As always, the information is appreciated. I hate it when the answers are disingenuous though. Obviously, response times are not 15 minutes. And public perception of Lock is not because we blame you for full tilts misgivings. You deserve the scrutiny, its up to you to show us positive signs the biggest of which is paying out players. Paying out Skrill recently is a good sign but only a small portion of what we, the player base, need to see to have our faith restored.

Actually Chris is the copywrite owner since its his website I was linking to, hence my inability to claim it as mine to freely post.

Either way Im sure Chris wont mind, and I will respect everyones wishes if any future statements are made through that channel.

Shane, your LockPro Manager sure does a great job but I wonder why the best ideas for Lock (bitcoin, pro tier and active social media (after a year of being dormant) many times seem to come from outsiders.

I mean Lock certainly does a good job taking on the ideas raised by others.. maybe you should employ some of these people to give Jen a "real" hand in forming "THEFUTURE" of online poker instead of her just talking about it, picking up on pretty decent ideas which are later poorly executed.

wow. here's some questions for you:

(1) Why didn't you disclose your conflict of interest in the piece?

(2) Please admit this is a lie: It's obvious that neither the questions nor answers are people talking naturally. What was the true format of the "interview"?

(3) Please confirm whether the questions were provided in advance.

(4) Why didn't you follow up on a single answer despite the obvious issues/spin?

(5) Why did you leave out obvious questions/issues like Unfair Play, Girah?

(6) Why do you unashamedly produce editorial copy which amounts to being nothing more than a Lock mouthpiece?

+1 @raidalot's post #105 at the end of page 7 here.

Answer all of that, every single point above is freakin' great, and laid out quite simply. I guarantee Jen Larson chose to answer the questions she wanted.

Chris Costigan, I would be extremely interested in knowing which questions she chose not to answer, assuming that in this "interview" format she declined to answer on some. Although I'm also going to assume that you will swear she answered every question (which I tend to think would fall back on your inability to ask all pertinent questions as pointed out in post #105 above). And I'll also assume that if she didn't, you would never come clean with that in fear of tarnishing the relationship you and her have. That's just a part of the reason why this isn't really an interview at all.

I encourage everyone who posts after this to look at post #105 and apply the same pressure to Chris Costigan. I'm tired of his nonsense. He loves all of this exposure and attention to his site. He loves this Lock dilemma because it gives his articles more traffic than ever. People please remember that he is not on your team or side whatsoever.

Good questions from G911. Anything about solvency or when withdrawals will improve is on a 'believe it when we see it' level anyway, so I won't touch that. But the domain name registrations and the processor's connection to Larsen is still very confusing.

Obviously, everything wasn't covered, so I'll just ask this easy non-gotcha two-parter here:

1.) Can the screennames of people security has found to be chip dumpers or transfer policy abusers be posted? People here who have honestly interacted with policy abusers should have a chance to know that their withdrawals are at risk and have the chance to disassociate.

2.) What punishments did the policy abusers receive? If they can still play and transfer, but not withdraw, they are still live at-risk accounts and should be in the scammers post. Moreover, the slow withdrawals and rumors are making it worth the risk to some to just chip dump, and they should know what they're risking if they are considering abusing the policy.

Tired of seeing so many say good questions. Like this was a tough 60 Minutes interview...and Lock was put on the spot and had to quickly respond. Seriously!.I think this whole so called interview was written up by Lock..these question were obvious ones, with answers that could of been thought out for weeks...and then they just ordered this sellout.. I mean affiliate website to post it...if you are going to do a real interview to proof yourself Lock...have it done by those you haven't bought and USE A VIDEO CAMERA PLEASE!...Let's see that she-male speak

I know a bunch of people that were accused of this and whilst some of them did just use Lock $ and 2+2 for making profit there was absolutely nothing against the rules telling them not to. There was no abuse going on because Lock didn't have a policy in place until this week.

Also as you know already a bunch of the accounts accused of this like juggernaut didn't do what Lock are accusing them of.

You make it sound like there was scamming going on when really that couldn't be further from the truth.

Very well said. Does she honestly think we are this stupid?

does larson even exist?

The problem with these kind of derp derp "the interview sucked" responses is that you are more interested in trying to say gotchya! then getting more information. You obviously aren't interested in the information that we were given (which is more then we had before) and you are working against future interviews by calling out the interviewer instead of the interviewed. Be smarter people.

There was also dumping to Intertops, though.

Ah I didn't know about that.

I know some buyers of funds and they all waited the 2-3 months to get the money off of the site.

i just read the part about the "mule ring" and says to me self, GTFO. This interview is pure B.S. Apparently they assume we are complete idiots to buy into the b.s.

I really appreciate this. Better give millions to your players than to advertising agencies.

I know where you're coming from and that's why I didn't say anything initially. We all know some of these sites are just advertisements masquerading as journalism. But when the guy had the nerve to come on here and take credit for a good interview (not to mention calling other people shills) he went too far imo and he just had to be called out at that point.

The "interview" says a lot about both Lock and Gambling911, about Jen Larsen and Chris Costigan. When, finally, Ms Larsen decides to answer some of the serious questions hanging over her company, she chooses to do it through what amounts to a prepared statement disguised as a "sit down interview." So, even when finally addressing the allegations of deception against it, Lock uses deception once again. She chooses the softest possible channel rather than answering directly to her customers or serious journalists in a live interview. As for Mr Costigan, participating in such a sham tells us all we need to know about his journalistic integrity. btw, it looks like he's taken the Shane approach itt (respond to the easy ones and ignore the difficult ones).

