Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Online Poker => Topic started by: EvelcyclopS on November 08, 2007, 20:46:37 PM
-
Iv played a few APAt"s last year on stars, and i very much enjoyed the quality tournament.
This year, i dont know what has happened, perhaos the lower buy in, or lack of a membership fee, has prompteda decline in the quality of these games.
I dont want to start ripping on the standards of the people playing, but i just think theres a world of difference between the tight agressive players of last year, with the ridiculosuly fishy standards i see now. its not something short of what i"d expect down at my local bingo hall
I dont reallyhave much to do with this forum,so i dont know if what i"m saying here hasbindun, but i thought i"d just add my 2 cents.
i dont want to be lambasted for this post, i really appreciate what des (dunno if its still him) does, and what he"s set out to do, but for me, it is on the wrong side of amateur. I am proud of my scottish open win, but i"d be less proud if i won one of these events...
-
I think a lot of the play has improved. People are mixing their game up a lot more - and moving away from ABC poker.
Of course, there are still some poorer players, some who are probably new to poker. But surely you want to welcome these people to the game, pull them up a chair, and pillage their chips?
-
Nothing to do with you being out 184th then!! :)
-
Agree that players seem to be mixing up their game. With deepstacks as well people seem willing to call hoping to hit that miracle hand.
-
deepstack poker give people the opportunity to play in a range they wouldnt normally. frustating it can be. But as long as you are statistically giving people the right odds to pay to see miracle cards you"ll get a positive return :-)
-
I"m still crap though.
;D
-
Didn"t see you name on the player list tonight Dan?
-
To be honest, ive played 3 this year now, and theres so many on a table at once it becomes so displeasurable. i may just be on a bad run of cards, but it seems every fall of card goes the wrong way.
i really dont think the play has improved, calling a rereraise for most of your stack on a flush draw with no other outs for example, is not mixing it up, but suicide. By rights yes, your right, this wont normally happen, and in a cash game, it would be no problem, as you rebuy, and wait for the 3 out of 4 times he"ll lose. only its a freezout, and the guy that has just played the worst poker, as just crippled you, and theres another APAt gamethats goneby the starboard side. I know you"ll just say, well thats poker, and i agree, but its a shame that where there used to be a really decent tournament you could rely on for an ejoyable game, has turned into yet another MTT like the rest of $10 games online. Thats my point really.
My first post was written when i was still inthe tournament, and had been considering making a similar post last week. And in answer to your question janc, yes of course it is because i went out in 184th, pretty ridiculous question really, allthough i would stil have the same opinion had i finished first and met the same players.
-
Didn"t see you name on the player list tonight Dan?
Yep - still playing. Just...
-
Sorry to say i have now played in 3 tournaments on the new blue square site and after last years enjoyable matches, i have decided to withdraw from the remaining on line games due to the constant poor connection found. After trying numerous different things to try and keep the play running smoothly the fun has gone out of it now and you end up playing stupid hands and losing.
Bad beats always happen and you learn to live with them but when you can"t play cards due to the site playing up it gets too annoying and your just end up throwing money away.
-
I haven"t had any problems at all this evening. Can I ask some questions that might help diagnose the problem:
1. How much RAM does your computer have?
2. Who is your ISP (Internet Service Provider)?
3. What other software have you got running at the same time as BlueSQ?
You"re not the only one to suffer from issues with the software. The others who"ve struggled with it have often only had 512KB of memory (or even less).
It could also be an issue with your ISP, but that"s more difficult to pin down.
Did anyone else have a problem tonight?
-
Computers fine and works ok on everything else. Even had Dell out to check it the other week. Currently have over 1 GB of space and only poker site i had on was blue square. Nothing else on apart from usual computer things, but other players had the same problems (making comments in chat box).
Fun elements gone im afraid, perhaps its the poker gods telling me to give up for a while !!
Had no other software running at the time and ISP is all done through BT.
-
How much memory have you got on it?
Right-click on "My Computer" and select "Properties" - it will tell you at the bottom of the that box.
-
APAT hasn"t lost it - fair play to you Des, you"ve put together a helluva schedule this year - but there are ALWAYS problems on the iPoker network - whether you play on Bluesquare, Betfred, or any of the others. They generally start off by blaming your ISP - Tiscali and Orange are cited as the worst because of the way they handle and balance the network traffic. But I have successfully got a refund of buyin out of Betfred when my connection (to them) went - no problem with my internet connection which was where they pointed the finger first, because I was quite happily able to access their website while unable to connect to their servers. You also get a lot of mini "freezes" - you call/raise (with a cracking hand, naturally :)) the call/raise action appears in the chat box, followed by the fact that you folded. Call/raise and fold at the same time? Clever, huh.
I"ve also been body-swerving iPoker due to the call-with-anything-i"m-bound-to-hit brigade, because they do, too often for it to be statistically justified. Pocket 8"s always seem to get trips (twice against me tonight as it happens, not that i"m bitter :-[), and the number of four flushes on the board giving your opponent his unbelievable out against your monster just crack you up. Was seeing a hell of a lot of flops with 2 2 2 or 10 10 10 before I retired to a safe distance too .....
As they say, just because I"m paranoid doesn"t mean everyone ISN"T out to get me ....
-
Not being funny, but why doesn"t everyone have these problems? The iPoker software seems to be very heavily memory intensive - far more so than other poker rooms.
-
I haven"t had any problems at all this evening. Can I ask some questions that might help diagnose the problem:
1. How much RAM does your computer have?
2. Who is your ISP (Internet Service Provider)?
3. What other software have you got running at the same time as BlueSQ?
You"re not the only one to suffer from issues with the software. The others who"ve struggled with it have often only had 512KB of memory (or even less).
It could also be an issue with your ISP, but that"s more difficult to pin down.
Did anyone else have a problem tonight?
I think the problem that gets highlighted specifically to do with ipoker is that these problems can arise on ipoker because you"re lacking system memory, and they could be connected with your ISP - but, on other sites with the same system memory and the same ISP they don"t happen.
I think the emphasis should be on ipoker to make their system more effective and efficient rather than on their users to make changes to compensate for this network"s deficiencies.
