Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Online Poker => Topic started by: sharky_uk on May 29, 2007, 18:29:46 PM
-
The current buyin amount for Online Series events is $20 + $2.
In another thread the idea of reducing the buyin to $5 was mentioned. If I win a tournament with over 150 entrants that takes almost 5 hours to complete I want a decent financial reward not just £100. If the buyin was reduced to $5 I would not play these events.
Personally I would like to see the buyin increased to about $50. Perhaps $5 and $10 satellites could be set up leading to the main event for players who do not want to buy in directly.
I would be interested to hear your views on the correct buyin amount for these games.
-
I would agree that $5 is too low but i think that if it was raised to $50 it would result in fewer entries ,ultimately ending in less prize money.I would consider a raise in the entry fee if it meant more money places being paid.
-
In another thread I suggested the idea of keeping the $20 tournaments on a weekly basis, but every 4th week (for argument"s sake) have a $50 buy-in tourney that obviously has a bigger prize pool, but also is worth more points on the leaderboard.
It might also be an idea to have two tiers of events, to suit different bankrolls - or even maybe three? $5 events would be brilliant for beginners or those who don"t want to spend any more on their poker.
-
$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)
we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins
-
$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)
we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins
I also think that $20 (+$2) is the right level for the target audience - Amateurs.
-
In another thread I suggested the idea of keeping the $20 tournaments on a weekly basis, but every 4th week (for argument"s sake) have a $50 buy-in tourney that obviously has a bigger prize pool, but also is worth more points on the leaderboard.
That"s not a bad idea.
-
$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)
we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins
I also think that $20 (+$2) is the right level for the target audience - Amateurs.
Its already been seconded - so "thirded"
-
$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)
we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins
I also think that $20 (+$2) is the right level for the target audience - Amateurs.
I agree the current buy-in amount is just right.
-
I have to agree with you guys...$5 is much too low. I like the idea of a $20 + $2 & once a month maybe raising it to $50. GOOD THOUGHTS GUYS! 8)
-
$20 is fine for most players.
Obviously the players with bigger rollz would like to stake more (like myself) however catering for the masses is a must. Therefore $20 seems bang on the mark.
I do like the idea of a $50 monthly game. Hey maybe even a $100 one!!
-
I think the idea of a higher buy-in game monthly is a bad idea. Bear in mind that everyone is playing for leaderboard points, not just hard cash. So to have a game that excludes those who cannot afford a bigger buy-in means that the playing field is no longer level, as they would not be able to play for the points in that game. I"m sure this is not what APAT would want. $20 is a good number, most players can afford it, and the prizes are tasty enough when you get to the business end.
The idea of having different levels for different bankrolls is a nice concept, but it"s just overcomplicating things. The current setup seems to be working just fine IMO.
-
I"m not wholly against the idea of scoring points off of a monthly $50 (or even $100, but definitely no more) tournament.
But if this was considered a problem then APAT could always run these monthly tournaments for APAT members only - but as non-championship, non-scoring events.
-
The main reason I joined APAT was because the buy-ins are so reasonable. You have to consider something like this...I am not old, but a few years ago, I had a serious accident which prevents me from working. I basically live off of SOCIAL SECURITY which isn"t much. I play poker online to supplement my income. By raising the buy-ins to $100 would mean I couldn"t play. And I"m not the only one in this situation. I"ve organized tournies on other sites & alot of people had trouble playing with just a $5 or $10 buy-in. Please don"t take the attitude that, "Well, they shouldn"t be playing then." To some, it"s the only life they have.
GAIGAN
-
No reason why a monthly $50 event couldn"t be completely separate from the main APAT series.
It could be the FA Cup to the Premiership league.
-
No reason why a monthly $50 event couldn"t be completely separate from the main APAT series.
It could be the FA Cup to the Premiership league.
A knock out cup?
Sounds like a Heads Up Shootout tournament?
-
No reason why a monthly $50 event couldn"t be completely separate from the main APAT series.
It could be the FA Cup to the Premiership league.
A knock out cup?
Sounds like a Heads Up Shootout tournament?
Not actually a knockout (I guess it was a bad analogy). Just a different thing to the main APAT points league.
