Our CEO has done an interview addressing many of the player concerns.

The first part of the interview can be found here:

In her first ever sit down interview, Lock Poker Founder and CEO talks about recent concerns surrounding her company and the strategy moving forward.

Lock Poker last year migrated to the newly formed Revolution Gaming Network and the growth pains have been felt ever since. Compounding these growing pains is the lack of payment processing available. This has led many to question the company’s financial stability.

G911: Why not offer proof of solvency if Lock Poker is so financially sound? Why you do not have a 3rd party verify that player funds are segregated and safe?

Larson: The DOJ has shown repeatedly that it can and will seize players' funds and hold these for months - if not years - absent any valid legal basis to do so.

This situation makes it impossible for Lock to provide any independent, third party verification of the segregation and amount of player funds. We have spoken to a number of companies that provide such audit services, however, they are unable to state that if pressured by the US Government they will not disclose the details of the Lock accounts they audit. They have been frank and acknowledge that they want to be able to conduct business with US companies and admit that the threat of being "black listed" by the DOJ, even if informally, cannot justify their taking on Lock as a client. No other online gaming site has or can publicly open its "books".

G911: Let’s clarify the player-to-player transfer issue. Many people have posted emails from Lock support stating that NO FUNDS FROM PLAYER TRANSFERS, OR WINNINGS DERIVED FROM TRANSFERS can be cashed out. We have since had Lock come out to try and clear up this issue but can you personally clarify the Lock Poker p2p transfer policy?

Larson: Through a detailed investigation over the past few weeks the Lock security team uncovered a large group of persons that were abusing the P2P transfer policy and creating a large network of mule accounts to move and withdraw funds without any play at all taking place.

Lock has introduced a new cash-out policy for transferred funds which requires a player to accumulate at least 15% in GGR on the funds received via P2P transfer before these funds are cashed out. Put simply, for every $100 of transferred funds to be withdrawn, $15 of rake or fees will need to be accumulated beforehand.

The policy change was put in place explicitly to put an end to money laundering via Lock's player transfers. Players withdrawing winnings are not affected. It is important to note that many sites have similar policies regarding cashing out P2P transferred funds or do not allow such transfers at all.

G911: What is the reason for the slow withdrawal times?

Larson: There are a number of reasons for slow withdrawals. As explained above, we uncovered a money laundering ring that created a network of mule accounts that were buying and cashing out players' bankrolls with no play. This caused a massive increase in withdrawals causing legitimate players' cash outs to be delayed. The other main reason is that Lock is one of the largest poker sites that continues to serve players in most States in the US. This means that all Lock payments processors must be discreet. Lock has a number of processors it can use to flow funds to players but are all subject to limits. So while Lock has all the players' funds to pay out it is limited in the ability to do so by the constraints of the system and the threat of the seizing of player funds. The E-comm team works constantly to find new, reputable payment processors to provide secure, fast options to our players. Our number one priority right now is reducing payout times over the next few weeks.


Lock Poker hosted a retreat in Porto, Portugal earlier in the month of May


G911: What have been some of the obstacles encountered with Revolution?

Larson: We definitely have had some growing pains this year. One of the biggest obstacles was largely software related. We have a substantial player base and because the Network was much smaller when we joined they were not ready for the surge of Lock players. We struggled through several outages, hardware failures and server-side issues. These were unexpected and made it very difficult to provide our players with a true Lock experience. The network team rose to the challenge of building out a much more robust set up to facilitate our traffic. This is a work in progress.

The other ongoing challenge for us and all online poker networks is creating and sustaining a balanced network ecology. Based on my experience this is achieved by all partner sites investing in new player acquisition, player loyalty and retention and maintaining a strong growth pattern. On Merge the ecology was healthier because there were partners with aggressive marketing budgets who were focused on bringing in new players and liquidity. That was not the case on Revolution. Lock was the only room investing aggressively in new player acquisition and growth. Lock represented the majority of the network liquidity. It is such a challenge for larger rooms to be in a pool of much smaller rooms with limited marketing budgets and very few recreational players. When joining the network we invested millions into overlays, player incentives, new acquisitions while the network struggled to provide a stable product. Taking the network from #24 to #8 worldwide in 6 short weeks was not an easy feat.

G911: Does Lock Poker own the Revolution Network?

Larson: No. There has been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the ownership of Revolution Network. In the spring of 2012 Lock entered into negotiations to purchase selected assets from the Network. One of the conditions of the purchase was the rebranding of the Network and this step took place. Ultimately the proposed purchase was not completed and Lock never became the owner of the network. A Company completely independent of Lock made the purchase. The Network team does work very closely with Lock based on Lock being the largest room. We therefore have an impact on the overall direction and weigh in on the big decisions.