-
Not being funny, but why doesn"t everyone have these problems? The iPoker software seems to be very heavily memory intensive - far more so than other poker rooms.
I have had intermittent problems with ipoker as well, although none last night.
I have certainly had the situation where I had raised pre-flop with AA, the bet was shown in the chat and graphcally on the table... the software then froze for 20-30 secs and when it started again I had folded - still pre-flop!! >:(
-
It always concerns me to see see a thread of this kind, because I genuinely do not like to see any of our members unhappy with their APAT experience.
There are two queries here I guess, one relating to iPoker and one relating to the standard of play.
The iPoker one I will refer to our partners at Blue Square and feedback on their thoughts.
The standard of play query is in some respects more difficult. I was unable to watch last night as I was away all day but I have viewed many tables online this season and have found the atmosphere very jovial and the quality of play very good. As you would expect, the standard of play will become more variable as we grow. But I also think that as people begin to get to know one another under their new BSQ player ids, that quality play will come to the fore again. I do know that we are appealing to new players as an organisation, so we should not disuade them from joining. Please also bear in mind that fishy, aggressive moves are seen at WSOP, WPT and EPT events too - it"s part of the game, and there were plenty of them made during Season One!
I think there is a real danger that each tournament takes too long now. That may also increase the number of players who; while wanting to take part, have no real ambition to be around past midnight, impacting their game strategy.
But thanks for the post and I hope that you can have some more positive experiences in online games with us going forward.
-
I play differently on a Thursday than a Saturday because of the length of the game. Does this make me a bad player? I will call/raise with a much wider range of hands hoping to get chips earl, not wanting to play for 5 hours then bubble. The Thursday game should be given some thought about the starting chips and structure but keep the Saturday as it is
Any thoughts?
-
Hi
I totally agree with you Blue Square poker site suffers from a lot of connection problems. I lost a few hands which i would have won and was folded by timeouts. I play ladbrokes poker and have never had a single connection problem. It has nothing to do with my Pc as it is a brand new top of the range laptop with 2Gb of Ram.
-
I have been surprised by the standard of play of some players, but I am extremely happy to welcome these players to my table. If I get raised all in by a player with KQ when I hold AA I am very happy even if the flop comes KxQ then turn K, ill not mention any names. Last night I flop trips raise, am reraised, I re-reraise allin and am called by a player holding a pair of 7"s to win a massive pot, again i"ll mention no names. I also came across some excellent players, so it pays to keep your wits about you and concentrate on who is doing what. This is how Phil Hellmuth has won so many bangles. Besides all this I have found the games to be very good natured and friendly, well done APAT.
-
Since it is APAT's aim to provide Good Value, Well Structured tournaments for it"s members I think there are a couple of things that should be considered...
Good Value does not necessarily mean cheap to enter.
Well Structured does not necessarily mean more chips and/or longer clocks.
I"m afraid I"m probably one of those being refferred to as making loose calls and generally bad plays in these APAT online tournaments... Not because I"m a bad player, but because I just can"t get excited about a $10 tournament - that is less than a fiver!!
Add to the [too] low buy-in the awful BlSq structure, without antes, and then 5000 chips and a 15 min clock and you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
I guess, if I"m honest, the only reason I enter these is because the buy-in is so low... not because I expect to win or even get any return on my time and money... and certainly not because I see it as a "Good Value, Well Structured" tournament.
I know there are those who will say that it"s not all about the money... but the title and the medals and the ranking points and that"s all very comendable for those that actually believe that. But just because we are amateurs doesn"t mean that the time and money are not important to us... they certainly are to me.
Just my humble opinions.
8)
PS. Please lets have less chips (3000) for the satellites!
-
... you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
...
It also depends on your perspective on whether the word "only" belongs in that statement.
$500 - $600 for 6 hours work, so around £40 - £50 per hour.
Based on a 35 hour week, as a wage that would put you on an annual income of around £75k to £90k a year.
The majority of everybody I know would be more than happy with that kind of level.
I would say "good value" means cheap to enter for how "well structured" the tournament is.
If "well structured" doesn"t mean more chips and longer clocks what does it mean?
(you don"t need to mention antes - I"ve already got that and I agree, but what else?)
-
Must admit that I get frustrated with blue square, not from a connection point of view as I don"t appear to have much trouble with that, but from a "bad beat" perspective. I seem to constantly lose with much the best hand (although as someone has previously said, I may be on a bad run - but it"s lasting a long time :"()
I"ll still play though because I know you get exactly the same playing live - I went out 149th in Walsall with KK against 10d Qd all-in and lost to a flush!!!! - that"s poker!! - and also why we play it!!
;D
-
... you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
...
It also depends on your perspective on whether the word "only" belongs in that statement.
$500 - $600 for 6 hours work, so around £40 - £50 per hour.
Based on a 35 hour week, as a wage that would put you on an annual income of around £75k to £90k a year.
The majority of everybody I know would be more than happy with that kind of level.
I would say "good value" means cheap to enter for how "well structured" the tournament is.
If "well structured" doesn"t mean more chips and longer clocks what does it mean?
(you don"t need to mention antes - I"ve already got that and I agree, but what else?)
Jon, I agree with everything you say but there is another element to "Structure" and that is the Blind Levels...it"s all very well having more time and chips but if the leaps in the blind structure are huge, it turns into a shove-fest in no time.
I don"t know that the BSq levels are good or bad..but there is a 3rd element over and above the two you mention.
-
It is an interesting discussion. It is well known and widely accepted that there are different calibre players on different networks and in many ways this seems to be stake agnostic. I have played some great players at a $10 buy in and some awful ones at a $50 buy so in short I doubt that by lowering the entry stake you will have encouraged a whole host of "looser" players. I personally encourage more people to take up this amazing game and given the very friendly and personable nature of most of the APAT players it is a great way to experience MTT"s for the first time. If these new players happen to be making loose calls and causing bad beats then as many people have already commented on statistics will always prove that it is short term. Given that it is only £5 I really have no problem with loosing my pocket rockets to 72o - it sucks but thats Poker. Chances are that 80% of the time I am going to win these battles.