Or maybe not part of any league at all - just standalone events?
-
So after the 1st online event does anybody think that the buyin amount of $10+$1 is correct? I didn"t actually play in this event as I realised that with such a good structure it would be a 6 hour marathon and it could well be a case of playing for 5+ hours with little financial reward even if I managed to cash. Personally I think that the correct buyin amount should be decided by the members via a poll (Can somebody enable Polls??)
So what is the correct buyin for the 5000 chip, 15 minute clock online APAT events?
A) $10+$1
B) $20+$2
C) $25+$2.50
D) $30+$3
E) $40+$4
F) $50+$5
Looking at the previous comments in this thread I suspect that $20+2 will be the winner.....
-
Sharky,
I played on Thursday. Cashed 12th and made $12 profit for my 5 hours play. Frustrating, but I was more interested in the ranking points than the money.
With twice as many online events than season one, the decision was taken to half the buy-in to keep everyones monthly outgoing the same.
I agree with you that for that length of play ( The final table started at 1am and the heads-up finished at around 2:20am) the payout doesn"t seem to be value, but the online events are about more than just the cash, otherwise you would just play any $10+$1 tournament on the web that offered a reasonable starting stack.
I have read the discussions on other threads that questions the starting stack, not sure what the answer is, but I guess we will see what peoples views are on Saturday night and more interestingly for the next Thursday event. If we get significantly less runners from the 239 for last Thursday, then I guess the people will have spoken.
Watch this space...........
Leigh
-
With twice as many online events than season one, the decision was taken to half the buy-in to keep everyones monthly outgoing the same.
Since the Thu night tournament was introduced to appease those who complained that Sat night was not good for them, then halving the buy-in hasn"t reduced their outgoings... since they weren"t playing Sat anyway.
No one has to play both Thu and Sat.
The frustrating thing is that this thread existed, showing overwhelming support for keeping the buy-in at $20 and yet it was still reduced.
And before anyone says that the number of entries on Thu night suggests that everyone is happy... I believe the increased numbers is simply down to the fact that there was no password or requirement to pre-join APAT.
-
If it goes back up to $20 can it be retrospective to include the austrian open???
;) ;D
-
With twice as many online events than season one, the decision was taken to half the buy-in to keep everyones monthly outgoing the same.
Since the Thu night tournament was introduced to appease those who complained that Sat night was not good for them, then halving the buy-in hasn"t reduced their outgoings... since they weren"t playing Sat anyway.
No one has to play both Thu and Sat.
The frustrating thing is that this thread existed, showing overwhelming support for keeping the buy-in at $20 and yet it was still reduced.
And before anyone says that the number of entries on Thu night suggests that everyone is happy... I believe the increased numbers is simply down to the fact that there was no password or requirement to pre-join APAT.
We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so. That, coming on top of the costs associated with participation in the new Regional series and the additional Championship events.
This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate. APAT is almost certainly more about the community and drive for ranking points and medals, than the actual financial return available for winning our online events. Certainly there are far bigger guaranteed prize pools available elsewhere at either the $11 or $22 entry level.
-
We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.
So the way to get things done/changed is to send an email?? What is the point of having this forum and inviting opinions if you just ignore those who post here, but change things to suit "anumber of players" who sent "a number of emails"? Why couldn"t these people voice their opinion on the forum?
BTW, I didn"t even get a reply to the question I asked by email!!
Just because your paranoid... doesn"t mean there"s no one after you!!
-
This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate.
So if 99% of the members prefer a $20+$2 entry but 1% prefer a $10+$1 entry you will go with the 1% so as not to exclude members?
-
We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.
So the way to get things done/changed is to send an email?? What is the point of having this forum and inviting opinions if you just ignore those who post here, but change things to suit "anumber of players" who sent "a number of emails"? Why couldn"t these people voice their opinion on the forum?
BTW, I didn"t even get a reply to the question I asked by email!!
Just because your paranoid... doesn"t mean there"s no one after you!!
A relatively small number of APAT members post on the forum. You will find that not all of those that do, would want it known that they do not have a bankroll to support an increase in the level of buyin required over Season One. What question did you ask by email?
-
This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate.