G911: There was some degree of controversy surrounding a recent event that took place in Porto, Portugal. It was the second Lock Poker company retreat and posting forum observers were quick to point out some of the more extravagant aspects of this trip such as accommodations in a historic palace and transportation offered by a fleet of limos, all the while payment delays continued. Tell us what really happened in Portugal. What was the reason for the trip and do customer deposits pay for such trips?

The Lock Gaming Group, which owns and operates the Lockpoker.eu and Lockcasino.eu sites, recently completed a 3 day retreat in Portugal. This was not publicized in advance or during the event in order to protect the privacy of the attendees which included Lock staff, consultants, members of the Lock Pro team and suppliers. This event was a combination of business meetings, strategy sessions and social gatherings. The Lock Retreats are annual and included in our budgets and paid for out of the company profits.

In Part II of our interview with Lock Poker CEO Jennifer Larson, we discuss how the company looks to address communications issues, why some of the Lock Poker pros decided to part ways last week and if Lock was really affected by the banking crisis that transpired in Cyprus.

Any chance she would agree to do a 1 on 1 with Dan Druff on his radio show?

lol @ gambling 911. I am sure Mr Costigan did an unbiased interview at the retreat lock took him on in Portugal . Mr Costigan reported in threads about how solvent Lock is, im sure its not a complete fictionalized account.

I've heard we have a Pokercast here on 2+2 as well.

I suggested that as well in the other thread but it was avoided

while g911 isn't my first or tenth choice to conduct this interview, the guy did ask some pertinent questions. of course, no follow ups were allowed apparently

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...houts-1331093/

Why don't you have the ceo address players concerns of not getting checks in five plus months Shane? Until Lock addresses why players are not being paid after 5 months any of Locks attempts to portray itself in a positive light will continue to receive ridicule and scorn from members on this forum. Your response to player in referenced thread above was less then stellar or confidence in lock producing.

Another blood boiling inducing fact is that Lock gives preference to certain players. Players who rake more for lock I have read this nugget in a Mcormick thread , are given preferential treatment which opens a whole new can of worms. Players who have been waiting for 5 months like player in referenced thread are the ones who should be receiving preferential treatment.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19.../#post38481672

Thread above will also inspire confidence that lock is solvent.

Problem with Gambling911 is they have been reported to hit these castles on these lock field trips. Needs to be someone unbiased and she needs to be put on the spot. Who interviews her is of no concern to me but I suggested Todd in this thread because he has written article after article pointing all of this stuff out for the past 17 months and has probably written and spoke more material on lock than anyone in the industry.

That said she should do a tour of every podcast if she has nothing to hide

Key in that interview, I think, is in the first answer. At no point does she say that player funds are actually segregated, she simply lays the blame on independent accountants who will not audit Lock for fear of being blacklisted by the US Gov't. How about doing an interview with someone who will follow up that lame answer with the question: does Lock segregate player funds from operating costs?

no money = no money

Gambling 911 party it up with you in Portugal and you honestly think that we will take them seriously?

Pretty sure you are all trolling us at Lock HQ now.

IMO Pertinent questions are easy to field when they are scripted. And it is way too easy to believe this is scripted with g911 than it is this is a legit interview. After all this time and BS Lock will have to go beyond the "extra mile" to gain back any trust / support from the community.

I didn't get passed reading g911 in the link of the OP.

+1!

I'm amazed at Lock's outright intentional ignorance to their customers needs and blatant disregard for the 2+2 administration's requests. They have ignored countless questions in this forum.

They ignore the threads and comments that indicate that the community doesn't trust Chris Costigan's credibility and gambling911.com

Then a representative from Lock who was supposed to be replaced posts in this forum a link to a site that promotes Lock Poker. 2+2 has asked that Lock Poker stops promotion until they are satisfied with the answers to the community questions and asked for a new voice.

I could go on and on, just do an interview with the 2+2 Pokercast already.

Of course 5 month payouts are redicoulis no matter how you spin it. All poker sites will of course treat there top rakers with special treatment though. Why does this open up a can of worms?

I dunno having people who rake more getting preferential treatment and getting cashed out ahed of people waiting for 5 months. Thought it was self explanatory. I don't really know of a lot of other sites currently us facing that are 5 months into not cashing out their players though.

The interview was actually 1000 times better then I thought it would be.

However I still wouldn't keep a very big roll on lock (or even a roll at all).

where is part 2 of this interview?

I don't like G911 and I have some big problems with Lock. With all that said...Complaining about who does this interview is silly. She could just as easily issue her own statement about whatever she wants and I would be welcoming of the improved communication. But if it's easier for her own personal statement to come in the form of a friend asking some questions then that's fine by me. She is not interested in answering harder questions obviously....and I'm pretty sure that is not going to change.

