Do you ever just stop and think to yourself how much **** you proclaim around here that never even comes remotely close to fruition? Seriously, Shane, your track record is pathetic.

Have been really hoping for you guys to finally come around and get you **** together. Not many better options available but on principle alone I cannot continue to play on your network. Will be back later to post a screenshot of my account balance, a big fat zero. How about you forward that to the appropriate department you ****ing lackey.

Once again lock fails to tell us anything that we didnt already guess. The FAQ is an absolute joke and lock is the worst company on the planet

Glad I read all of this before I decided to deposit more money onto Lock. GG

It's not even implemented yet and all hell is broken loose -_- keeps amazing me how emotional people are on Lock.. well, i guess it's really just this genuine fear about the money people have on due to the cashout times and subsequent rumors..

Ok, so the representative at this point disagrees with the way they hand out the information and how it's rushed.. (which i disagree with aswell) Again, it's not even implemented yet, though. What's the worst that could happen anyways? There's going to be 3 groups of players, who are even interconnected. The only thing that's going to happen is IF you're in either outer group (total bottom or total top) you're not going to be able to play with the other outer group anymore (total top or total bottom respectively).. The sky isn't falling, unless i'm overlooking something here.. can anyone clarify?

I mean, let it go live, if you don't like what you see then, by all means, go crazy, it's baffling how people already rage over this so much, though, without even seeing it.

You're being given limited information, but maybe this is almost everything there is about this system, maybe it's just that simple and there's simply not much more to be said about it? Did anyone think of that? Again, we'll see.

To clarify Im absolutely sold on the concept, but after initially indicating there woud be an cycle of information and education leading up to the launch which has now been reduced there is greater pressure put on the product delivering on day 1.

I really believed that the key to getting this product to market was to take time to educate and be as transparent as possible. The network felt otherwise and ultimately they have to decide whats best for the network.

Ultimately though the key long term is that the product delivers on creating some better balance to the overall ecology, Im confident this is the right concept to deliver that and the only concern we really have remaining is just how the lobby we will look for players at different levels and we wont know that till its released.

What about fixed limit games? The traffic is minute already

Honestly, what more can you expect out of him than he's given in this thread? I think there are a lot of things wrong with Lock and I think Shane tip toes around a lot of it, justified or not. Quite a few of his posts in other threads I find to be patronizing or missing the point but he is also dealing with a pretty big **** storm on a daily basis and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

However I find your post to be ridiculous considering Shane has been genuine in this thread, voiced his and 2p2 frustrations to the Network, and has been overall way more candid here about what is going on than he has in the past. So get off your high horse for at least this thread. Seriously, cursing at him like little babies in a thread when the man is doing what he can RIGHT NOW is not going to accomplish anything. There seems to be this poorly-perceived consensus that Shane has more power to pull strings than he really does. Grow up.

One quick question: LHE included or not?

It would seem not, as a rec player can't lose his bankroll to quickly unless he in games way over his bankroll.

Liquidity is very small in LHE, so any grouping will kill the game.

Sure seems like an easier way to do this is to send an email on a signup, and say look dude online is not the same or even close to live play. For entertainment you should play in the small limits like NL4, NL10 or NL25 until you have gained the experience to try to move up to the more difficult levels.

Give them a bonus to work off, that gives them a free membership to a video site, maybe, maybe there are beginner tables in the NL50 or so level, ring fenced from the big boys. (multiaccounting heaven though). Got to push the training .. then the rec players can improve and generate the rake. You can even market it Lock where beginners become pro's. Just my 2 cents ..

First question is most important where does limit stand in this scheme.

Talking to Shane, LHE will be included in this it looks like "every cashgame" he said. However, given Limit games their steady win/loss rates (LHE at least, not sure about all other variants), chances are high every one playing them will simply be in the middle tier anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=_At1H1fDnss
Did you watch this yet, McC? If so, what's your reaction? Do you have reason to believe Lock's filters will be much different?

The 3 groups definitely interact, the biggest concern for people is where they will actually sit in this categorization if they will still see fish/action at the tables they want to play. From here we really wont know till its implemented.