So if 99% of the members prefer a $20+$2 entry but 1% prefer a $10+$1 entry you will go with the 1% so as not to exclude members?
I think if we put a vote to the membership on this topic, we would get a completely inconclusive response. For example, a result of 20 for an increase in entry fee and 1 against would be be a tiny response level from the membership.
APAT also has a responsibility to our members who do not use the forum and keeping the barriers to taking part low is part of that responsibility.
-
This is delicate, but I think it is important that we do not exclude members from being able to participate.
So if 99% of the members prefer a $20+$2 entry but 1% prefer a $10+$1 entry you will go with the 1% so as not to exclude members?
I think if we put a vote to the membership on this topic, we would get a completely inconclusive response. For example, a result of 20 for an increase in entry fee and 1 against would be be a tiny response level from the membership.
APAT also has a responsibility to our members who do not use the forum and keeping the barriers to taking part low is part of that responsibility.
So because the vast majority are apathetic we should ignore the majority of those who have a view? The silent majority must be in support of the vocal minority??
-
I think the events should be password protected to prevent "anyone" playing and then have a look at the numbers. I suggest a poll of members views via an email to everyone registered after a couple of the password protected events is a fairer way to go. If the numbers increase or decrease after the poll and subsequent change to the buy-in fee then it will give a fairer indication of what members want.
In a way I agree that the buy-in should not deter people from being able to participate as surely APAT is more than "getting a return" for your 6 hours play. If that was the case we would all be playing the Guaranteed tournaments or the Sunday millions!
8)
-
There is an incredible amount to do as we approach our first anniversary and through this forum, APAT now invites members to participate in the direction that the Association will take going forward.
.......
We look forward to working closely with members going forward.
-
I think if we put a vote to the membership on this topic, we would get a completely inconclusive response. For example, a result of 20 for an increase in entry fee and 1 against would be be a tiny response level from the membership.
But surely the results would be useful and may even be representative of the membership as a whole if you were to get a reasonable level of response. If you don"t try you will never know! Also a poll could be anonymous.
To ensure that we don"t exclude members maybe all online events should be freerolls!
I vote for a poll with the options I stated in the above post plus the freeroll option.
-
I am going to speculate that your wish for an increased buy in online might be to primarily achieve one of the following:
a) a larger prize pool
b) a better quality field
c) a smaller field / shorter tournament
As a player, those are all very justifiable reasons for wanting a larger buy in. If I was playing in these events, I would want an increased buy in also.
However, the APAT management have to take a wider view to some of these decisions. We have additional variables to consider, including but not limited to ensuring that we do not price out existing members - many of whom are less vocal, and I think labelling them apathetic is unfair - and that we have as few barriers as possible in our overall objective of bringing new players into online and then live poker.
Strength in numbers will deliver the ever increasing value that we want to see in the live series and will be our best opportunity as a body to deliver the sort of change necessary in the live environment.
-
We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.
So the way to get things done/changed is to send an email?? What is the point of having this forum and inviting opinions if you just ignore those who post here, but change things to suit "anumber of players" who sent "a number of emails"? Why couldn"t these people voice their opinion on the forum?
BTW, I didn"t even get a reply to the question I asked by email!!
Just because your paranoid... doesn"t mean there"s no one after you!!
A relatively small number of APAT members post on the forum. You will find that not all of those that do, would want it known that they do not have a bankroll to support an increase in the level of buyin required over Season One. What question did you ask by email?
Email sent to customer @apat.com on 05/10/07...
Des
Ref. Your statement "the 4 Regional Managers will also sit on the Poker Association members comittee, when it is formed shortly." Copied from the forum announcement.
The advert for these posts stated that the RMs would sit on the "board of the poker association", there was no mention of the members committee.
Will these 4 people constitute the committee or will there be more members on it?
If there are more members to be added, how will they be appointed? Will memebers be invited to apply?
Regards,
Alan
-
To ensure that we don"t exclude members maybe all online events should be freerolls!
OMG - Lets just give everybody 100 chips with 1 minute blinds and then we can all have a chance of a medal. ;D
The last thing we want is a freeroll otherwise I will have to find a wifi point on the way to work the next morning !
Either that or it will be allin, allin, allin, allin............who cares its a freeroll......
