sorry just being honest again :-[) I hope things change and I"m sure they will. Until then I will continue as an APAT member and will attend all the regionals and as many nationals as I can make.
Unless I get banished....... ;D ;D
-
I"ve only played 3 online games this season and I"ve found them a little bit disappointing. I looked forward to my first one after just joining APAT but I"m afraid I soon lost interest.
The standard is good and the software doesn"t seem to be the evil dog that some people think. The thing I don"t like is the lack of incentive to do well. The £5 buy in is ridiculously low if APAT want these tournaments to be classed with any kind of prestige. Also there are just too many of them. I won a bronze medal in my first one late last year. Who knows?? And to be fair who cares??
If there was just 1 every month then it would be worth the effort to cancel other things to try to win something that doesn"t come up too often. It might also be worth a mention in one of the poker magazines. With 50 per year I would only play them if I had nothing better to do. Very sorry to say this but it"s the truth :-[
I believe that to generate more interest in the online games they need to carry the same weight as the regional events. Why not have the online events the day after each regional or maybe the following Saturday. Make the buy ins, structures, points and prizes the same. National seat prizes would have to be looked at if numbers were high because of limited availability but if online gets restricted to 5 seats then restrict the regional too.
This would IMO be a much fairer way of doing things. It gives players who have difficulty getting to the regionals the chance to play an online game with exactly the same incentives.
It would maybe also get rid of the few donkeys who play the online games as a £5 mtt and encourage more of the players who actually care about the fact that it"s an APAT event with added incentive. I know APAT want to encourage new members but if a chunk of the prize pool is donated to seats in nationals then people are only going to play if they really want the seat.
Unfortunately I won"t be playing any more online games until things change (or unless I"ve got nothing else on. Sorry just being honest again :-[) I hope things change and I"m sure they will. Until then I will continue as an APAT member and will attend all the regionals and as many nationals as I can make.
Unless I get banished....... ;D ;D
Good feedback.
-
Now banish him!
I also feel that the appeal of the online events has been dimmed somewhat this season.
I think this is definitely related in some degree to the buy-in. A £5 tournament doesn"t make it the "event" it was previously. Obviously, APAT needs to consider members with different buy-in levels and bankroll sizes and there might not be a one-size fits all answer.
However, my suggestion would be something like:
Increase the buy-in to $20. This would mean that the prize money will be slightly more significant if you cash after 3-4 hours of play. It"d be twice as significant (obviously).
I"d also suggest that one of the tournaments each month could be a $50 or maybe $75 buy-in. This would be the one that would have satellites running for it (STTs, MTT sats, etc.), and these 12 events would end up being just that - events - in the same way as the live Nationals are events.
I actually think these will attract more new members, as the buzz surrounding them will make them "different" to the other MTTs around. The structure we have for the current $10 MTTs is good, but they don"t stand out as events because of the buy-in size. These monthly events would be "worth" winning, and not only for the prize money.
Not sure about the points and the other elements, but I think that"s a secondary issue at the moment.
Just my thoughts.
-
As anybody got views about the points structure?
I have posted something similar before and I think the points available should reflect buyin and field size.
The only reason i think this, though, is because the UK player rankings published in PP mag are calculated this way.
At the end of the year, few would have disagreed with the final rankings there, or would they? (Thew, De Wolfe and Ulliot at the top weren"t they?)
-
Are there honestly many people that just play live or online though? I agree with regards to bias about the points ratio live compared to online and visa versa but i dont agree that other insentives that could be added to the online games would be bias against live players, they do have the opportunity to play the online games, the same way players who prefer or play predominately online have the option to play live. Its all poker.
-
However, my suggestion would be something like:
Increase the buy-in to $20. This would mean that the prize money will be slightly more significant if you cash after 3-4 hours of play. It"d be twice as significant (obviously).
I"d also suggest that one of the tournaments each month could be a $50 or maybe $75 buy-in. This would be the one that would have satellites running for it (STTs, MTT sats, etc.), and these 12 events would end up being just that - events - in the same way as the live Nationals are events.
The problem I see with this is that with different buy ins people are always going to have gripes about why points for the overall championship carry different value for different comps. Understandably so as well IMO.
I like the idea of having one occasional bigger online "event" with added incentive so why not try making the online series exactly the same as the live series?
