APAT - "Amateur"

[TightEnd]

I stand corrected. In my defence, I don"t remember it lol

[Marty719]

Just as a matter of interest, what is the reasoning behind not allowing pros to play?  I cant imagine many travelling to play £75 f/o (despite the structure and craic), and it wouldnt change the skill level of the events dramatically with a few pros.  A good pro will not have a big advantage over the field.

bump

[SirPercival]

Just as a matter of interest, what is the reasoning behind not allowing pros to play?  I cant imagine many travelling to play £75 f/o (despite the structure and craic), and it wouldnt change the skill level of the events dramatically with a few pros.  A good pro will not have a big advantage over the field.

bump

because PPAT doesn"t sound as good as APAT  

[Paulie_D]

A good pro will not have a big advantage over the field.

I disagree with your premise.

The argument is the same for all arenas....if there is a differentiation between Pros and Amateurs then "Pros" don"t get to play in the Amateur events.

If you are good enough to make your sole income from one"s chosen "sport" then you MUST have a big enough advantage that it would unreasonably skew the results towards you...and that"s the point.

[Marty719]

The big pros would have a slight advantage (not a large one at all) but the pros who would play a £75 event would really nt have a big advantage if any at all. The average person really overestimates the skill level of an average pro.

Edit: Just to add, poker is not a level playing field.  Even with no pros in APAT events, I could still name 5+ players who play them that are the same standard.  

[Paulie_D]

The big pros would have a slight advantage (not a large one at all) but the pros who would play a £75 event would really nt have a big advantage if any at all.

The buy-in is just a quibble and nit-picking...the line has to be drawn somewhere...so just excluding all "Pros" (and let"s not forget they are, by and large, self-excluding) it solves the potential problem.

Edit: Just to add, poker is not a level playing field.  Even with no pros in APAT events, I could still name 5+ players who play them that are the same standard. 

Of course, it"s not level, but those 5 players aren"t self-declared pros. They may have the same skill level but not be successful enough to make it their only living. I could be brilliant (I"m not) but not have the drive enough to be more than a recreational player.

As I said, mostly it"s a self-policed issue.

[duke3016]

I could still name 5+ players who play them that are the same standard. 

Who are the other four

[Marty719]

I could still name 5+ players who play them that are the same standard. 

Who are the other four

well played sir...well played!

[AAroddersAA]

An teresting topic this one - good thread.

I think it self polices fine, one or two so called pro players do sometimes slip in I am sure and there is nothing that APAT can do about that. A poker pro who happens to living in Nottingham might well play an APAT event at DTD for example. I am informed the same thing happens in pool.

For me a pro would be somebody who can make a living out of poker, something that is incredibly hard to do (as opposed to making a nice amount on the side, which is just hard to do). Anybody who can do this would certainly have an edge on an APAT field. It"s all about how you classify a pro. There may be a few APAT players who can, on their day, play to a level equal to somebody who calls themselves a pro but is really just making some nice money on the side. These few can play very well on their day but will have more off days than our "pro" and therefore over a good sample size have a significantly smaller edge on the field.

A true pro who does truely make a living at poker would have to have a large edge on a APAT field, anybody who does not would not be able to do it.

The big pros would have a slight advantage (not a large one at all) but the pros who would play a £75 event would really nt have a big advantage if any at all. The average person really overestimates the skill level of an average pro. 

Maybe, or maybe we all underestimate how hard it really is to be good enough to be a pro. I have yet to meet anybody at an APAT event who I am convinced could do it successfully long term.

[bigalhx3]

7 of those 8 are correct. John Tab has never played an APAT Amateur

The others self excluded


Any advance on 8?

Really?

I was on his table in Cardiff season 1 (may have been 2)

Correct, he played as an Amateur in S2 and as a Pro in S4.  He just smoked cigars in S3....

I"m glad its Tighty thats losing it and not me  

I just remember that apart from Stuart Ward that he was the most difficult to play with in an APAT event

and what about the time you did not know how to play your j/3 against me 20 mins to fold it pre because you just did not know what i was going to do if you flat  raised or shoved so you bottled it and pressed the fold button  

[Swinebag]

Is Jon Spinks the other one?

[TheSnapper]

Variance will have more bearing on Apat results than ambiguous labels.

[WYoung83]

Very true Brendan, even pros go broke and need staking from time to time due to variance.

[Marty719]

Variance will have more bearing on Apat results than ambiguous labels.

This^^^

[kinboshi]

Just as a matter of interest, what is the reasoning behind not allowing pros to play?  I cant imagine many travelling to play £75 f/o (despite the structure and craic), and it wouldnt change the skill level of the events dramatically with a few pros.  A good pro will not have a big advantage over the field.

bump

The buy-in (and therefore the prize money) means that the tournaments aren"t going to be that attractive to many pros.  So that deals with 99% of pros from the start.  Do they want to grind for 2 days to win a (relatively) small amount when they could be playing £1K GUKPT events?

The self-policing element helps keep the "amateur" ethos true to the name, and even if a pro did play, they should be more skilled/experiences than the rest of the field, but as everyone knows the edge in any MTT is going to be very slight indeed.

Having Leigh involved in the management and administration of the events now further reinforces the amateur element.