Hmmmmm

[monkeyman]

Fair points Pilf, although I still believe that accepting anything whatsoever above cost price for a seat represents a blow to the ethics that are supposed to be in place for this organisation. The payment of £75 should represent the cost of taking part in a national amateur poker tournament, nothing more, nothing less and no gain should be made by anyone not attending.
  No, I don"t believe anyone would go through the clickfest with the intention of getting a share of an unknown amateur, but that does not mean the current situation is free from the possibility of being abused. What"s to stop someone purchasing a ticket so they can partake of the national experience, then selling their seat to someone they know to be a better player in the hope that this gives them a better chance of making a few quid? Nothing at present. I"m certainly not suggesting this has happened so far, but if deals of this nature are allowed to proliferate, then people WILL start buying tickets with the intention of selling them on.
  The situation is very similar to what has happened to the demand for tickets to music festivals over the last few years. I used to go to these events regularly, but haven"t been for several years because I refuse to pay a large sum of money several months in advance without knowing who is appearing. The reason festivals frequently sell out on the day tickets are released, is that lots of people make a purchase not because they want to attend, but because they can sell their purchases on at a profit. This is precisely the situation APAT will be faced with if above-face-value transactions are allowed to continue. APAT nationals are already so heavily oversubscribed, the potential for abuse needs to be addressed.        

[Mikeyboy9361]

I think this is the first time that this percentage thing has come into play, but having percentages in people is a poker thing, so I would suggest it is okay. I do though see where you are coming from, I had to sell my Dublin seat last year and could have done so quite easily for £150, but the spirit of APAT says its £75 and for me that is fair enough.

[Pilf]

Nothing extra (like a car or a horse or whatever) is paid up front.
Therefore we are adding value but not to the amount we pay up front.

what difference does it make if I say £75 plus my car today or £75 today plus my car next month (provided I don"t change cars in the meantime)

None.

- Monkeyman, I think we are just about on the same page.

[STEVEFRYER]

Nothing extra (like a car or a horse or whatever) is paid up front.
Therefore we are adding value but not to the amount we pay up front.

what difference does it make if I say £75 plus my car today or £75 today plus my car next month (provided I don"t change cars in the meantime)

None.

So why make the distinction of adding value up front or otherwise?

It"s coming back to that word value again, clearly seats are being sold above face "value"

[Pilf]

So why make the distinction of adding value up front or otherwise?

It"s coming back to that word value again, clearly seats are being sold above face "value"

Because we are adding implied value that can not be measured before the tournament is over. It is my belief this is the key distinction.

[STEVEFRYER]

Because we are adding implied value that can not be measured before the tournament is over. It is my belief this is the key distinction.

So something that has no value now, but may have value next month?

[monkeyman]

So why make the distinction of adding value up front or otherwise?

It"s coming back to that word value again, clearly seats are being sold above face "value"

Because we are adding implied value that can not be measured before the tournament is over. It is my belief this is the key distinction.

"Because we are adding implied value" - therefore the ticket is not being sold at face value. APAT only has two rules with regard to the transfer of seats. The first is "Transactions cannot occur at a value above the advertised buy in price for the event".
As you have admitted the deal struck includes value above the basic cost of the ticket, anyone selling a national seat including a clause in the transaction including a potential percentage of winnings of the purchaser, would appear to be in breach of the rules.
  QED

[CrizzyConnor]

  I hope this is just one of those one of those situations for which a ruling hasn"t been created, so can"t be stopped this time, but will be for future events.

i believe that practise of players selling seats at nationals, but retaining a percentage runs contrary to the spirit that APAT is supposed to stand for and needs to be quashed sooner rather than later.

^ THIS ^

Whether the value can be measured before or after the game has taken place there is still EXTRA value in selling with a percentage therefore I believe this should be against the rules also...

If you choose to swap % with players in the same competition or whatever then that"s fine and part of everyday poker but selling a seat with the promise of % as a sweetener to intice the transaction is wrong in my opinion...

[Pilf]

Clearly we have a different view on this situation Steve. I don"t believe there is any value me trying to explain things much more from my perspective. I"m not a words man, more a numbers man, hence I play poker as a passtime and gamble for a living.

Because the implied value is directly linked to what we are purchasing I think this situation is ok (only my opinion of course)

If I were to play devils advocate I could state something like; the person who has 25% of me could theoretically sell this to somebody for £15 (Now that would be a bargain!) and therefore lock in a profit on the sale. However I do not see this as being a real  problem that is currently facing APAT.
I think if APAT have/had released a statement stating that in this situation allowing only a % of winnings as a "sweetener" (way of adding implied value) then we should be happy with this for the time being until it does become a genuine issue.

[Pilf]

If you choose to swap % with players in the same competition or whatever then that"s fine and part of everyday poker but selling a seat with the promise of % as a sweetener to intice the transaction is wrong in my opinion...

Why is this fine then?? APAT clearly has a rule stating that no deals are allowed in APAT tournaments. This would IMO constitute a deal.

FWIW I agree that this is fine, but if we look at the rules in Black and White as we appear to be doing, how is it fine?

[Chipaccrual]

Sorry I haven"t got involved in this thread sooner, been busy this afternoon.  


Any seat exchanges must be completed for no more than the face value of the seat (i.e. £75)

Due to the high demand for these tickets, players are offering a percentage of themselves to stand a chance of getting one as and when they become available.  This is only potential additional money, should they cash.

To the best of my knowlewdge, this is only being offered by players looking for a ticket and not by anyone selling (i.e. I can"t make it, so selling my seat for £75 + I want 50% of whoever buys it).

What we want to do is ensure seats are exchanged in a simple and fair way. By sticking to the £75 rule (which I believe each transaction so far has done, and if anyone knows any different, then please pm me) we do not have the situation of people getting seats just to make a profit from.

That would go against what APAT is all about.  Offering a % of yourself to get a ticket, just shows how keen you are to play.

Hope that answers the queries.

Leigh

[STEVEFRYER]

I play poker as a passtime and gamble for a living.

Do I know you?

I don"t believe there is any value me trying to explain things

I saw what you did there  

[Chipaccrual]

If you choose to swap % with players in the same competition or whatever then that"s fine and part of everyday poker but selling a seat with the promise of % as a sweetener to intice the transaction is wrong in my opinion...

Why is this fine then?? APAT clearly has a rule stating that no deals are allowed in APAT tournaments. This would IMO constitute a deal.

FWIW I agree that this is fine, but if we look at the rules in Black and White as we appear to be doing, how is it fine?

The no deal rule relates to the players currently in the tournament in question.  You are comparing that with a situation where a % has been agreed to someone not playing in the tournament (as they are selling their seat).

Two completely different situations.

[STEVEFRYER]

Offering a % of yourself to get a ticket, just shows how keen you are to play.

And offering a premium above the value of a concert ticket just shows how keen you are to see the concert, it doesn"t stop the person you"re dealing with being a tout

[Pilf]

Thanks Leigh, clears everything up.  

Steve, I don"t think you know me. I"m easily locatable on APAT website or Hendon Mobs poker database (or through google) if you wanna see if you recognise me.
If you gamble a lot you"ve probably had a few of my hard earned on Betfair too.
And if you laid Denman at 20/1 for me at the National, Thanks. I"m now on a £500 freeroll....../brag.