Professional Players playing in APAT

[AJDUK]

Wow wish I hadn"t raised the point some serious amount of guff in here.

You love dropping bombs and running away  

[Jon MW]

... So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. ...

(1) why?
and (2) why?

[AMRN]

... So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. ...

(1) why?
and (2) why?

What"s the point of a rule that is not (1) nor (2)?  Would be a pointless rule.

[monkeyman]

I personally couldn"t give a flying f*** who turns up to play in an APAT tournament

[AMRN]

I personally couldn"t give a flying f*** who turns up to play in an APAT tournament

^^This

If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro and I would welcome the chance to play against them

[Jon MW]

... So if we"re going to have a rule then it should be (1) enforcable & (2) enforced. ...

(1) why?
and (2) why?

What"s the point of a rule that is not (1) nor (2)?  Would be a pointless rule.

It tells people what is expected - if they don"t abide by it, it isn"t catastrophic but maybe a little disappointing.

People have already said that they don"t really care if a pro infiltrates an APAT tournament, it makes perfect sense to me that a self-policing rule that professionals can"t play doesn"t have to be enforceable or enforced when it doesn"t make a difference if any do play.

Maybe it"s a semantic point - replace "rule" with "guideline" and there"s clearly no problem.

[Jon MW]

There are rules in things like snooker and golf that effectively can"t be 100% enforced or enforceable - doesn"t cause a problem there. One in particular would be that their are several times where only the snooker player playing the shot might know he accidentally fouled whilst lining up a shot - if some players don"t declare it, it"s disappointing, but it doesn"t stop the whole rule being invalid.

[Mikeyboy9361]

Bejesus, let "em come, I"d love to sit at the same table as a Pro, I play for fun, not to earn a living, and to sit at the table and watch the best then great! We have some of the best amateurs playing the game on this tour, and I am sure they"d love to pit their wits against the pros!

[MintTrav]

If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro

Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.

[Delboy]

Surely, the ethos of APAT is that its a starting place for those with little or no live poker experience, to play deep stack tournament poker? When we have one or two events won by people who advertise themselves as pros, does that not dissolve that ethos somewhat?

A budding new player would see pros winning and consider APAT just like all the other events.

[AAroddersAA]

Bejesus, let "em come, I"d love to sit at the same table as a Pro, I play for fun, not to earn a living, and to sit at the table and watch the best then great! We have some of the best amateurs playing the game on this tour, and I am sure they"d love to pit their wits against the pros!

They already can. There are plenty of affordable events where the top APAT players could challenge the pros if they wanted too, and plenty do. APAT should not be that place though (imo). You already have DTD and the UKIPT gives good level APAT players a good chance to qualify for a "bigger" tournament. If amateur players want to challenge the pros they should be going into the pro game, not bring the pros into the amateur game. It works this way in other games like pool, snooker and I think darts. Not easy easy in poker of course but the concept should still apply.

I still don"t understand why people think pros would not want to play a £75 tournament. I know that they may not want to travel for it as covering the expenses over a season is unrealistic even for the best on the APAT tour. If they have an APAT in their local area though would they not see a good value tournament full of players, most of which they are better than and play? APAT's are well run good structured tournaments as well which may well attract more pro"s than if it was just a £75 casino donkfest. The only downside I can see is the time these things take, I am not sure how much of an issue this would be to a pro.

@ Ray being better than anyone on APAT because he is grinds 45 man sng"s.

OK, this would not automatically make somebody better than anybody on APAT but it does mean they would have the discipline and the mindset required to be a pro - which I still say is more important than understanding players hand ranges and knowing push and fold spots as far as actually BEING a pro player goes, and also why I question some players being called pro"s. BUT perhaps thats not so important in a one off tournament (APAT or otherwise) so might not be that relevant. There are certainly some players at APAT who on their day can play at the same level as a pro, they would just not be as consistent. It seems very very hard to do and I don"t think we should be assuming there are any number of players within APAT who could do it.

My point remains a pro still has a big edge over the field. APAT has a valuable place within UK Poker and I feel it should remain.

[TightEnd]

Let me get a couple of things straight please


Niall Farrell was representing Black Belt Poker in the forum team Champs were pros were ALLOWED to play. The BBP captain checked this with me beforehand, and the "pros allowed" criteria was mentioned on the forum. It was for forums to pick teams from their membership.

So, that does not conflict with the Amateurs only ethos of our national championships


Ben Young was an Amateur when he won the WCOAP and subsequently had a spell as a Pro. During this time he began to work with the Firm Poker as a coach. The Firm of course is out to win business, it advertises all its coaches as Pros, and continues to do so. This is despite the fact, as we discussed it with Ben before Newcastle, that Ben is now working, alongside his poker roles. Therefore, not a Pro again and eligible. Ben is a successful player, going places but he is NOT currently a Pro. He is playing in Cardiff next weekend. Unless he tells us he is now poker only. Which knowing him he might :-)


You wouldn"t expect The Firm to change their advertising material for this "not a Pro, but might be again one day", but that is the situation

I regard it as a compliment to APAT, its community and its events that Ben wants to play APATs.


As has been said the Pro issue largely self polices, I can think of at least 10 individuals who self exclude, some having played APATs previously when Amateur.

If ever we have an issue, they are discussed with the individual behind the scenes and rarely made public.


On a wider basis, with the Pro-Am events and the Forum Champs there is definitely room for ALL poker players to be members of APAT but the National Championships, the core of the live offering, remain Amateur only and is unlikely to change

[WarBwastardo]

Surely there"s no actual thing as a Poker Professional really.  Not in the strictest sense.  Not in the same way there are Pro Golfers or Snooker players or Boxers etc.  There"s no Poker governing body you have to register with, no courses to take or fees to pay or taxman to tell.

It"s just a term of reference really.  A "Pro" is some one that probably spends most of his time playing poker and probably would struggle to pay the bills without his poker earnings.  But in reality in the eyes of the law he"s unemployed. And in a 200 runner event his edge is minimal anyway.  It"s not Tiger Woods playing a round in West Oxfordshire.

This is why this has to be a judgement call and why it has to be self policed.  And I can"t see how this has ever been a problem so far or ever really can be.  The rewards of APAT nationals will never be lucrative enough to attract such a volume of full time players as to take the fun out of and essentially remove the amateur status of, the event...so in effect, who gives an actual fook.

I"d still ban shades though and hoodies.

[bigalhx3]

If a "pro" wants to get up for a £75 tourney, they"re obviously not a very successful pro

Not necessarily - they might just fancy playing an APAT event for the craic or cos they know some of the crowd, etc. Was it a coincidence that the only pro playing in each of the last two tournaments ended up winning them? Possibly it was, cos I saw Niall run good when he should have been out and I"m told it was the same with Ben. Nevertheless they then went on to win the events, presumably through a combination of running good and more skill. A pro player definitely has an advantage.

you think there was only 1 pro playing newcastle

[Marty719]

<3 these threads fwiw - I think the rule could be lifted, and it would not make that much difference to any of the tournaments.  The fields may pick up 1 or 2 low level pros who may take it seriously and have a very small edge.