Whilst I think that the APAT tour is a fantasic Poker series I do agree with the time issues - not on the diary format but on the length of tournament. Unfortunately I played for nearly 4 hours last night and went out in 32nd spot (gutted) and whilst going out on the bubble is disappointing it is compounded further by the time taken to get there and it isnt as a result of tight poker. I think deep stack works but I question the blind limits. If they were brought down to 10 minute intervals then we reduce the game (hopefully) by 30% which turns 12pm into 10:30-11pm. So thoughts on this would be massively appreciated.
Keep it up though - with some tweaks here and there I think BlSq APAT tournaments could rival the Pokerstars year.
-
...
I would say "good value" means cheap to enter for how "well structured" the tournament is.
If "well structured" doesn"t mean more chips and longer clocks what does it mean?
(you don"t need to mention antes - I"ve already got that and I agree, but what else?)
Jon, I agree with everything you say but there is another element to "Structure" and that is the Blind Levels...it"s all very well having more time and chips but if the leaps in the blind structure are huge, it turns into a shove-fest in no time.
I don"t know that the BSq levels are good or bad..but there is a 3rd element over and above the two you mention.
Thanks, it was a genuine question, I wanted to know what I was missing.
In terms of the current structure I think introducing antes would help a lot, I"m not sure there"s too much wrong with the other factors but a lot of it is a subjective judgment anyway.
-
... you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
...
It also depends on your perspective on whether the word "only" belongs in that statement.
$500 - $600 for 6 hours work, so around £40 - £50 per hour.
Based on a 35 hour week, as a wage that would put you on an annual income of around £75k to £90k a year.
The majority of everybody I know would be more than happy with that kind of level.
So last night"s winner is on £75+ p.a. playing poker? You think it is possible for someone to win one $10 / 200 runner MTT every day?
I would say "good value" means cheap to enter for how "well structured" the tournament is.
If "well structured" doesn"t mean more chips and longer clocks what does it mean?
(you don"t need to mention antes - I"ve already got that and I agree, but what else?)
I know you shouldn"t answer a question with a question, but...
Currenlty we have a $10 + $1 buy-in tourney, with appx 200 runners... with 5000 chips and a 15 min clock it takes about 6 hrs to win about $600.
Suppose we change this to 10000 chips and it now tales 10 hrs to win the same $600... would you consider this to be a better structure?
Don"t get me wrong, I"m not an advocate of short stack crapshoots. I an all in favour of having enough chips to play with. It is just my opinion that a starting stack of 250 BBs isn"t necessary... 3000 chips (150 BBs) would be plenty.
By comparison... The live national champs start with 10k chips and 25/50 blinds - 150 BBs - and appx 20 hands/level... I think most agree this an excellent structure; the regionals 3k chips - 60 BBs - appx 15 hands/level... still very playable.
Playing good poker isn"t all about waiting for big hands.
-
...
I would say "good value" means cheap to enter for how "well structured" the tournament is.
If "well structured" doesn"t mean more chips and longer clocks what does it mean?
(you don"t need to mention antes - I"ve already got that and I agree, but what else?)
Jon, I agree with everything you say but there is another element to "Structure" and that is the Blind Levels...it"s all very well having more time and chips but if the leaps in the blind structure are huge, it turns into a shove-fest in no time.
I don"t know that the BSq levels are good or bad..but there is a 3rd element over and above the two you mention.
Thanks, it was a genuine question, I wanted to know what I was missing.
In terms of the current structure I think introducing antes would help a lot, I"m not sure there"s too much wrong with the other factors but a lot of it is a subjective judgment anyway.
Jon,
How do think antes would help?
-
... you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
...
It also depends on your perspective on whether the word "only" belongs in that statement.
$500 - $600 for 6 hours work, so around £40 - £50 per hour.
Based on a 35 hour week, as a wage that would put you on an annual income of around £75k to £90k a year.
The majority of everybody I know would be more than happy with that kind of level.
So last night"s winner is on £75+ p.a. playing poker? You think it is possible for someone to win one $10 / 200 runner MTT every day?
...
My point was that £40 to £50 per hour seems pretty good from my point of view. Whether that"s for a days work or a years work is irrelevant.
As for the antes: you have to bear in mind that I"m a convert to the cause for antes, so I"m essentially trying to restate the argument that persuaded me (ie I might get it a bit wrong - so don"t be too harsh if it doesn"t entirely "work").
But I think it means that towards the latter stages of the tournament, because there are the extra chips available from the antes this means that people will be more inclined to bet and try to get them rather than passively sit back and wait for their big hands. I think there was more to it than that - but I think the gist was it creates more action and less people trying to fold their way to the money which can unbalance the structure as well as making it last longer.
-
imho antes are absolutely needed for these. 6 hrs play for a $10/200man tourney is quite ridonkulous.
-
...
Don"t get me wrong, I"m not an advocate of short stack crapshoots. I an all in favour of having enough chips to play with. It is just my opinion that a starting stack of 250 BBs isn"t necessary... 3000 chips (150 BBs) would be plenty.
By comparison... The live national champs start with 10k chips and 25/50 blinds - 150 BBs - and appx 20 hands/level... I think most agree this an excellent structure; the regionals 3k chips - 60 BBs - appx 15 hands/level... still very playable.
Playing good poker isn"t all about waiting for big hands.
I 100% agree with my namesake here. 3000 chips would be more than enough for the good players to rise above the fish. There would still be plenty of play with the starting stacks reduced. I fully support larger stacks/larger blind levels for irregular/big tournaments, but do we really need this level of play for tournaments that are now held twice fortnightly?
-
I tend to agree that we need to revisit the structure of these events. The only difference with the PokerStars structure is the removal of antes and unfortunately we do not have an option to put them back in. However, adding an additional 1.5 to 2 hours per event does not bring value from where I am sitting. I think we need to revert back to a 4.5 to 5 hour event through reducing the starting stack or reducing the clock. Adjusting the starting stacks would be my choice. The APAT event would still offer far more play than any other $10 event currently out there, and retain the enjoyment factor.