The week after every regional there"s an online comp with the same buy ins, structure etc. (structure based on hands per level). The week after every national there"s an online comp with the £75 buy in but with satellites to this one to allow for cheaper entry. From what I know about online poker this is the sort of buy in that would get new members who were true poker enthusiasts and likely to become interested in the live APAT games. It also gives players who miss out on the clickfest the chance to enter a tournament with the same points allocation for the championship.
The online regionals would carry added incentive of entry to the online national and the same with the live games. This keeps the 2 series separate but with the same structures and unites them by both carrying points for the overall championship.
I would assume that for most players it"s the overall championship that is the ultimate goal. Because of the value of the championship prize the points structure has to be kept fair. I just don"t think it"s right that currently you get 20 points for winning a £75 national over 2 days with travel expenses etc. and 10 points for a fiver and 4 hours on the sofa with your laptop!!
If £20 / £75 is considered too much for online then make it $20 / $75 instead (like Daniel said). The extra cash for the live events is offset by the GUKPT seat and trophy so this may be fairer anyway. The main thing is to keep the championship points and the quantity available to play in the same.
Also, as has previously been said in this thread cap the qualifying tournaments for the championship. Not sure how many but probably about half the number of live or online events so about 6.
Either separate them or unite them. Any thoughts??
-
Looks like I have started a proper debate, plenty for Des to work with :)
-
Excellent thread and a number of these ideas are already incorporated in the S3 plan.
-
I think most would agree that the buy in last year catered for those with smaller bankrolls but also had a big enough first prize to interest players with bigger bankrolls. Also i think more of the appeal last year was that you would end up on the same table and battle with players you"d met at nationals whereas this year there are more unknowns playing due to tournaments not being password protected
-
So that's the online game and point's structure, what are everyone's thoughts on the live side of the game?
He is my view, for what's its worth.
Regional
Best thing of season 2 but could be improved on. Buy in £20, max runners 50, 5000 chips 30-minute clock, more venues. Dealer dealt. Points not to be in the overall championship.
The cost is perfect for introducing first timers to the live game
Max of 50 runners would enable us to have more chips (more play) plus more venues (if poss.). Speaking for the northern region it would be good to have a venue in Leeds/Sheffield. Also Glasgow? I don't know about any other region but I am sure some one will comment on this. For the casinos to say "the market say's" they cannot justify putting on dealers is misty firing to me. Again speaking for Manchester, 80 people at the bar, only one serving. Playing on the tables before, during and after the game. Cash games. Need I say more?
Live
Should not be altered
200 max runners. Don't forget this is aimed at the amateur. We all work Fridays/Mondays so any more runners would make it impossible to finish in two days without changing the structure. Yes they is a possibility of having DTD for a bigger venue, but this could only be dun over a bank holiday weekend. Would you have 3 days of 400 runners (would you sell out on a bank holiday?) or two day one's?
Only my view
-
I think regionals in yorkshire (prob leeds or maybe huddersfield?) is a must, there seem to be quite a few members from leeds, bradford and its surrounding areas
-
One additional thing to remember, that nobody has factoring into this discussion so far. The APAT tour is the product that creates the sponsorship which enables all of these events to happen financially. It is not always possible to get absolutely everything we would want, but that will not stop us trying. Bottom line though, is that both members and sponsors have to be factored into our thinking.
-
So that's the online game and point's structure, what are everyone's thoughts on the live side of the game?
He is my view, for what's its worth.
Regional
Best thing of season 2 but could be improved on. Buy in £20, max runners 50, 5000 chips 30-minute clock, more venues. Dealer dealt. Points not to be in the overall championship.
The cost is perfect for introducing first timers to the live game
Max of 50 runners would enable us to have more chips (more play) plus more venues (if poss.). Speaking for the northern region it would be good to have a venue in Leeds/Sheffield. Also Glasgow? I don't know about any other region but I am sure some one will comment on this. For the casinos to say “the market say's” they cannot justify putting on dealers is misty firing to me. Again speaking for Manchester, 80 people at the bar, only one serving. Playing on the tables before, during and after the game. Cash games. Need I say more?
Live
Should not be altered
200 max runners. Don't forget this is aimed at the amateur. We all work Fridays/Mondays so any more runners would make it impossible to finish in two days without changing the structure. Yes they is a possibility of having DTD for a bigger venue, but this could only be dun over a bank holiday weekend. Would you have 3 days of 400 runners (would you sell out on a bank holiday?) or two day one's?
