APAT Payout Structures

[Chipaccrual]

(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)

far from it I reckon.  I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag

I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.

It might even be APAT branded.  

[George2Loose]

(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)

far from it I reckon.  I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag

I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.

It might even be APAT branded.  

Make some room

[tumblet]

I have no problem with the flat/top-heavy payout structure precisely for the reasons APAT have laid out.

APAT doesn"t really have any problems selling out it"s UK events and unless the number of available seats were to rise dramatically, I see no likelihood of any change in the pay-out structure.

This is a total red herring... if APAT had started out with a more conventional payout structure it would still be in exactly the same strong position it is in today.

Just because OTHER poker organisations have a more structured payout structure doesn"t make theirs better.

Yes, it does.

Overall, if I"m going to get a medal/top spot, I want to EARN it by better (or luckier) play not through trying to ladder up the payout structure by sitting back.

Poker is a game where a players standard is ultimately measured by how much money they win and the length of time over which they continue to do so... not by how many medals or cups they have gathering dust on their mantelpeice.

On the deal-making side, APAT have rules against it (for obvious reasons)

What are the reasons?

but, in truth, there is very little they can do to stop it..other than throwing out bans if it"s discovered. I wouldn"t do it but others might...it smacks of collusion too much for me.

Deals = Collusion?? wtf is that all about?

Regards,
Alan
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)

Glad you did it Alan I could not be bothered...

1: Change payout structure 4th - 9th.. (Maybe even pay top 27 and have 3 tables last day as was suggested)
2: Deals possible (but using the method DTD do by chipstacks)
3: Duke only 50% drop no way..
4: Add alternates cash onto payout not pay £75 per person (might have been changed now)

On the whole, payout & medals make no difference to me (probs never got any thats why, I should change my attitude), but the APAT weekend is that, a weekend away where I get to see people I have not seen for a while, almost call it a holiday weekend because I dont manage to get away much anymore, but that does not mean that I agree with the current payouts. I would play them anyway..

I also whilst typing thought of a comment that was made earlier in the thread about "APAT being oversubscribed and that must or does mean that it is doing something right".. I agree it is doing something right, but some people on the forum should remember that is only a £75 tournament and it has some very good added value with a great bunch of tournament people and that might be the reason its oversubscribed, not because its doing it right..

Final point to people to think about.. APAT tournaments have always been a sell out month after month from day it started, yet this season, seats have not always sold out straight away, I managed to get a friend of mine a seat in luton a week or more after it was available on betfair, in fact having just looked there are still seats available..!!!! As someone said earlier "people may be voting with their feet"

See you at luton, im getting so pissed on the Friday night...

More dead cash
Dafydd

[Curlarge]

Referring to Dukes suggestion of changes, I totally support his proposed amendment. There is (IMO) too bigger jump from 4th to 1st and for 4th to 9th to pay the same amount seems wrong. In fact (again IMO) seems it could have the reverse effect of wanting players to go for the win. Play gets looser as some take a punt at winning a big hand with poor play or a rag call, hoping to hit, knowing that if they bust out they get the same as 4th.

Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)

I would like to suggest that all players in any WCOAP event must firstly be an APAT member and secondly, MUST have played at least one APAT Regional Main Event in that calender year.

This would do two things. Firstly it would encourage those who want to play in the WCOAP to join APAT and support the regional events throughout the year and also stop any "semi-Pro or Pro" rocking up and gatecrashing our Finale.

With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.


Lets keep APAT for us Amateurs who support our tour.

[RioRodent]

(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)

far from it I reckon.  I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag

I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.

It might even be APAT branded.  

Make some room

Enough already... I"m not used to having people agree with me [or at least openly admit to it]! Although I am getting a warm feeling all over... probably being in a sleeping bag with Claire.  

Wait a minute..... that"s why you others want in, isn"t it? Now feeling deflated.  

[SirPercival]

Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)

IIRC by playing an APAT event you become a member of APAT therefore everyone who played the WCOAP was a member. Everyone has to have a first event sometime.

[AMRN]

With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.

It wouldn"t have been so rich without all those "new" members (they aren"t non-members, they are new members)

[Laxie]

(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)

far from it I reckon.  I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag

I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.