-
Of course, increasing the buy-in to $20 might also make the tournaments better value.
Twice I"ve cashed in these - unfortunately for me, not in the top spots (as I haven"t played well enough). So 4 hours of poker, and I"m $10 or $20 up (whatever it was). It covered my buy-in but hardly covered the 4 hours investment. Fortunately, I also play a tournament or two on PokerStars at the same time - and last night I managed to cash in the one I was playing. So my 4 hours were slightly more productive.
Des, would trying a starting stack of 4,000 chips make sense? Seeing what that does to the tournament? I guess the buy-in is going to remain at $10?
Oh, and I really want to make the top three in one of these. The medals look like fantastic card protectors!
-
... you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
...
It also depends on your perspective on whether the word "only" belongs in that statement.
$500 - $600 for 6 hours work, so around £40 - £50 per hour.
Based on a 35 hour week, as a wage that would put you on an annual income of around £75k to £90k a year.
The majority of everybody I know would be more than happy with that kind of level.
So last night"s winner is on £75+ p.a. playing poker? You think it is possible for someone to win one $10 / 200 runner MTT every day?
...
My point was that £40 to £50 per hour seems pretty good from my point of view. Whether that"s for a days work or a years work is irrelevant.
The point is, it is not $40 - $50 per hour at all. I doubt many people, especially amateurs, will get in the money in much over 15% of their MTTs and pobably win, at best, 1% or 2%... that $600 for winning an APAT online chanpionships has to be spread over many more hours that the 6 on the night.
As for the antes: you have to bear in mind that I"m a convert to the cause for antes, so I"m essentially trying to restate the argument that persuaded me (ie I might get it a bit wrong - so don"t be too harsh if it doesn"t entirely "work").
But I think it means that towards the latter stages of the tournament, because there are the extra chips available from the antes this means that people will be more inclined to bet and try to get them rather than passively sit back and wait for their big hands. I think there was more to it than that - but I think the gist was it creates more action and less people trying to fold their way to the money which can unbalance the structure as well as making it last longer.
Irrespective of how antes affect the balance of the structure (and the strategy of playing it), all other things being equal, they will shorten the tournament.
Add antes, shorten the tournament by an hour or so... increase the buy-in back to $20... and in my opinion you then have a Good Value, Well Structured tournament.
.... However, adding an additional 1.5 to 2 hours per event does not bring value from where I am sitting.
You must be sitting somewhere near me!! :D
I think we need to revert back to a 4.5 to 5 hour event through reducing the starting stack or reducing the clock. Adjusting the starting stacks would be my choice. The APAT event would still offer far more play than any other $10 event currently out there, and retain the enjoyment factor.
3000 chips gets my vote!
Of course, increasing the buy-in to $20 might also make the tournaments better value.
As does this!!
How about a trial... Why not reduce the chips for the upcoming two online satellites to 3000. See how long they last, bearing in mind they will be over when down to 15-20 players, and consider any feedback from them before making any decisions about the online championship series.
-
It is too late to amend the online sats and they are non comparative with the online series anyway.
-
As an official losing tournement player according to the databases, I guess the longer the tournament lasts for, the less money I am going to lose overall!!!
Anyone else for 50000 chips?
-
Anyone else for 50000 chips?
Don"t think this many chips would help increase the standard of play or the length of the tournament. With all the new players coming into APAT we have to expect a wide variation in the standard of play. Its true a lot of people seem to know nothing about "risk reward" or "pot odds" and it can be very frustrating when you get a bad beat (no names mentioned Sir Percival in tonights on-line Sat... you should know better ;) ), but that is the nature of poker, when your good hand holds you think what a donk and thanks for the call. Inexperienced players seem to be all in preflop no matter how many starting chips we seem to start with....
To win tournaments you need a lot of skill and luck, and pray the donk doesn"t luck their way into the big win... but it does happen... but for how long.... sooner or later their luck will turn and they will start losing the money they have won.
APAT is set up for the "Amateur" player, $10 are well in the range of all amateurs.
Antes would have been nice but as Des said "not possible with Blue Sq". Also most new players would never have played in a tournament with Antes.... should we be putting them at a disadvantage just because they are not as experienced.
I have spent 9 hours in an on-line tournament on PartyPoker so it is something that is to be expected but with work next day I agree that this is a little long on a Thursday so cutting the starting stack by 1000 chips may be the answer, but as a total poker hoare who justs loves to play going back to the 50000 is starting to look even better.....
but I"d probably still be out in three hands against somebody who feels the absolute need to push all his chips preflop when I have either AA or KK sighhhhh... ::)
-
I agree that this online deepstack isnt really working as it should. As this tournament lasts for 5 hours or more, good players are taking bigger risks early on to define their tournament. They are reluctant to invest 4 hours with no return and the buyin is meaningless to many.
I vote for 3000 chips and a 12 min clock.
-
I agree that this online deepstack isnt really working as it should. As this tournament lasts for 5 hours or more, good players are taking bigger risks early on to define their tournament. They are reluctant to invest 4 hours with no return and the buyin is meaningless to many.
I vote for 3000 chips and a 12 min clock.
make that 2 votes
-
I"d vote for 4,000 chips and a 12 minute clock. I think this would be deepstack enough (APAT's selling point) to ensure a midnight-ish conclusion for 200 players. As Online Events become more popular though, cap the number of seats to 250 for this structure and reduce the starting stacks as / if APAT increase the seats available - 350 players, 3,500 chips, 12 min blinds and so on if it still qualifies as deepstack.
C"mon all the mathematicians amongst you, help us make an informed choice on a value for money deepstack structure by providing us with an easy to calculate formula to include
deepstack/startingstack/startingbigblind(50)/maximumseats/blindtime(mins)
"deepstack" should be determined by formula and have acceptable minimum and maximum values with "startingbigblind" being the only constant.
-
Arnold Snyder"s Poker Tournament Formula is probably of help here.
The definition of "deepstack" is open to interpretation though. Maybe a tournament with a score of 5 or "better" using Snyder"s formula could be considered "deepstack" (or whatever other arbitrary figure is deemed suitable).