Only my view
Again I agree with most of what you say... with the exception of of holding a bigger tournament on a bank holiday. As a lot of people are finding with the coming Euro tournament travel and accomodation costs are at a premium on b/h weekends.
There were no shortage of people travelling to Dublin last year... I think if there is to be a large field, prestigious tournament and indeed next years foray into europe, it should be on a regular weekend in November or February when travel and accomodation will be at their cheapest.
I would imagine many of the married players find it much easier getting a couple of days off work rather than convincing their spouse that spending a b/h weekend away playing poker is a good idea! :-\
8)
-
I total agree with you Rio. I just said that because a lot of people keep saying they wont a bigger venue. IMO they should not be any games on a bank holiday.
-
Gonna keep this short and sweet.
Online.
Too many games in my opinion, and Saturday nights arent for sitting in front of the computer. Plus i really fell the rankings being updated would help. I have 27 points so far this season. Am i at the top, am i in with a chance of catchin the leaders or am i at the bottom of the pile. If i knew i was in with a chance i would be playing every online event to the best of my ability.
Regional.
Perfect.
National.
Perfect.
As for the bank holiday/travelling debate, i realise they were waiting for the confirmation from the venue but i dont think it matters which weekend it is, if your flying somewhere you need to know months as early as possible.
When the flights to vienna first went on sale they were £38 return including taxes.
Now the flights are £160 it makes no sense. You have to come top 3 to make a profit. I know lots of you will still go for the excting trip away, but i just cant see the value in it.
Instead of paying £300 to get to and play in vienna, ill use the £300 to bu into the deepstack at DTD on the 1st unless something comes up.
Same money leaves my pocket, same 2 day comp with slow blinds but i have a £13,500 1st prize to try and win!
-
The rankings are up to date to the 20th January
- although that does remind to do something Des has suggested
-
Thanks Jon
I hadnt noticed, apologies.
But it does prove my point! Seeing where i am on the rankings i really need to be playing every online event very seriously!
-
Thanks Jon
I hadnt noticed, apologies.
But it does prove my point! Seeing where i am on the rankings i really need to be playing every online event very seriously!
No worries.
What Des actually pointed out to me was that when you amend a post - like I do when I update the rankings - it doesn"t show up as a new post, so it was quite likely that some people won"t notice it.
The rankings at the top of the post show when it has been updated to, and the last amended date generally shows when that update was done.
And surely you play every event seriously, or do you sometimes deliberately lose?
-
Unfortunately not Jon! Maybe seriously isnt the right word.
More a case of the smaller the buy in/prizes the less i concentrate, and i get involved in pots i shouldnt.
-
Stu makes an exellent point. As much as Vienna would be nice I"d rather spend the additional money on prize entry than accomadation and flights.
-
guys what some people are experiancing with vienna is what faced me every national last year not enough notice therefore flights gone up in price
i would of loved to played all the live events this year but i would rather play events where i can make a profit with a FT apearance
apart from luton last year i dont think i took any event serious
this season with only 3 weeks from the click fest till the day of the event it wasnt worth me playing the nationals i could save £200 by booking in advance to EMA use that £200 and the £75 it costs to enter the comp and pay my way into the £300 comp with a chance of winning some real money
if we had more notice then it would make it more viable to play the nationals but the way the season is structured makes it impossible
-
guys what some people are experiancing with vienna is what faced me every national last year not enough notice therefore flights gone up in price
i would of loved to played all the live events this year but i would rather play events where i can make a profit with a FT apearance
apart from luton last year i dont think i took any event serious
this season with only 3 weeks from the click fest till the day of the event it wasnt worth me playing the nationals i could save £200 by booking in advance to EMA use that £200 and the £75 it costs to enter the comp and pay my way into the £300 comp with a chance of winning some real money
if we had more notice then it would make it more viable to play the nationals but the way the season is structured makes it impossible
Perhaps if you people had put up a better fight at Culloden all the Casino"s would be in Scotland. Only joking, but it"s not quite the same though is it as you at least knew where the National events were to be held from the beginning of the season. I do think 3-4 weeks notice is a decent enough period of time to make arrangements for the national events.
If you happen to be unfortunate enough to live in an area that"s miles from any of the proposed casino"s that"s just something you have to accept or as you say, save the money and play a higher buy-in tourney that allows you all the time in the world to make travel arrangements.