It might even be APAT branded.  

Make some room

Enough already... I"m not used to having people agree with me [or at least openly admit to it]! Although I am getting a warm feeling all over... probably being in a sleeping bag with Claire.  

Wait a minute..... that"s why you others want in, isn"t it? Now feeling deflated.  

Is there room for one more or should I bring me own sleeping bag?

[Mikeyboy9361]

Referring to Dukes suggestion of changes, I totally support his proposed amendment. There is (IMO) too bigger jump from 4th to 1st and for 4th to 9th to pay the same amount seems wrong. In fact (again IMO) seems it could have the reverse effect of wanting players to go for the win. Play gets looser as some take a punt at winning a big hand with poor play or a rag call, hoping to hit, knowing that if they bust out they get the same as 4th.

Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)

I would like to suggest that all players in any WCOAP event must firstly be an APAT member and secondly, MUST have played at least one APAT Regional Main Event in that calender year.

This would do two things. Firstly it would encourage those who want to play in the WCOAP to join APAT and support the regional events throughout the year and also stop any "semi-Pro or Pro" rocking up and gatecrashing our Finale.

With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.


Lets keep APAT for us Amateurs who support our tour.

APATs ethos is that it is open to everyone, but I have to say I agree with this post, this is our number one event of the year and as Curlage says, is it fair that any Tom Dick or Jane can rock up and play in our most prestigious event.
In regard to payouts, I agree with the majority of people who would prefer a flatter payout structure, and particularly with Wills view that the FT dynamics are not a refelection on true FTs because of the steep payout jumps

[AAroddersAA]

Referring to Dukes suggestion of changes, I totally support his proposed amendment. There is (IMO) too bigger jump from 4th to 1st and for 4th to 9th to pay the same amount seems wrong. In fact (again IMO) seems it could have the reverse effect of wanting players to go for the win. Play gets looser as some take a punt at winning a big hand with poor play or a rag call, hoping to hit, knowing that if they bust out they get the same as 4th.

Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)

I would like to suggest that all players in any WCOAP event must firstly be an APAT member and secondly, MUST have played at least one APAT Regional Main Event in that calender year.

This would do two things. Firstly it would encourage those who want to play in the WCOAP to join APAT and support the regional events throughout the year and also stop any "semi-Pro or Pro" rocking up and gatecrashing our Finale.

With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.


Lets keep APAT for us Amateurs who support our tour.

APATs ethos is that it is open to everyone, but I have to say I agree with this post, this is our number one event of the year and as Curlage says, is it fair that any Tom Dick or Jane can rock up and play in our most prestigious event.
In regard to payouts, I agree with the majority of people who would prefer a flatter payout structure, and particularly with Wills view that the FT dynamics are not a refelection on true FTs because of the steep payout jumps

Going to disagree with closing the main event here. I think the weekend was awesome with people turning up from all over and making a great tournament. The side events would not have been so well supported if the main event had not been so big. People would not have come to DtD to play just a 6-Max event or an Omaha event.

In most organisations it is the "flagship" event that first attracts people to it. Therefore I would want this to continue and get an even bigger event next year. I have friends who I am trying to convince to start playing APAT events and APAT's coverage along with the youtube video of the event has got some of them thinking about it very hard. This is the sort of event that attracts new players.

I would prefer it is kept for amateur players but poker is a game where that is very hard to do. There are people who it is hard to say if they are semi-pros or not. What is a semi pro player in poker terms?

Some kind of special tournament for APAT members would be great but I don"t think it should be the world championship. Maybe we could even organise an "unoffical" one during the off season somehow which would allow people like Rich and Leigh to play?

[Foggy]

As a supporter of APAT since inception, and someone that has cashed at a couple of events I have always thought that the payout structure was in need of change. Having said that I have always fallen into the school of " let the people who run the events, run them" If I do not like it I can vote with my feet. It is obvious from reading the thread that the majority would like the payout structure changed. So how do we go about this?

Many moons ago it was muted that we would elect a players committee who could vote and suggest ways of improving the APAT ethic, I"m sure that Rio raised this point on many occasions. Is this idea, dead in the water or is it still a possability

If the majority want to change the structure will it go to a vote, or will the status quo remain?