So, yeah, to people who are shamelessly misleading the poker community, I do want to say "gotchya".

There is a huge difference in what people are doing here. There are people who are calmly and academically saying hey this interview could have been a lot better to both parties.

Then there are the derps who are saying Lock can't be trusted, Lock sucks, Lock is deceiving us, Chris sucks at interviews, Chris deceived us, Chris is in bed with Lock pokers, etc. These people write the same thing in every thread. They use hyperbole and use dumbed down language to say things that everyone already knows or that they have no proof for with no new information. In other words, I'm saying these people bring absolutely nothing to the table. If anything, they serve as a hindrance in the communication process because I have to read a dumb comment in between posts with actual reasoning and actual information.

I get that people are frustrated, I am one of you (even though I doubt a lot of these people even play on Lock). But really I have to read pages upon pages of Lock Blows comments just to get to the one comment that has something meaningful and its working against those of us who actually care to judge the situation fairly, want more information (even if the information sucks) and want to get closer to a situation that is more equitable.

Well done for making a long whinny post about people making short whinny posts. Truly meaningful and bought a lot to the table

I think it's time to ban Chris Costigan for spamming here.

He is clearly only participating in this stuff to drive traffic to his horrible site.

He is giving us no meaningful answers regarding his motivations. He won't answer the questions about the softball interview (such as why there were no follow-up questions to Jen Larson's obvious lies). He won't answer as to why he has written so many ridiculous puff pieces about Lock as of late.

This is backdoor promotion at its worst, and it's time to put an end to this.

Here are my responses to all of Jennifer Larson's BS answers in the Gambling 911 interview:

Nobody ever demanded that the audit firm had to be US-based. It just has to be one that is trusted and respected. I believe there are even a few in Cyprus (you know, the place that Lock has never banked).

She is completely full of **** that she can't find a single respected audit service that would be able to keep both full confidentiality and wouldn't fear "blacklisting" of any sort by the US. (What does that even mean? How can the DOJ tell US companies which auditing firms they can do business with?)

So Jennifer really expects us to believe that not a single audit firm could handle the job? Riiiight.



She does not explain why it took three weeks to decide upon and/or communicate this policy, all while this very issue was rapidly eroding the trust of the userbase.

She provides no evidence of this "abuse".

The story has since changed from "affiliate accounts" perpetrating the abuse to "a large network of mule accounts", presumably so they could justify why innocent, non-affiliate players were blamed. (Otherwise, the obvious question would be, "Why suspend normal accounts if only affiliates had the priority cashouts that allowed this 'abuse'?")

Still, the "mule accounts" story falls flat, because this would be incredibly easy to detect and thwart. If certain people really created a large number of fake accounts that were on the system simply to receive transfers with withdraw, Lock could quickly and easily thwart this tactic with an industry-standard playthrough policy.

Now, that's what they claim they ended up doing, but they cannot explain why this simple change took three weeks, while players jumped ship in droves, nor can they explain why so many of the canceled cashouts were those by high-volume players, who would in no way resemble "mules". In reality, this is just a complete BS story to cover the truth: Simply put, Lock didn't have the money to pay anyone for 6 weeks.



This is garbage. Lock could easily create two different bank accounts -- one for player funds belonging to US players, and one for player funds belonging to non-US players. They could keep clear and accurate records showing that the non-US account is only used to conduct financial transactions with non-US players.

Besides, this whole story doesn't make sense. Even if they are using third-party processors for non-US payments (which doesn't seem to be true, as they own their own payment processor, JDB Services), these processors would not be limited at all because they don't need to fly under the radar. That is, processing non-US payments is NOT illegal, so a processor doesn't have to worry about being caught by anyone. The only reason US payments are slow is because processors have to severely limit volume in order to avoid attracting attention. Non-US processors don't have any radar to fly under, and any processor that strictly works in the non-US market would never be busted by the US DOJ, as the DOJ always collects evidence of processing payments for Americans before seizing any accounts or making any arrests.


They purchased a minority share of the Cake Network, but intentionally misled everyone (until now) that they owned Revolution, so as to make themselves seem bigger and more trustworthy.

The lie about this was definitely intentional.

This article, detailing Lock's purchase of Revolution, was dated May 7, 2012: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/0...oker-12601.htm

Guess what date Lock bought their minority share of Cake? May 7, 2012.

Coincidence?



LOL @ "in our budgets" and "out of the company profits".

Uh huh.

If there was a public information blackout on the trip in order to "protect the privacy" of the trip at the time, why did Jennifer order people to keep silent about it for weeks after it was over?



I'll do part 2 later.

These are the huge holes.

This is a bold faced lie through and through. 2p2 is full of CPAs and the CPA equivalents of other countries not beholden to the US DOJ who have the trust of the poker community and would personally, or be able to refer a licensed firm to, handle an attest engagement like this.

See my previous posts on auditing / forensic accounting for more info, etc.

brought*

Also, its not wonder you take my post so harshly when I see your one of the ones I'm talking about that is a hindrance to the rest of us trying to get actual answers.

Here is none other than Chris Costigan deepthroating a bottle of absinth.

LOL