-
Arnold Snyder"s Poker Tournament Formula is probably of help here.
The definition of "deepstack" is open to interpretation though. Maybe a tournament with a score of 5 or "better" using Snyder"s formula could be considered "deepstack" (or whatever other arbitrary figure is deemed suitable).
Nice work Kin. Right, who"s got this book ... ?
-
I have.
-
Snyder"s formula works out the "patience factor" - and the higher the patience factor, the more "play" there is. From this, a skill level is created. The figures below are for online tournaments (live is slightly different).
Chips Minutes Pateince Factor Skill Level
5,000 15 17.42 6
4,000 15 15.19 6
3,000 15 12.79 6
5,000 12 12.68 6
4,000 12 11.15 5
3,000 12 09.38 4
5,000 10 09.84 4
4,000 10 08.59 4
3,000 10 07.24 3
(these are probably slightly out, as I haven"t checked the exact structure on BlueSQ - when I do, I will amend).
-
AWESOME! :D
I feel well-informed now and re-submit my vote of 4,000 chips and a 12 minute clock.
I just hope Mr. Snyder and his Publishers aren"t too concerned about C0pyr1g*t :-X
-
Can you copyright a formula?
-
By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:
(with the 150/300 level :))
Chips Minutes Patience Factor Skill Level
10,000 40 32.96 6
03,000 30 09.68 5
(and without the 150/300 level :()
10,000 40 27.47 6
03,000 30 08.19 5
-
By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:
(with the 150/300 level :))
Chips Minutes Pateince Factor Skill Level
10,000 40 32.96 6
05,000 30 14.17 6
(and without the 150/300 level :()
10,000 40 27.47 6
05,000 30 11.91 6
So the patience factor didn"t change much with the introduction of the 150/300 level. It makes you wonder why some people made such a fuss about it. ::)
-
By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:
(with the 150/300 level :))
Chips Minutes Pateince Factor Skill Level
10,000 40 32.96 6
05,000 30 14.17 6
(and without the 150/300 level :()
10,000 40 27.47 6
05,000 30 11.91 6
So the patience factor didn"t change much with the introduction of the 150/300 level. It makes you wonder why some people made such a fuss about it. ::)
;D
-
A change of 17%? I"d say that"s fairly significant.
-
-
Only 5 live results count - out of your top 20 results that go towards your final ranking.
So I think consistency within the online tournament is likely to count for more than consistency within the live ones.
-
Only 5 live results count - out of your top 20 results that go towards your final ranking.
So I think consistency within the online tournament is likely to count for more than consistency within the live ones.
I understand how many results count jon, i"m saying the lower number of live events is balanced by the fact there are higher entries in the online tourneys so there"s no need to make the points any different...that way consistency in either will be about equally rewarded
(this is all based on my assumption that live events are given more points to be fair to those who can"t play online to give them a chance of winning, i think i read that in the forum, is that the reason? I would bet it"s far more complicated than my simple understanding. It"d be interesting to know how many people play the live ones but are unable to play the online ones...des?)
Apologies to all for my slight distraction to the tourney structure issues but it"s all part of the same package...
-
By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:
(with the 150/300 level :))
Chips Minutes Pateince Factor Skill Level
10,000 40 32.96 6
05,000 30 14.17 6
(and without the 150/300 level :()
10,000 40 27.47 6
05,000 30 11.91 6
Where did 5000 chips come into it? ::)
-
Solution- flipaments.
One hand everyone all in 100,000 starting chips
;)
-
By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:
(with the 150/300 level :))
Chips Minutes Pateince Factor Skill Level
10,000 40 32.96 6
05,000 30 14.17 6
(and without the 150/300 level :()
10,000 40 27.47 6
05,000 30 11.91 6
Where did 5000 chips come into it? ::)
I thought that"s what we got in the Regionals - it was 3,000 chips....
-
Ive read the posts here and agree mostly with a few of these points;
$20+2 Buy in. It worked before, didnt harm your entrants, and increases the viability of playing for 5-6 hours.
4000 Stack with 12m blinds will work, you can overdo deepstacks by giving people too many chips with too long a level.
I like the idea of reintoducing a password, as someone pointed out earlier, it didnt harm sign ups, and probably helps to keep the jingo bingo bango riff raff out.
I"d like to bring another idea to the fore, perhaps its too late for this season, but i could never work out why points were awarded on a final table only scheme. This means (although unlikely to happen) that the person who wins a 100ppl tourny, will win the same amount of points as a person who wins a 250ppl tourny. This i hope you can see is massively unjust. The way i would award it, would be to have a configuration depending on amount of entries. Also, i feel the places that get points should be increased to the cash point (whyshould those who are rewarded with cash not be rewarded with points?). To reach the last 20 players of an 200+ player MTT is a very good achievement, and i think it shud be rewarded by points. I believe, (with good evidence) that an implementaion of this strategy will maintain the quality of the leaderboard, but importantly mean that decent play will be rewarded.
Please consider this strategy, as i really do feel it makes more sense.
Apologies for length, its from my fathers genes...
-
Ah ha, i"m not alone then, thanks evel :-) I posted something similar on a previous page about the points allocations (same message as the password one). It"s quite easy though, allocate points as you would cash, there"s plenty of payout structures that could be applied with a bit of rounding. Would also have balanced out the points in newcastle on saturday, only 2 or 3 getting points. The total points available could be 1 point for every 10 people, would work out ok.
This is also why i think 18 points is fairer for online tourneys with 200+ entrants, you could even spread the 18 points over 27 players if there was >300 players. It"s slightly easier to make the last 2 tables in these than FT so this should lead to a more exciting climax to the season with probably a few more people in with a chance. (i"m not bitter cos last season i beat 200+ to get 8 points whereas the scottish national winner beat half that and go double the points, not in the least bitter lol).
Due to the humungous length of my average post, i am beginning to wonder though, what"s your father"s name? :-)
Allan D
-
Ive read the posts here and agree mostly with a few of these points;
$20+2 Buy in. It worked before, didnt harm your entrants, and increases the viability of playing for 5-6 hours.
