APAT online

[nosey-p]

As anybody got views about the points structure?

Ian, did you get an email about software?  

[evilpie]

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.......

[APAT]

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.......

Good feedback.  

[kinboshi]

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.  

[Swinebag]

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?)

[hi_am_chris]

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.

[evilpie]

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??

[nosey-p]

Looks like I have started a proper debate, plenty for Des to work with  

[APAT]

Excellent thread and a number of these ideas are already incorporated in the S3 plan.

[hi_am_chris]

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

[nosey-p]

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

[hi_am_chris]

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

[APAT]

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.

[RioRodent]

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!  

[nosey-p]

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.