The majority of the decisions made by the directors I applaud, but this one do"es need change

[Paulie_D]

Many moons ago it was mooted that we would elect a players committee who could vote and suggest ways of improving the APAT ethic, I"m sure that Rio raised this point on many occasions. Is this idea, dead in the water or is it still a possibility

I know Alan was very keen but I seem to recall that the idea was shelved (at least temporarily) although I"m sure APAT would welcome opinions on it"s re-inception.

I also have a vague memory that one of the reasons for the shelving was that players/members would voice their opinions through the forum so actual participation in the committee seemed (at least at the time) to be somewhat unnecessary.

As I said, it"s only a vague recollection so I could be wrong.

If the majority want to change the structure will it go to a vote, or will the status quo remain?

No...it won"t go to a vote unless APAT want it to [and even then, the mechanics of a vote of the ENTIRE membership is problematical] although I"m sure the Powers That Be will take on board all of the discussions and views expressed here. They have show willingness to adapt to a wish for change before.

I would stress that the views expressed here represent a very TINY sample of the APAT membership (and the loudest of course). Just because the majority of the people posting in this thread want something does not mean that it"s supported by the majority of the membership.

It probably is (or they are apathetic about it [semi-pun]) but it"s not guaranteed.

[Marty719]

I would stress that the views expressed here represent a very TINY sample of the APAT membership (and the loudest of course). Just because the majority of the people posting in this thread want something does not mean that it"s supported by the majority of the membership.

While this is true - all APAT members have joined the forum and have access to this thread.  A vote is very hard to organise so feedback from this thread is up there with the only ways to get feedback.  Overall - it will hopefully give a good representation of the players wants.

[Foggy]

Many moons ago it was mooted that we would elect a players committee who could vote and suggest ways of improving the APAT ethic, I"m sure that Rio raised this point on many occasions. Is this idea, dead in the water or is it still a possibility

I know Alan was very keen but I seem to recall that the idea was shelved (at least temporarily) although I"m sure APAT would welcome opinions on it"s re-inception.

I also have a vague memory that one of the reasons for the shelving was that players/members would voice their opinions through the forum so actual participation in the committee seemed (at least at the time) to be somewhat unnecessary.

As I said, it"s only a vague recollection so I could be wrong.

If the majority want to change the structure will it go to a vote, or will the status quo remain?

No...it won"t go to a vote unless APAT want it to [and even then, the mechanics of a vote of the ENTIRE membership is problematical] although I"m sure the Powers That Be will take on board all of the discussions and views expressed here. They have show willingness to adapt to a wish for change before.

I would stress that the views expressed here represent a very TINY sample of the APAT membership (and the loudest of course). Just because the majority of the people posting in this thread want something does not mean that it"s supported by the majority of the membership.

It probably is (or they are apathetic about it [semi-pun]) but it"s not guaranteed.

Thanks for the spelling lesson, but not required!!

Are your opinions as moderator purely personal or that of the directors of APAT?

As yet we have seen no imput from Des or Tighty, is this likely to be forthcoming?

[Paulie_D]

Thanks for the spelling lesson, but not required!!

Sorry...that one"s a pet peeve of mine.

Are your opinions as moderator purely personal or that of the directors of APAT?

Oh...just my personal opinions...(being a mod has no bearing other than I"m a big fan of APAT) and I occasionally have chats with Leigh, Des and Richard on various subjects. I"m not an "insider" by any means.

What I was saying is that APAT (the "Company") will do what it wants to do...the only actual influence we have is in expressing our opinions here (and in person). We can"t MAKE them do anything.

The issues about voting have come up before in other matters (the committee being one). APAT has (I believe) well over 10,000 members...of which only about 7000 are members of the forum.

How many people have expressed an opinion here? Let"s be generous and say 70...that"s 1%....and not all of those were of the same opinion.

It"s tough to base a change on a 1% sample. The argument (if you will) is whether that (say) 75% of the 1% represent the membership as a whole.

As yet we have seen no imput from Des or Tighty, is this likely to be forthcoming?

Well, they have said something here...only just that they are interested in the opinions. I know that they DO care about what we think and I have no doubts that they will take this discussion into account when deciding things for S5 and beyond.

As always...my .