4000 Stack with 12m blinds will work, you can overdo deepstacks by giving people too many chips with too long a level.
I like the idea of reintoducing a password, as someone pointed out earlier, it didnt harm sign ups, and probably helps to keep the jingo bingo bango riff raff out.
I"d like to bring another idea to the fore, perhaps its too late for this season, but i could never work out why points were awarded on a final table only scheme. This means (although unlikely to happen) that the person who wins a 100ppl tourny, will win the same amount of points as a person who wins a 250ppl tourny. This i hope you can see is massively unjust. The way i would award it, would be to have a configuration depending on amount of entries. Also, i feel the places that get points should be increased to the cash point (whyshould those who are rewarded with cash not be rewarded with points?). To reach the last 20 players of an 200+ player MTT is a very good achievement, and i think it shud be rewarded by points. I believe, (with good evidence) that an implementaion of this strategy will maintain the quality of the leaderboard, but importantly mean that decent play will be rewarded.
Please consider this strategy, as i really do feel it makes more sense.
...
I agree with the first few ideas but I don"t agree with the idea of changing the points depending on the number of entrants.
Some could be against this idea purely because its better to know exactly how many points are on offer before you start.
This is a valid argument and could make a significant difference to the outcome of a championship, if the top of the championship is tight like season 1, then one win could provide a new overall leader. Although we are likely to get a number of runners for the final of season 1 because of the extra prize involved, normally, the last few tournaments of a season will have fewer runners because a lot of people who are no longer in the running won"t play once they see that there"s no chance of them winning the overall race (sad but true). If there were less points available for tournaments with fewer runners this would mean that if you did well near the beginning you would, on average, gain more points then if you did well at the end - and I think most people would agree that it would be fundamentally unfair to reward some and penalise others, purely based on where in the season chronologically they happen to hit good form.
However, I have a much simpler objection to this idea. That is that the ranking points should primarily reflect skill. I don"t think that the winner of a 1000 runner tournament is 10 times more skilfull than the winner of a 100 runner tournament. I would suspect that (a) they just happen to enter different tournaments, (b) they have a similar amount of skill, and (c) the winner of the 1000 runner tournament needed just a bit more luck (an extra coin flip or 2 to win). So would it be fair for 2 players with roughly the same skill to get different points, just because one choose to enter a different tournament and/or had a little bit of extra luck?
-
Anyone else for 50000 chips?
Its true a lot of people seem to know nothing about "risk reward" or "pot odds" and it can be very frustrating when you get a bad beat (no names mentioned Sir Percival in tonights on-line Sat... you should know better ;) ), but that is the nature of poker, when your good hand holds you think what a donk and thanks for the call. Inexperienced players seem to be all in preflop no matter how many starting chips we seem to start with....
So you would fold QQ ?
I actually hate online qualifiers but only play them because I hate clickfest even more. This means my play if different also. I would like to go out early or make it through. Don"t want to "grind" like I had to when I qualified for Walsal.
p.s. didn"t get through, busted in 20th after running into AA with AK twice and then AJ v 99
-
Sorry Sir Perc I was watching when you went out and give a little cheer.... spiteful, and I am ashamed of myself, but it did make me feel a little better... ;)
Just to answer your question - action before you went all in with QQ was several limpers, a raise, you reraised, a call to your raise, I then reraised a significant amount - a caller of my raise and then you went all in, when it got to your turn to act. Then the 77 went all in (I think for the value) and it was down to me.....
I actually nearly folded the Ks thinking one of you, or the person still to act may have the As, but with all those chips out there I couldn"t bring myself to do it, but I know I should have - three people already in the pot and one still to act I should not be playing Ks in a pot with three, still possibly four people, especially for my tournament life. The tournament being a satellite also meant a fold as you are trying to get into the top 10% as opposed to actually the top three where the money is and I should wait until the odds are more in my favour.
In answer to your question, yes I would have folded Qs, especially in the first level of the tournament, specifically because of all the action in front of me.
I was very happy when the cards were turned over and nobody had a pair of As, the fact that I lost the hand is just poker. Bad beats happen to everybody and we have to take them.
Well played and getting yourself into 20th was good, but I still couldn"t resist that little cheer.... ::)
Hopefully you got through the clickfest (hopefully I did too) and I see you in Manchester. ;D
-
Sorry Sir Perc I was watching when you went out and give a little cheer.... spiteful, and I am ashamed of myself, but it did make me feel a little better... ;)
Why would that make you feel better?
Personaly when someone suks out on me I want them to win the tourney - that makes me feel better. I don"t start sticking pins in a voodoo doll because some little plastic cards determined my fortune in the event. Maybe that says something about my personallity.
I actually nearly folded the Ks thinking one of you, or the person still to act may have the As, but with all those chips out there I couldn"t bring myself to do it
So you"d fold KK but not QQ.
My thinking was that others may fold thinking I had AA. Could easily have been holding JJ, TT or AK which may also be a fold. I am also aware that many like to gamble with a middle pair. Easy to argue it"s a bad play when you know the KK was there. As I said, my strategy is somewhat different for a qualifier.
Bad beats happen to everybody and we have to take them.
We have all been on the other side of them as well.
Hopefully you got through the clickfest (hopefully I did too) and I see you in Manchester. ;D
Look forward to making you think I only have QQ when I hold AA ;D
-
Ive read the posts here and agree mostly with a few of these points;
$20+2 Buy in. It worked before, didnt harm your entrants, and increases the viability of playing for 5-6 hours.
4000 Stack with 12m blinds will work, you can overdo deepstacks by giving people too many chips with too long a level.
I like the idea of reintoducing a password, as someone pointed out earlier, it didnt harm sign ups, and probably helps to keep the jingo bingo bango riff raff out.