;)
-
We received a number of emails on this subject and a number of players would like the opportunity to participate in every event, but did not necessarily want to be spending $44 in tournament weeks to do so.
So the way to get things done/changed is to send an email?? What is the point of having this forum and inviting opinions if you just ignore those who post here, but change things to suit "anumber of players" who sent "a number of emails"? Why couldn"t these people voice their opinion on the forum?
BTW, I didn"t even get a reply to the question I asked by email!!
Just because your paranoid... doesn"t mean there"s no one after you!!
A relatively small number of APAT members post on the forum. You will find that not all of those that do, would want it known that they do not have a bankroll to support an increase in the level of buyin required over Season One. What question did you ask by email?
Email sent to customer @apat.com on 05/10/07...
Des
Ref. Your statement "the 4 Regional Managers will also sit on the Poker Association members comittee, when it is formed shortly." Copied from the forum announcement.
The advert for these posts stated that the RMs would sit on the "board of the poker association", there was no mention of the members committee.
Will these 4 people constitute the committee or will there be more members on it?
If there are more members to be added, how will they be appointed? Will memebers be invited to apply?
Regards,
Alan
Response moved to the appropriate forum:-
http://www.apat.com/forum/index.php?topic=514.msg8116#msg8116
-
Time to put my two penneth in. Straight away let me say I side with the view that APAT have got it right in reducing the buy in to 10 bucks due to the doubling of the amount of tournements.
The forum is largely made up of the more vocal members of the association, indeed out of my own home game, 5 of us are APAT members and only 2 of us have played in the live APAT events and I am the only one that EVER participates in the forum.
The bankroll of our home game ranges from one non apat professional with tens of thousands in the roll, WSOP final table appearances and various European titles down to one whose maximum entry fee he pays online is 5 bucks.
The APAT events has given one his only ever live experience and 2 others there introduction to poker away from our home game by participating this week in the first online event of season 2.
10 dollars is in the reach of most members whatever their bankroll. Two 20 dollar tournements in one week can put some members with little disposable income at a tough decision whether to play 2 one or indeed not bother with APAT events at all. Their voices are very often not heard within the forum
More members probably play at the 5 dollar 3 dollar etc tourney level and 10c/20c cash than any other level using sound bankroll management.
I happily admit to playing very low level stakes both cash and tourney. Yes I have played the sunday million etcbut only if I have satellited in. I am fully aware that an awful lot of APAT members play at a much lower level than they would like to admit. My own experiences of running in to them in low level poker stars tourneys and tralling the pokerdb.com bears witness to this
10 dollars entry keeps the tournements within the reach of most players and i applaud the splitting into weekday and weekend tournements as this opens up the tourneys to players that work weekends (or have a drink or ten on a saturday afternoon!! hic!!)
Remember you do not HAVE to play EVERY tournement.
Lets keep APAT within the reach of all amateur players and not let it become elitist or clicky.
(Gets of High Horse)
-
Well said Duncan.
Everyone who voices their opinion is entitled to do so (and we should be grateful for that). However if we look at some of the opinons we find that they are bais toward that individuals desires (as one might expect).
The most important thing, and hence the reason I applaude your post, is to consider the vision and mission of APAT.
-
Hi everyone
I"m new to APAT and like the aims very much as it gives us players a good avenue to participate in both on line and live tournaments. I had the honour of participating in the 2nd Walsall qualifier and was pleased to finish chip leader overall. I for one, agree that 10$ twice in a week is a good level, it sounds to me that the structure may need tweaking if the consensus is that 6 hours plus is too long ??
