They are available to Rakeback players. However, you need to rake twice the amount to hit each level.

Besides that, there's often confusion about what rake paid you exactly need for each level. Keep in mind that you have to add all previous level's rake targets together to know the total amount of rake paid needed for a level.

My rakechase stats show 0.0 Ive received 426 dollars in rakeback this month so, I'm not sure what that would be in total rake about triple? Yet I don't show up on the grind rewards at all when I search for my name. I imagine that the grind table awards are for the regular tables that are not grind for glory? Also at about what monthly rake is it worth swapping over to vip?

I suggest swapping if you can reach SilverVIP (750$ rake paid). Your rake paid (somewhere around 1200$ MGR then?) should have made you reach around 9 (12 if u were VIP) Grind for Glory levels IF you were among the first to hit them. You can find the number of prizes awarded here: http://lockpoker.eu/promos/grind-for-glory/prizes/ if others were faster hitting them, then you can no longer reach them.

Grind table levels are awarded only for playing on the specific Grind for Glory tables. These tables are basically the best for the rakechases, because they'll increase both your "Grind table levels" aswell as your regular "Grind for Glory levels".

Thanks for the information. I guess that means those specific tables are probably only available to higher stakes.

All rake you pay, anywhere, including MTTs, Sit&go's, cashgames, everything counts towards the regular Grind for Glory prizes, which i linked you above. To reach the "Grind Table Levels" you can click that link on that page (or find it here: http://lockpoker.eu/promos/grind-for.../grind-tables/ ) to reach those levels, you must specifically play on the Grind 4 Glory blue cashgame tables or Sit&Go's.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Also how do they figure rake on rake chases is that also contributed rake?

Shane, your story does not really makes sense.

Jhub posted about the upcoming retreat in July 2011 (retreat happened in October 2011).

http://jhubpoker.blogspot.com/2011/0...o-retreat.html

He even included pictures of the castle you would be staying at.

Given he was one of the most visible pros at the time, if that situation was in any way comparable to the current climate of this retreat (where you had to, what you call "deflect," what others are calling lie to killowat), wouldn't Jhub have had to delete his blog post sometime between July and October?

You cannot reasonably say that pictures of the exact castle in Europe months before the trip is less detailed than "Lock Pros are in Portugal" during the trip.

Yes, it's calculated completely by your MGR as displayed on your Admin page. (Stats tab)

Exactly. Now that Shane has stuck his foot in his mouth again does he have deflect the deflection? Seriously Shane when are you going to realize when you are not honest and straightforward with people it will only come back to bite you in the ass.

Could you show some or even one of your of your team pros who is regarded as reputable (PrimordialAA for example) who in turn will state to the poker community that they have seen the evidence that lock is solvent? Obviously he doesn't need to make the details public, and you should have him sign an NDA or whatever, but merely showing one person the poker community somewhat trusts that the company is solvent would go a long way.

If not, why not, are your pros untrustworthy?

The thread has left the tracks!! Lol

The focus for our team right now is getting all the cashouts caught up, getting all the delayed cashouts moved through as quickly as possible and getting all the enquires on old cashouts handled as quickly as possible.

Then our next step is to ensure our cashouts continue to move through quickly and we maintain the momentum of recent weeks. This spike in processing means nothing if we dont sustain it over a period of time. That is our complete focus right now.

Our players confidence is directly tied to their money, but letting the cashout times slip we eroded our customers confidence. We have to earn that confidence back by delivering consistant results over a period of time.


With new processors being brought on some newer cashouts have gone out before some old cashouts but there is a concerted effort to work with our processors to ensure all of the old cashouts are caught up as soon as possible.


As with the first answer above everything revolves around cashout times. We need to deliver cashout times over a sustained period.

Our rewards are still industry leading, we have finally cleared up the transfer situation and have a clear and very fair policy in place there, now we have to continue to move forward with our processing and restore that customer faith.


I mentioned this earlier, if that thread had been brought to our attention at the time he would have been asked to immediately remove those photos.

While his text fitted what we were told by legal the photos clearly gave away the location. And while he didnt mention the timing of the event if you had the location you could probably work out when it was based on the everyone posting about travelling much like this time.

Even this time it was clear when all the pro's were posting about being at the airport it was clear they were going somewhere, that was fine. When the location and the timing was given away then it became a problem.

Someone mentioned in one of the threads one of the girlfriends of a pro posting something online and it being removed, that was an example of the situation being policed on our end as well.


Brian was in the meeting with Jen and management, he heard what she had to say and was satisfied that Lock was in the right place and would move forward from this situation. I spoke to him personally afterwards to see how the pro's really felt and he was definitely relieved and happy that any fears he had were set aside. He went out and tried to share this in the community and no one believed him.

Would the community really believe him if he posted that he had seen the bank account balances and Lock was indeed solvent? I honestly cant see anyone trusting it.

Shane you never answered this question

I disclosed that the Lock retreat was in Portugal. How exactly would that have allowed people to find the people and events associated with Lock?