I"d like to bring another idea to the fore, perhaps its too late for this season, but i could never work out why points were awarded on a final table only scheme. This means (although unlikely to happen) that the person who wins a 100ppl tourny, will win the same amount of points as a person who wins a 250ppl tourny. This i hope you can see is massively unjust. The way i would award it, would be to have a configuration depending on amount of entries. Also, i feel the places that get points should be increased to the cash point (whyshould those who are rewarded with cash not be rewarded with points?). To reach the last 20 players of an 200+ player MTT is a very good achievement, and i think it shud be rewarded by points. I believe, (with good evidence) that an implementaion of this strategy will maintain the quality of the leaderboard, but importantly mean that decent play will be rewarded.
Please consider this strategy, as i really do feel it makes more sense.
...
I agree with the first few ideas but I don"t agree with the idea of changing the points depending on the number of entrants.
Some could be against this idea purely because its better to know exactly how many points are on offer before you start.
This is a valid argument and could make a significant difference to the outcome of a championship, if the top of the championship is tight like season 1, then one win could provide a new overall leader. Although we are likely to get a number of runners for the final of season 1 because of the extra prize involved, normally, the last few tournaments of a season will have fewer runners because a lot of people who are no longer in the running won"t play once they see that there"s no chance of them winning the overall race (sad but true). If there were less points available for tournaments with fewer runners this would mean that if you did well near the beginning you would, on average, gain more points then if you did well at the end - and I think most people would agree that it would be fundamentally unfair to reward some and penalise others, purely based on where in the season chronologically they happen to hit good form.
However, I have a much simpler objection to this idea. That is that the ranking points should primarily reflect skill. I don"t think that the winner of a 1000 runner tournament is 10 times more skilfull than the winner of a 100 runner tournament. I would suspect that (a) they just happen to enter different tournaments, (b) they have a similar amount of skill, and (c) the winner of the 1000 runner tournament needed just a bit more luck (an extra coin flip or 2 to win). So would it be fair for 2 players with roughly the same skill to get different points, just because one choose to enter a different tournament and/or had a little bit of extra luck?
It isnt really unfair at all. The points are awarded on allocation of dificulty. A small tournament is easier to win than a large one. Look at it this way, it is FAR more unfiar to accrue the same amount of points as someone who has had to beat a lot fewer people to those points. After running and participating in a highly recognised live league for four years, i can assure you that there is no loss of drama, probably moreso. In the first two years, the title went between 2 very good players, and was only decided in the last game of the league.
I believe your concept of tournament sizes dropping off a bit preposterous really. Surely, no matter what points structure you have, there will have been some point where the average player could no longer win (or even hope to win). With your logic, this would mean that the tournaent entries would drop off, (it would be interested to know if they did significantly drop off) This blows a veritable crater in you"re reasoning, as either way, tournaments will drop off in number, however the points are awarded. BUT importantly, with the current system, as tournaments drop off in size, it is all the more easier to win the tournaments, which,is of great unfairness those who won bigger tournaments earlier in the season. As you said "it would be fundamentally unfair to reward some and penalise others, purely based on where in the season chronologically they happen to hit good form."
Your point regarding the skill required to win a 100 vs a 1000 tourny.
You didnt understand my initial post; points are awarded on a entrant based sliding scale. The winner of a 1000 person tournament would not win a prize of 10x more. Also, i believe that it does require FAR more skill to win a tournament of 1000 players, and your idea that it only requires one more coin flip is the worst rhetoric ive heard in a long time. I"ve won 100 ppl tourneys by literally winning a dozen hands, could you do that in a 1000ppl mtt? Its like saying it takes approximately the same amount of skill to win your local casino MTT than the $5000 omaha WSOP event (back in the days when there was only about a 1000 entrants) granted that there is likely to be a higher standard of play, but you get my point im sure.
Also, it is also very unlikely that there will be a time in an APAt season, where the tournys swing from 100 people to 1000.
It can all be boiled down to which is fairer, awarding the same points 100% ignorant of the size of field, or awarding points based on logical conjecture, that states that the bigger tournaments get, the harder they are to win, therefore require larger prizes.
And finally, if ive played 5 APAt MTTS, and came 3rd in one of them, 11th, 13th and 19th in three and failed to cash in the other two, then why on EARTH should someone who has played 20 APAt MTTs, and came 2nd in one of them, and failed to cash in all other tournaments have more points than me?
And the beauty of is just that, regular cashes are rewarded with points, in my 3rd gamelast year, i was placed 5/11. I already had a win under my belt, and was looking forward to another big caash within the month. I got AK, found myself all in, facing AQ, and suffered the beat. I went out 11th. for 5 hours i sat there playing fantastic poker. For £30. And nothing else. Again, like you argued before, why should the way points be awarded be based on the outcomes of a coinflip? (allthough AQ vs AK is far from a coinflip , in another situation, it could easily be so).
Again apologies for length (i thin there must be summmit in my mothers genes too)
-
... A small tournament is easier to win than a large one....
I think there is a bit more to this statement than meets the eye, and I don"t believe it is necessarily true.
It may be true that a lower standard player may get lucky enough times to win one small tournament but over time they would certainly lose money.
Taken to it"s extreme you could train a chimp to push all it"s chips over the line every hand and it could quite easily beat any top pro in any one heads-up match.
If the standard of the core of the players remains the same then I would say that it is easier to get deep and cash, and even win occaisionally, in a larger tournament than a small one.
Another slightly less extreme example...
You are in a 10 man NKHE tourney, the field is -
You
Phil Helmuth
Doyle Brunson
Phil Ivey
Gus Hansen
Joe Beevers
Roland de Wolfe
Greg Raymer
Praz Banzi
Karl Marenholz
It pays out, points and prize money to the top 10% - that is 1 place - winner takes all... How often do think you will win this tournament?
Now imagine You and these same 9 players take part in a 200 man tourney, with 190 random poor to not so bad players. There will still be 10% of the field get paid.
Now you have to get into the top 20 to get paid. The pros might fill the top 9 places but there are still 11 paid places for you to get some return. It is more likely that half the pros would be eliminated along the way, enabling perhaps 15 much inferior players to take home a piece of the cake.