(finished 40th in the Austrian, Swiss will be given a miss as I can see a few mistakes being made while the rugby is on), had a good 7th in an Ultimatebet tourney last night, good site if anyone not been there
See you in Walsall
doctor love
-
10 dollar buy in,s encourage more loose play.I know points are at stake ,but for yopur new apat member it is basically ,just a crap shoot.Sorry a 10 dolar get them in and hope for the best.(like my normal game plan)
-
10 dollar buy in,s encourage more loose play.I know points are at stake ,but for yopur new apat member it is basically ,just a crap shoot.Sorry a 10 dolar get them in and hope for the best.(like my normal game plan)
Hope that comment isn"t aimed at any one in particular?? ::)
Sorry about the call with 67!! You"ll be pleased to know that my downfall was brought about by someone equally as bad as me. ;D
-
not quite as bad as you rio, i was in the bb
-
not quite as bad as you rio, i was in the bb
I was actually referring to a couple of hands earlier, where I lost about 16k chips, not the hand I went out on... although, since you mention it, Q8o is a pretty loose call, out of position! ;)
-
oh ok sorry. yes Q8o was a loose call but you had been playing very loose. if it was someone else i would have probably folded
-
Time to put my two penneth in. Straight away let me say I side with the view that APAT have got it right in reducing the buy in to 10 bucks due to the doubling of the amount of tournements.
The forum is largely made up of the more vocal members of the association, indeed out of my own home game, 5 of us are APAT members and only 2 of us have played in the live APAT events and I am the only one that EVER participates in the forum.
The bankroll of our home game ranges from one non apat professional with tens of thousands in the roll, WSOP final table appearances and various European titles down to one whose maximum entry fee he pays online is 5 bucks.
The APAT events has given one his only ever live experience and 2 others there introduction to poker away from our home game by participating this week in the first online event of season 2.
10 dollars is in the reach of most members whatever their bankroll. Two 20 dollar tournements in one week can put some members with little disposable income at a tough decision whether to play 2 one or indeed not bother with APAT events at all. Their voices are very often not heard within the forum
More members probably play at the 5 dollar 3 dollar etc tourney level and 10c/20c cash than any other level using sound bankroll management.
I happily admit to playing very low level stakes both cash and tourney. Yes I have played the sunday million etcbut only if I have satellited in. I am fully aware that an awful lot of APAT members play at a much lower level than they would like to admit. My own experiences of running in to them in low level poker stars tourneys and tralling the pokerdb.com bears witness to this
10 dollars entry keeps the tournements within the reach of most players and i applaud the splitting into weekday and weekend tournements as this opens up the tourneys to players that work weekends (or have a drink or ten on a saturday afternoon!! hic!!)
Remember you do not HAVE to play EVERY tournement.
Lets keep APAT within the reach of all amateur players and not let it become elitist or clicky.
(Gets of High Horse)
Well said. :)
-
Two $10 Online APAT Tournaments every second Thursday and Saturday suit me just fine. As does one £20 live and (if needed) two $20 Online APAT Regional Qualifiers every month (£60 in APAT Events per month). If you added one higher stakes unaffordable-to-some event ($50/£25+) to the APAT Schedule every month, I"d be tempted to play in that one too if I was having a good month. I don"t agree that more Leadboard points should be awarded for this tourney though.
Like the majority of APATers I"m lead to believe, I"m a low stakes player who enjoys competing for the APAT Ranking Points and the Medals - as APAT intend. I use two monthly £50 home games and online games to make money.
The only change that I would like to suggest is to set a password to each Online event - a password which will only be published in PokerPlayer magazine and in an area available to registered Users on the Forum. This will hopefully result in members supporting our magazine sponsor and visiting the forums regularly.
6hrs for an online game with 160-240 players - tough going. Down to 3,500 chips or introducing Antes after second break would be good. After the amount of folding I did last night, I"d be Ante"d out never mind Blinded out!
-
10 dollar buy in,s encourage more loose play.I know points are at stake ,but for yopur new apat member it is basically ,just a crap shoot.Sorry a 10 dolar get them in and hope for the best.(like my normal game plan)
First time I have heard a 5000 chip 15 minute online tourney called a crapshoot!!!
Yes plenty of loose players early doors but you have loads of chips to make your moves on them or recover from being sucked out on
-
The polling facility on the forum is not enabled so I created a poll here (http://www.opinionpower.com/Surveys/783050789.html).
Results so far here (http://www.opinionpower.com/results.cgi?id=783050789)
-
The polling facility on the forum is not enabled so I created a poll here (http://www.opinionpower.com/Surveys/783050789.html).
Results so far here (http://www.opinionpower.com/results.cgi?id=783050789)
It will be interesting to see the results, although I do think that the bigger issue here is the starting stack rather than buy-in, but lets see what the people say.
Leigh
-
Anything to stop people voting more than once on your poll Sharky?