In any case, the whole situation proves that Lock is willing to directly and publicly lie if it's in their own self-interest.

Which is exactly why nobody trusts you or Lock. That's pretty much been the situation with the site ever since it started, which is why you guys run through scandal after scandal, while other similar-sized, US-facing networks (like ACR/Winning, Merge, Bovada) have very few scandals or major problems.

Simply put, Lock has more shadiness to it than all of the other US-facing sites combined.

Jennifer Larson explained this in her LOL interview by saying that people pick on Lock because she has put herself out there as an easily-identifiable CEO.

So once again, Lock is the victim of the overaggressive and unfair internet media machine, when they're just trying to honestly do business and provide poker with a sensible and fair place to play.

Comedy.

My personal track record?

I have been part of the poker community for almost 13 years. You won't be able to name one instance where I lied, scammed, slow-paid, or broke my promises.

Shane has been trying to discredit me in recent days, because some troll sent him a link to a story about a scammer on my forum. That's what happens when you run a poker forum, Shane. You can't do a background check on everyone that posts there, so obviously there will be a few scammers and other unsavory characters among the group. But you can't blame me for that, just as you can't blame Mason for scammers on 2+2.

But stop attacking the messenger. This isn't about me. Nobody in this or any of the Lock threads cares if I'm a good guy or a bad guy, because I'm not the one they have to trust. I'm not the one holding their money hostage and lying (errrrr, I mean "deflecting") to them. That would be you, Jennifer, and everyone else who is part of the uber-shady Lock management team.

If you don't trust me to find a reputable auditing firm that will take on the Lock job, that's fine.

I'm sure we can come up with a mutually agreed-upon, neutral third-party who can find such a firm.

Jennifer stated in her interview that she isn't refusing to have this audit, but simply wasn't able to find a firm that could promise not to cave to DOJ pressure and be willing to take the job.

I am stating that such a firm CAN be found, and that I know plenty of neutral third parties (people who don't dislike Lock) who would be willing to take the job to identify several from which Lock can choose.

Time to state the truth, Shane:

Lock will not allow their books to be audited because they have spent almost all of the player money.

You state that the other US-facing sites would not submit to such an audit.

The difference is that these sites have run mostly scandal-free during their existence. While it would be great if all sites proved themselves with an audit (as Pokerstars voluntarily did several years ago), it's most important to audit the ones with a recent track record of dishonesty and highly questionable financial health.

It's like a guy with five DUIs asking why he has an ignition-breathalyzer hooked up to his car, while everyone else at the bar is free to start their car without proving they're not drunk. The difference is that he has five DUIs and everyone else at the bar doesn't. When you keep offending, the burden on you to prove your future innocence is much higher.

Nobody (aside from a few gullible, greedy pros) trusts Lock, and for good reason.

You want us to believe all of Jennifer's nonsensical explanations regarding the recent issues (again, with zero proof presented), yet in the same breath you admit that you blatantly lied about the Portugal thing.

You have zero credibility.

Lock has zero credibility.

Until you present some PROOF that your statements are true, everything will be assumed to be a lie.

Go to Amazon and buy the children's book "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" if you still are having difficulty understanding this concept.

A few people have asked about my agenda.

My only agenda is to shine a bright light upon the scum in the poker world -- especially online poker sites that are stealing from and scamming their customers.

My reason for this is personal. I was directly cheated on AP and UB, and my money was stolen on Full Tilt.

It's time for the community to stand up against those taking advantage of the unfortunate environment where there is zero regulation and little legal consequence to cheating people.

It's up to our community to police itself, because nobody else will do it for us.

While it is true that Lock has not personally cheated me (since I haven't played there in years), I have taken it upon myself to help warn the community about any person or company that is likely in the process of stealing their money.

The only reason I bring up Lock so often is because they're the worst current offender by a wide margin.

I do not run any affiliate programs. I do not own any part of any online poker skins or networks. I have nothing to gain financially if Lock fails.

I'm just calling it like I see it.

Nice try, but are you forgetting about the painful lesson the community learned about Full Tilt?

Full Tilt was processing cashouts regularly and within a decent timeframe, including after Black Friday. They were able to do this despite the fact that they had stolen 98% of player funds.

Therefore, regular and consistent processing of cashouts means almost nothing.

It's like saying that being able to buy food every day is proof that you are financially secure.

Cashouts represent a very small percentage of the overall money you are holding for your customers. Simply being able to maintain a neutral or positive cash flow (that is, collecting enough deposits to be able to cover current cashout requests) does NOT mean the company is solvent.

Can you explain how we are supposed to trust that Lock is any different than mid-2011 Full Tilt, if Full Tilt was able to process regular cashouts and had actually stolen 98% of player funds? How are we to believe that Lock didn't steal 98% of player funds? Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

I think I have answer to locks usa pay out problem. After thinking it over the one thing you have is plenty of pros compared to number of players, there on the road going to tournys from town to town , you have them pay players. Maybe have t shirts saying I was paid by a lock pro. I could see this being big hit. Door bell rings who is it , some guy says he is the grinder, like the prize patrol.