Honestly, who gives a crap whether the funds are segregated? Are you seriously considering playing there again?

I was surprised how decent the interview was. Y'all should have released PR statements of this nature months ago.

Lock Poker is so poorly managed that this didn't happen sooner. Truthfully the interview was underwhelming and very predictable. It was essentially a summary and regurgitation of what has been written on 2+2 in these forums.

Lock Poker Management has terrible habits and if they continue down this same path, they will fall further down. However, I don't know if there is much more to add or subtract to make their reputation any worse.

The answer to the Portugal Trip was particularly absurd considering that they invited pros to the retreat who have admitted that they have no influence on management decisions and also the interviewer G911.

There will never be "that hard interview" with Lock Poker, especially if they use a person who they have recently courted in Portugal. It's either you believe the illusions going forward or you don't. Only time will tell.

I would love to see these "interviews" filmed. I want to see her body language and how she actually answers these questions when put on the spot.

This.

A) This is the only time I'll ever go back to G911, to see "interviews" if you want to even call that an interview.

B) I have absolutely NO belief that anything written there is Jen Larson's words. This is all the exact same information we've heard already, and in the exact same wording as I've read on here before. Making me believe this isn't even Jen Larson's personal language. When it said "interview", I was expecting to hear her voice. I want to hear this woman's voice, I want to hear her stumble on her words, I want to hear the lack of clarity in her TONE. It's like watching George Bush speak at a debate vs. reading something that someone wrote on his behalf online, BIG DIFFERENCE.

C) All of these "money laundering" problems were increased as of late. Even months ago, Lock was selling at .6 and a little higher. Not a TON of people were jumping on that in terms of flipping for profit. It's been more recent with the rate around .3-.4 that this has been increasing. So this doesn't explain WHATSOEVER why the checks and even WU withdrawals from October, November, December and January have been delayed. As soon as the withdrawals from those months were deemed as legitimate (which I'm sure 90%+ are) those should have been paid out. I have a 01/06 Western Union withdrawal that I've been waiting on for 4 months now. That money should have been sent out a while ago, and that goes for all the earlier requests as well. Why should our withdrawals from 4-7 months ago be delayed or effected WHATSOEVER by money laundering going on in March-May 2013? Her answer makes no sense.

D) You're telling me that not a single independent auditor, would be willing to perform an audit of your company for fear of U.S. "blacklisting"? That's a complete lie. Not only did I go to school for accounting, but I was an auditor at KPMG. Sure, you won't get a LARGE, reputable company to perform the audit, but to say no one would be willing is a joke. Just like you won't get LARGE, reputable financial institutions to open bank accounts with, and run funds through. You target other institutions who are willing to do so. And what about a non-U.S. audit, one where an auditor can look at the player funds of non-U.S. players? Within each company, you should have smaller companies which essentially represent each location. That allows independent auditors to audit solely those companies and not have to be liable for your entire parent company. Our money as players should be segregated by location. If you put all of our funds in mixed accounts, it would be annoyingly difficult for any auditor to ever trace which funds are where.

Example: Within the parent company "Lock" or whatever your bullcrap official name is, you should have "Lock US", "Lock UK", "Lock China", etc. You should have this for many reasons, both legal and personal (to better understand where your own damn profit is being derived from). You can hire an independent auditor for each one, or for as many as you want. There is absolutely no liability for a company who audits "Lock UK" in regards to U.S. player funds. If the U.S. Government contacted the auditing company of "Lock UK" asking about "Lock US" funds, the answer is simple and honest, that the company wasn't hired to audit "Lock US" nor were they given access to do so. And I'm not a f'kin' genius, this is basic information.

Jen Larson, or whoever wrote/advised her answers, thought that by throwing out "DoJ" and "U.S. Government blacklisting" that we'd all just be like, "Ohh yeahhh, I guess that makes sense". Well wrong. You're wrong, your answer is a lie, and it's clearly scripted as an intentional lie to receive as little questioning about it as possible.

Sounds more to me like none of the companies you contacted about auditing your "books" would accept the bribes you offered in exchange for lying.

Edit: And for those of you who keep saying "who cares about player funds being segregated". Well clearly I do, and many of us do. If proven, it will show in the very least a couple things. 1)That the money EXISTS, 2) That the money HAS been segregated away from expenses, and 3) That at least there's something in regards to legitimate business practices or even the TRUTH with regards to Lock Poker. Right now, I'm not sure I have received anything in regards to the truth about Lock. At least if proven, this would be SOMETHING I could hold onto. I'm not saying I'd suddenly start playing again. But it would at least be something in regards to money that should be in my hands already.

Claiming "money laundering" as the reason cash outs are horrible is just so so so stupid. It's like a pot dealer turning in a customer for possessing pot.