-
Well it didn"t let me when I tried. :D
-
With this vote there is no mention of how it is couples with the amount of times that we play the online events.
$20 twice a month on a saturday was fine by me, but to play $20 and still keep the amount of occasions we play would stop me from participating. I know you dont have to play in evey event, but it has to be affordable to play in every event, and then members have the choice.
-
I agree the flyingpig
-
As of a day and a half into the vote there are 43 votes cast - with the most votes for any one option being 29.
To put it another way that is considerably less than 2% of the registered members of the forum.
I"m sure you don"t need for me to get too technical with any statistics to know that basing a decision on the wishes of less than a fiftieth of the membership would not be entirely representative.
Pretty much reinforces the judgment that forum polls would not be a particularly helpful way of deciding policy.
-
10 dollar buy in,s encourage more loose play.I know points are at stake ,but for yopur new apat member it is basically ,just a crap shoot.Sorry a 10 dolar get them in and hope for the best.(like my normal game plan)
First time I have heard a 5000 chip 15 minute online tourney called a crapshoot!!!
Yes plenty of loose players early doors but you have loads of chips to make your moves on them or recover from being sucked out on
Reiterating the point I made elsewhere - we can"t tell much so early in the season.
But I distinctly remember some very loose, fishy play with the first seasons $20 buy in tournaments.
And I"m pretty sure they weren"t even all down to Kinboshi either
-
10 dollar buy in,s encourage more loose play.I know points are at stake ,but for yopur new apat member it is basically ,just a crap shoot.Sorry a 10 dolar get them in and hope for the best.(like my normal game plan)
First time I have heard a 5000 chip 15 minute online tourney called a crapshoot!!!
Yes plenty of loose players early doors but you have loads of chips to make your moves on them or recover from being sucked out on
Reiterating the point I made elsewhere - we can"t tell much so early in the season.
But I distinctly remember some very loose, fishy play with the first seasons $20 buy in tournaments.
And I"m pretty sure they weren"t even all down to Kinboshi either
Nope, many were down to you.
But anyway, back on track. There are arguments for both keeping it at $10 and for increasing it to $20. I happened to cash in the Thursday one (was at the blonde bash for the Saturday one, so I missed that unfortunately), and playing for 5 hours to win $12 or whatever it was certainly isn"t any motivation for me.
Tournaments are about variance, about the chance to win big from a relatively small buy-in. However, if the money means nothing, then the play will reflect this. I was only interested in the prize money that the top spot offered, other than that it was the points I was playing for.
It"s interesting that the satellites are $20 buy-ins, but the ranking events are $10. I would have thought it"d be the other way round. Maybe double the number of sats, half the price for each one, and spread the seat allocation across the increased number of sats.
As for the ranking events, why not one $10 and one $20? That would suit everyone, possibly? Both with the same ranking points, but one having a larger prize pool.
Just an idea.
The idea of one $50 ranking (or non-ranking if it had to be) online event a month would be a good one. It could even be a $100 with 18 ranking points on offer? The 6 hours of playing and good structure would be much appreciated by all in this sort of event.
Not for this season, but maybe food for thought for the future?
-
Flew through this post and hardly read a thing because the posts are large and i don"t have that much time, but this is what i think;
$11 is fine but $22 and once a week would be better.
one $44/$50 tourney a month would be great.
thursday nights are fine, if you want the points you"ve got to earn them, ive stayed up playing poker much later than the apat events finish and got up for work at 6 in the morning, rough day but worth it.
saturday nights are bad, late afternoon on a sunday would be better, say 6pm. especially if it was a larger buyin once a month a nice sunday dinner then a cracking game of poker, is there much better? but if so i"d like a 20/30 minute clock.
why not have a poll?
Another thing, completely random and irrelevant but, where you can click smileys and cards when posting, why is there 1 of every card and 2 ad1 ad
-
Totally agree with you Phil!
Saturday night is not good for an online tourney.
What excuse can I give the other half for missing her Saturday night out? :-\
-
I also like the idea of a monthly deep-stack tournament but $50-$100 is outside of my bankroll. Could I suggest that it is held on the last Sunday of each month with $10 satellites on the preceding Sundays?