-
by giving 5-6 weeks notice for all events not just apat it can only help the players
cheaper travel, cheaper hotels, and time to book time off work
just a little bug bear of mine people thinking 3-4 weeks is enough notice IT ISNT UNLESS YOU LIVE SOMEWHERE CENTRAL
-
This post was set up to talk about how to improve the game especially online
I believe there is a post on Vienna in the National Championship section
-
One additional thing to remember, that nobody has factoring into this discussion so far. The APAT tour is the product that creates the sponsorship which enables all of these events to happen financially. It is not always possible to get absolutely everything we would want, but that will not stop us trying. Bottom line though, is that both members and sponsors have to be factored into our thinking.
I understand that it"s the APAT tour which generates sponsorship but isn"t the online series supposed to be a part of that tour? Please correct me if I"m wrong but I suspect I"m right. If it isn"t considered part of the tour (by the APAT team themselves) then scrap it. If it is then make it a serious part of the tour.
If the online tournaments were the same value and prestige as the regionals / nationals do you think that maybe it might result in more sponsorship from BlSq / Grosvenor?
I suspect that with the increased buy in you would get more players entering this tournament and not just the current APAT players. It would create a buzz amongst players every time the big event was coming round and I suspect could potentially become one of the biggest tournaments on the BlSq site. Whos knows, they might even start advertising it!!
This would result in more players becoming interested in APAT and hopefully wanting to play on the tour. This makes the tour bigger and hence the sponsors are happy. Everyone"s a winner. (Unless it all goes horribly wrong ;D ;D)
I know that APAT is an amateur association but that doesn"t mean that it has to be cheap. I think that it has been seriously undervalued online this season and needs to do some real work to become a tour that is well recognised amongst poker players (in the same way as the live tour is)
-
The APAT tour embodies all of our events and what you view as cheap, may be expensive to others. The online series games were $20 + $2 in season one for one game every two weeks. In Season Two we retained the same level of buy per every two weeks, but we effectively now run two games during that period. The focus in developing S2 was live; where a great deal of development has taken place, while keeping the online series relatively risk free.
For Season Three the online proposition will gain a greater focus and offer Championship events at a higher level of buy in, while retaining an entry level offering also. I believe those who are unhappy with the current online series schedule will be very pleased when we roll out Season Three. However, we are not willing to alienate beginners in doing this. Bottom line is the range of online events will be wider and much more prestigious, while I expect the overall number of events to drop.
I would welcome further feedback on the rankings and points allocation. I"m still of the opinion that winning an APAT two day live event - from a cost, physical and overall skill point of view - is a far greater achievement than winning our most prestigious online event (whatever that might become).
-
........I"m still of the opinion that winning an APAT two day live event - from a cost, physical and overall skill point of view - is a far greater achievement than winning our most prestigious online event (whatever that might become).
Absolutely.
The number of live events that count to your end of season points total is capped, maybe a similar scenario for the online games should be introduced - without knowing the ideas for season 3, in depth, it"s a little difficult to come up with a structured proposal.
Maybe a two tiered system, as we effectively have with the current National and Regional live events - a low cost online game for which points are offered to the top 9 finishers, plus an automatic entry into a higher cost online game where points are offered down to 18th ? This does go against the idea that the live National carries more prestige (and quite rightly), but it is just an idea.
Or maybe points for the top 4 finishers in the lower cost online event, and top 9 in the higher cost online event. And then cap the number that can count towards the championship to double that of the live events.
I"ll stop rambling now.....
-
Yeah Evilpie, just because you have enough euros for a bottle of shamen juice doesnt mean everyone does! ;D
-
I see your point about the points for the 2 day game and although I have in the past said that they should be the same, but on reflection you are probably right. I don't think that the regional games should not be included in the overall rankings as I have previously said.
-
The APAT tour embodies all of our events and what you view as cheap, may be expensive to others. The online series games were $20 + $2 in season one for one game every two weeks. In Season Two we retained the same level of buy per every two weeks, but we effectively now run two games during that period. The focus in developing S2 was live; where a great deal of development has taken place, while keeping the online series relatively risk free.
For Season Three the online proposition will gain a greater focus and offer Championship events at a higher level of buy in, while retaining an entry level offering also. I believe those who are unhappy with the current online series schedule will be very pleased when we roll out Season Three. However, we are not willing to alienate beginners in doing this. Bottom line is the range of online events will be wider and much more prestigious, while I expect the overall number of events to drop.