I didn"t read the rest of the post, it was too long! :D
8)
-
makes me laugh.... You complain about the standard i cant even get to play. Iv found it a lot easier to get to a final table than get to play in the first place. I managed to play in Luton only because i was on the reserve list and got an e-mail the day before. My net connection is rubbish and wont win a clickfest. So i went walsall. Sat there for 5 hours didn"t get a game. Now i see the world event ,at short notice, has been put online the weekend im in cork(plus the opening of dtd). Why wasn"t this tourney mentioned a long time before? Oh yeah im not in manchester either. So anyone who wants to moan about the standard. Either p*** off and join a bigger game and see how good you really are or count yourself lucky you are getting a game.As you see im hacked off with it all.
-
Yeah cheers thats really helpful.
Riorodent-
im confused... are you arguing against what i said? ??? :D
by the way, has any0ne ever noticed, that there are 2 Ad cards in the smileys bit? 2x Ad, that has to be +ev
-
Riorodent-
im confused... are you arguing against what i said? ??? :D
Yes... and No. The example of chimp playing heads-up was to illustrate that it might be easier to a really small tournament - a heads-up match - because you just need to get lucky once.
But, given 9 top class opponents it would be easier to win money, and maybe even the tournament, in a 200 man tourney over a 10 man tourney.
I have first hand knowledge of this. In the summer I played in a tournament, that paid 10% of the field, with the following...
Phil Helmuth
Dave Colclough
Karl Marenholz
Marcel Luske
Men "The Master" Nguyen
Kathy Liebert
Chris Ferguson
Johnny Chan
Phil Gordon
Now if this had been a STT I would have rated my chances of being in the top 10% [winning] as somewhere between slim and none!
In fact there were 2778 runners and I cruised into the money. None of the above made the final table and the winner was an amateur.
I was not making a comment about the current APAT point structure, simply about your statement that, "A small tournament is easier to win than a large one." Which I do not believe to be true.
-
Purely on a ranking points arguement and not taking money into account at all.
There are what around 18 players turning up at Plymouth for the regionals and around 80 at Luton for example.
Obviously you can only beat who turns up but with 6 regional ranking point events, players in plymouth for example (not that I have anything against plymouth guys ok!!) are likely statistically to make the ranking points in 50 per cent of the tournaments. as oppossed to around 8 per cent at luton.
It is extremely likely that some players will make the points 6 times in such a poor attended venue ensuring that these players are very high up the leaderboard.
Say a player wins one comes third twice say 4th once and 5th once out of the 18 players thus getting 34 ish points!!!.
Surely this is a massive headstart on those 1. struggling to make any regionals or 2.having to play in 80 player fields and with the increased difficulty in getting to play in the nationals my predictions is there will be MORE players from the south west in the final leaderboard top ten than anywhere else in the country.
Obviously again its season 2 and we are all on a learning curve and I for one have NOT got a solution.
Sliding scale is unfair as well.
no solutions just my twopenneth!!!
3 hour drive to plymouth tempting hmmmmmmm
-
I dont understand, the sliding scale is a solution for the complaint youve just made, why is it unfair? HAve you understood what i mean?
-
I dont understand, the sliding scale is a solution for the complaint youve just made, why is it unfair? HAve you understood what i mean?
Yes we have.
If the sliding scale was introduced in Plymouth (for example), then the players there would be penalised, as they"d be unable to score as many points as people in other regions.
Have you understood what we"re saying?
-
Maybe for season 3 the regionals could be kept as qualifiers for the nationals and medals but do away with the ranking points given the differences in attendance. I for one would still attend as its a great opportunity to play live in a well structured tournament
-
Maybe each venue could have its own league table - which would mean that anyone playing in that venue would be competing with people on a level playing field?
-
Maybe each venue could have its own league table - which would mean that anyone playing in that venue would be competing with people on a level playing field?
Now that is a really good idea. Something for the APAT team to think about next year.
Unfortunately I don"t think it fair to change the system that has started already. Plymouth, how the hell do I get to Plymouth - definitely in my region ::)
-
If the sliding scale was introduced in Plymouth (for example), then the players there would be penalised, as they"d be unable to score as many points as people in other regions.
I know I have had strong opinions on this, not that I think it should be changed this season, but for next season. Seeing this made me think more, and they could earn the same points, if 1st got 9 points, but with less in say for example 30, then 2nd gets 8, and 3rd 7.. nothing for 4th, thus giving players a chance to earn the same as other regionals, just not so many getting points.
Maybe each venue could have its own league table - which would mean that anyone playing in that venue would be competing with people on a level playing field?
Not a bad idea at all, the only drawback then is that you cannot try another regional venue if the one you want is closed.
I can see for season 3 that possibly more people will play these comps, or they could open it up for more than 80 players, which would change the whole points system anyway IMO.
-
Nice idea Daniel worth considering maybe.
I agree with hollaboo personally.
Maybe keep ranking points but that go towards a regional championship overall winner for each region rather than national ranking points.
-
Haven"t read pages 2-5 so my comment may have been mentioned, but whilst I preferred the Stars software, I don"t mind the iPoker software, infact it"s been quite kind to me recently so I have no real complaints about that. Sure the Stars tournaments had a much better structure to them, but that"s a network thing, not an APAT thing so I can"t worry about that here.
The connection thing is an issue.. It happens from time to time when I lag out only to come back and find that I"m sitting out, having missed out on a couple of hands. It doesn"t happen often, but it happens, and not just me, it"s a network thing, it happens to a lot of people. Although, it doesn"t always effect everyone at the same time.
The only thing I don"t particularly like about this online season is the $10 buy in. I think $20 worked better, especially when it comes to pay outs. With the larger fields, more spaces are being paid and with iPokers payout scale, you end up with a $5 profit if you just scrape into the money for playing for about 3 hours. If they buy in were $20, at least you"d get a little bit more, it would make the payouts a lot better. Not only that, a lot of the fishier players that people commented about may be put off by the higher buy in.
My Two Cents.
-
Haven"t been able to play any of the events this year as i am unable to deposit to my blue square account :"(
Stars was so much better organised and customer orientated.
-
Just read all 6 pages and now my head hurts :-\
So on a lighter note ............ Who do you think is the best looking
Fiz on Corrie or Ruby Wax
Hmmmmmmmm........ tough one i think lol
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)