Basically the FAQ appears to be all it will be and that we are currently in a rough draft phase and there most likely will be a lot of fine-tuning and changes along the way. I would assume a more comprehensive FAQ will rise up later.

That could be depends on how the formula works (no transparency), and win rates are pretty thin except for the very very best players. In all likelihood, it will have to be one pool.

Here is another question (no transparency is again the issue), I might be winning player in LHE but a fish in no limit do I get segregated by my limit grouping if I manage to get put into the top 1/3.

NL4, NL10 seems like these limits should not be segregated as a player can't really lose that fast here and sometime a player needs to be burned a bit to improve. Any thoughts on these plans being implemented at higher stakes only or at least introduced at those levels first.

**** accomplishing anything and **** you! It's not about accomplishing anything. It's about letting him know that this is important to me and that what he and the company he represents is doing is wrong. I count on poker as a revenue source. When you go tampering with my way of life for your own self benefit at a direct net negative to my lively hood its going to piss me off and you're going to hear about it. If you don't like my tone or content put me on block.

The anti-reg decisions being made by Lock and other US-facing poker sites are appalling. I'm genuinely confused why Lock even continues to maintain a presence on 2p2 and pay Shane to answer questions here. But since they do, I'll operate under the assumption that someone within the company who Shane reports to is still being paid to pretend to care what the pesky grinders think.

Dear that person,

I just dropped in to say that today I found out about the cash game segregation policy. As a result, I have transferred all my funds off Lock Poker. And you know what? I am a tournament player. I don't play cash games at all, so the policy doesn't even affect me. But I will not play on any site that would bar winning players from playing certain games or playing against worse players. It's just not okay. You need to think carefully about the message this is sending to your customers.

Sincerely,
thegroupie

oh, what a surprise!

who do you think you're kidding when you say it might be added in the future?

Do agree on that one, really don't ever see that happening. They wouldn't ever let the bottom group know.. and thus they wouldn't let anyone know ever for consistency sake.

My goodness, you really don't get it, do you. Let me spell it out for you.

1) ALL winning players and some break even players will be in the top 33%. (Far less than 1/3 of people win long term at any kind of poker.)

2) This is being done to decrease or eliminate the winning players edge and get them to stop playing on the network.

3) LHE has a very small player pool and low liquidity. Edges are thin right now. There is no way this won't have a dramatic impact in the LHE games. There is no way LHE on the network survives this change.

lol, yeah. consistency...

its such a fair system that not only do different people play by different rules, you don't even get to know what set of rules you're playing by.

And you were/are right. This past week should serve as strong evidence of the assumptions players will make about this system, even if it benefits them. Those negative sentiments will be compounded when it goes live, and then individually exploded during a downswing. For ALL players, including those you seek to protect.

Transparency of how players are classified, and what class a player is actually in, was the only chance "Fair Play" had of being accepted. I now do not believe this will prove to be beneficial to Lock, let alone the players.

I cannot begin to think what the "Network Guys" are thinking, anymore than I can imagine a legitimate reason for keeping this formula and ranking hidden.

Thank-you for your efforts Shane, I truly hope Lock survives this.

When you play real poker...feel free to comment on what effects us cash game players..im sure you do not have a problem with these changes

^^^Not to mention that we cant even calculate for ourselves what class we're in because the formula they used isn't being released.

“"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." – Bill Gates” 2/27/2013

1) likely true, we'll see though when it goes live

2) .. what? it's to try stop people from playing at all? it may well be the end result, sure, it's obviously not their intention, though, the intention is to protect the fish and let em play longer for their money and hopefully stay for weeks/months/years rather than a few days where they bust and never return

3) agreed, but do remember: you're only ever at maximum losing 1/3rd of opponents, unless you're in the middle group, then no1. If most LHE players end in the middle group, then there's little problem. (even if you're top, since most are in the middle, you can play that biggest group)

YAWN SO ****ING MUCH.

I've been playing FLHE for YEARS you dumb ****.