That's because he wasn't shown any evidence, just the word of your CEO who would obviously have a vested interest in keeping him in the dark if lock wasn't solvent. See UB scandal where some of their name pros were deliberately kept in the dark regarding the cheating scandal and solvency of the site. I'm not saying that's happening here, i'm saying you can prove conclusively that it isn't by showing one or more of your more trusted team pros the evidence that it isn't.

and yes, Brian would be trusted if he had seen evidence as opposed to simply being told things are okay. As it stands, his judgement of who to trust is fairly questionable if you look into his past (being scammed, etc). A lot of us, myself included, believe he would never deliberately mislead the poker community, but when he has not been shown any evidence to back up his statements then it's hard to believe his judgement.

You also didn't answer my question directly, would lock trust one or more of their name/reputable pros like Brian with the bank balances in order to prove that Lock is indeed solvent if the pro in question agreed to sign an NDA or equivalent if the details were worked out? Whether you believe it or not this WOULD be a big step towards Lock's customer base believing in the solvency of the site, and I would imagine other people will agree with me on that.

There is a huge difference between PrimordialAA saying 'I believe things will be ok' and him saying 'I've seen the books and I know for a fact that Lock has all of the player money segregated' even if he can't disclose the details, because we don't believe that he would lie about being shown the books.

Honestly, I wouldn't be satisfied with someone like PrimordialAA being "shown the books", because he is still rather naive and some BS account screens/printouts could be shown to him as "proof". Even someone as bad at Photoshop as me could easily fabricate "proof" that would likely satisfy him.

I would only trust a third party who is well-versed in analyzing such "proof" and also did not have a vested interest in believing what they're being shown.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&postcount=58

I'm sorry if my questions were apparently too obvious to be answered or they have already been answered before. I'd still like to know the answer to them.

Where did Brian share/say this publicly with the community? (genuinely asking...I don't keep up with the thread in NVG or whatever his twitter is).

Whatever it was that was said to Brian: Has that been said to the community? Or was it simply the same stuff that has been said on here (and in G911 article) and he simply had more confidence in it than the community here does?

I mean, if it was the same stuff that was said elsewhere then his opinion doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot to me. If he was told further information or something different or more interesting that somehow gives him greater confidence in the situation then I don't know why Lock would not say the same things on here.

Were the two pros who recently have parted ways with Lock involved in this meeting also? It seems that if they were then perhaps they had less confidence than Brian stemming from whatever it was Jen would have said.


Also, I asked earlier if there is going to be a new representative of Lock on here as was promised a few weeks ago (I said "months"...but I meant weeks). Please answer that question. When will the new Lock representative be arriving?

It was in the NVG thread.....same stuff, Jen looked him in the eye and promised him, and he believes her, etc.

Shane, it is clear that you, and/or whoever is informing you of this information is just wrong. As I stated, I was a financial services auditor for KPMG, and I'm sure there are several CPA's in this Lock community. Your company structure, (as you told me you could not disclose), most definitely consists of subsidiaries, and I'd bet a LOT on it. So in essence, Lock has a parent company "Lock Poker", and should have a subsidiary company in each location. If you don't have one for each country, in the very LEAST, "Lock U.S." is a subsidiary that was created right away (I'm SURE of it) for serious legal reasons. And with that "Lock U.S." subsidiary, U.S. player funds would be untouchable and untraceable by an accounting firm providing an audit unless they were hired either specifically for that subsidiary or the parent company itself.

As I've clearly stated, an accounting firm wouldn't be held liable for information on U.S. funds for auditing subsidiary companies such as "Lock UK", "Lock Netherlands", "Lock France", etc. because the accounting firm wouldn't have been given the authorization to even VIEW the U.S. numbers whatsoever. That accounting firm would have to be hired to audit "Lock U.S." in order to have such information. So Lock would have absolutely NO problem finding an accounting firm for non-U.S. subsidiaries. It is clear that you do not have an accounting background, so please stop misleading people on liability in regards to audits. If you are getting information from someone else, I also question their credentials considerably.

An accounting firm based in Italy (just for example sake) could be hired to audit 1, 2, 5, 10, however many subsidiaries Lock hires them to audit. I repeat, as long as they weren't hired to audit "Lock U.S." or the parent company overall, that firm would in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM be liable to the U.S. government for U.S. player funds, nor would ANYONE have any tracing of U.S. player funds via this "road map" you speak of. And from a legal standpoint, Lock would never NOT have subsidiaries because they would want to segregate funds, profits, losses, AND liability. So I don't care if your answer is "I can't comment on the company's structure" because I'm already certain that Lock Poker has a parent company and a "U.S." subsidiary which would stay completely separate from the audit of a non-U.S. subsidiary that's a part of Lock.

So answer me this, or please send it to your CFO who should be a damn CPA himself: Why can't Lock hire an accounting firm to audit the funds of non-U.S. subsidiaries? I AM a U.S. player myself, but it would be vital information to me that Lock proved via audit that their player funds from other countries EXISTED.