I would welcome further feedback on the rankings and points allocation. I"m still of the opinion that winning an APAT two day live event - from a cost, physical and overall skill point of view - is a far greater achievement than winning our most prestigious online event (whatever that might become).
Apologies for using the word cheap. That was maybe a bit harsh. I hope this didn"t make me seem like a high roller who thinks low buy ins are beneath them. I"ve never played anything higher than the P Stars Sunday million and this is only very very rare. If there was an occasional APAT high buy in event I would save up my online bankroll to enter an event not only with a big prize but also with some prestige (unlike the Sunday million). It"s just nice to have something like this to look forward to and also to talk about on the forum etc.
I certainly wouldn"t want anyone alienated because events were too expensive (especially beginners as I"m still very much one myself). Unfortunately a low cost event also alienates another set of players. Maybe a set of satellites or something to enter the bigger event is the way forward.
It sounds like there will be many changes to the online series and I"m looking forward to seeing what they are. Good luck to the APAT team trying to keep everyone happy. Unfortunately this is impossible because no matter what you come up with someone"s going to have a moan. I"m just glad I only have to bang on about it on here and not actually make the final decision.
I agree that the live events are always going to be superior to the online events (as they should be). It would just be nice to have then as close as possible in order that the rankings are kept fair.
On to that subject a bit later.......
-
Instead of having a champion at the end of the season with the highest points. Have a grand final of the top 10 points finishers as a finally to the end of season. This could be televised (if Des could arrange it). This would prolong the season for most people, as you only need to finish in the top 10. It would keep people interested to the last game plus it would give the online game more purpose.
If it could be televised, maybe BSQ could sponsor it separately?
-
Instead of having a champion at the end of the season with the highest points. Have a grand final of the top 10 points finishers as a finally to the end of season. This could be televised (if Des could arrange it). This would prolong the season for most people, as you only need to finish in the top 10. It would keep people interested to the last game plus it would give the online game more purpose.
If it could be televised, maybe BSQ could sponsor it separately?
Best idea I"ve heard. Big thumbs up to this plan. It would be a great way to keep people interested right up to the last event of the season (prior to this one).
Would maybe be an idea to have additional chips allocated on a points won basis as well just to make sure that the points leader got a little extra.
-
Instead of having a champion at the end of the season with the highest points. Have a grand final of the top 10 points finishers as a finally to the end of season. This could be televised (if Des could arrange it). This would prolong the season for most people, as you only need to finish in the top 10. It would keep people interested to the last game plus it would give the online game more purpose.
If it could be televised, maybe BSQ could sponsor it separately?
Great idea Wayne.
Televising it might be a little out of APATs budget though, Daniel was throwing some figures at me last week which were waaaayyyyyy steep. But how about we buy some small web cam cameras to view hole cards and get tikay and Des to add the commentary "post production", as it were. We could then sell the finished product to the highest bidder :o
BTW, did you get my PM re your software question ?
Ian
-
Televising it might be a little out of APATs budget though, Daniel was throwing some figures at me last week which were waaaayyyyyy steep. But how about we buy some small web cam cameras to view hole cards and get tikay and Des to add the commentary "post production", as it were. We could then sell the finished product to the highest bidder :o
DTD have got a proper televised table with hole card viewer that I"m sure they"d let us borrow.
Having seen Tikay there on several occasions with his roll of 50"s he must"ve raked enough by now to be able to get it on his greenshield stamps ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes Ian, PM you soon
-
Online tournament feedback:
I have played 4 or 5 online games and have found them to be enjoyable, the slow structure suits my game. I think there is room to speed the structure up slightly as APAT have done already.
The $10 buyin is fine, but perhaps there should be a range of buyins to suit a range of bankrolls.
I have missed many games due to the start time. 8pm is bedtime for little ones and I am forced to make a choice between poker and family.
The number of tournaments. I never know when they are on. I guess thats my fault for not being organised. Some Thursdays they are on and some they are not. Thursday isnt a great day for me. Saturday night often doesnt suit for a 4 - 5 hour tourney.
One thought...Would it be possible to make the online tournament a guaranteed payout also available to non members who could become members during the registration process. It seems to me that the online event attracts the same 180 players every time and no new players. Perhaps there are easier $10 tournaments to win out there than an APAT $10 tournament which is full of serious poker players, there must be added incentive.
-
I think the added incentive are the quality medals
Still not got my silver tho :(