This mean The Mole for example can play then as he has other forms of income? I always thought it was stated that it was your main source of income. I must admit I found it strange that a guy that advertises himself as a professional and offers coaching should pass the test. Just saying as tbh I would rather there were no restrictions, I think you will only improve by playing tougher opponents. How many "pros" would actually be interested in a £75 freezout don"t think you would be overrun with them.
Some good and interesting points here. I would firstly say that to police this would be impossible for APAT and they do a very good job already.
I don"t know if there has been any issue with The Mole playing APAT but based on the criteria and the fact he does have other sources of income outside of poker I would be surprised if he was not allowed to play. Again that"s purely based on my understanding of the rules (which may or may not be correct).
A player being a poker coach does not make him a professional player. It would often make him a pretty good player but having a good understanding of shoving and calling ranges etc is a small part of what make a pro player, you could not coach discipline and patience that easily. You could have the knowledge to be a coach but lack other parts of the game that are required for being a pro player.
An alternate example might be Ray Norton (Mondatoo on Blonde). He is confirmed eligible for APAT and he is clearly somebody who is very capable of surviving solely off PLAYING poker, it is well advertised that he does in his blog (which I would argue makes him better than anybody currently playing APAT) and if he is allowed to play them there should be no question about anybody who played this season. Ray is a great bloke and all that but being a great bloke does not change the fact he is what a lot of people would call a professional poker player. This also serves to show it"s so subjective and just because I think this does not mean APAT agree (or should agree).
As for would pro"s be interested in a £75 event, why wouldn"t they? I mean they are not going to travel to go to one, but if it happened to be in their local area why would they not play it? They would have a pretty big edge on your average APAT player so it would be worth it - dunno about time factors against grinding online of course but most pros spend some time playing live. Would have thought taking that sort of edge would be a no-brainer. I know they could do it anyway if nobody knew them but they are still currently discouraged.
My take on it is that I don"t not really want pro"s to be playing APAT, seems to defy the point and the practice whilst it can"t be stopped should continue to be discouraged. Leave it as it is, or better yet make the rule that a pro is a pro if their MAIN income is from poker, which would make more sense and is actually what I thought it was. Again it would have to self police but nothing APAT can do about that as at the end of the day you don"t know what somebody is making from the game.
Doesn"t seem to fit with most peoples views but there we go :-)
