Good point.

I actually do want to add one thing to this conversation. I'm 99.9% sure whoever thought of this: Lock? "Revolution"? their one and only discussion was indeed: is this going to make us more money from a mathematical / logical point of view, i'm pretty sure they indeed didn't at all factor in any sort of ethical point of views, even any real further broad conversation about what the consequences are of all this (or very limited conversation maybe).

So in that sense, yes, this is gross, end of: i'll repeat it once more: they ARE obviously very simply doing this to make more money. I can, however, at the same time, find arguments why this isn't all that bad in its core. Also, i'm not sure if the fact winning poker players are day in day out also preying on the weaker players is any less gross in essence. Poker in and of itself is like the epitome of capitalism, and now everyone is shocked when that same capitalism is hurting them. It's ironic.

Of course every single player wants to continue making as much as possible. I dont think anyone disagrees with that, but it is also true that this is to only create more rake.

If your a slight winner in the games, and can make a living playing alot of volume, and now all of a sudden you become a slight looser bc your stuck playing really good regs and other small winners will you keep playing here?

It seems like a one sided argument here bc fish for the most part dont know what 2p2 is, nor do they care about what Lock does period. Theyre probably not even too concerned about payouts bc they dont expect to win. They play to chase their draws, have fun etc. The fish who are members here again probably dont care about this, bc theyre fish.

Regs are pissed bc anyone with any sort of winrate at 200nl and up is 100% getting grouped into the top teir. Will I still play other regs, sure. But if all of a sudden now all the be regs turn into small loosers ect the games will stop running. Essentially this is to kill higher stakes. Lock knows in time the breakeven rb guys who they put in the top teir will stop playing mid stakes and drop down to where they can again breakeven or be slight winners.

They would love to see everyone playing 50nl and under churning out rake, and only have mid and high stakes action run against the best of the best. It pretty much ensures that the games will either not run or if they do turn into a rake fest, and they wont have to deal with large payouts.

Theyre a business like any other, although poorly run, mismanaged, and shady, like Ive said before they are right that this will create more money in their pockets.

To say its just a bunch of regs crying about their bottom line being hurt isnt true. Yes its certainly a part of it, and no ones happy about it, but theyre also trying to take away mid and high stakes games all together.

Well see when the update comes out and its implemented but I can guarentee that this is the vision they have for this. Its not like Party where the player pool is big enough that it doesnt kill games ect. 200nl and up are reg games now, with some fish who swim through nightly. Once the fish arent there at all, the breakeven regs are going to turn into small loosers and probably drop down, essentially killing all action. Would you want to now sit at a table with 5 guys you have no edge on and push money around?

EDIT: Just read your last post, at least were on the same page that its all about them making more money

Lock just updated is this in place already?

Brainless.

Yep sums me up. Thanks for the input. Have trouble processing your intelligence.

Glad I live in Nevada because poker is still poker here

So true lol, no ****-se-x-u-ality but I love you man. lol

Honestly, if it turns out to be as bad as people fear the best any winning player can hope for is the strategy just backfires and Lock lose's a ton of business. On a bright note this is Lock we're talking about here. To assume they somehow were able to figure out how such a change would effect their poker "ecology" is a stretch. The nice thing is if it fails at Lock it will stop other sites from attempting it.

But I think people need to chill out and see how bad it is first. I'm a 200 nl grinder and if the changes are bad it will crush me. Clearly it's happening and there's nothing anyone can do about it except wait and see and then talk of boycotting the site.

No, according to Shane.

Everyone should start playing tournies!

But this is the essence of poker and has been for the hundreds of years it has been in existence.

And it is not the capitalism of the game that people are complaining about but Lock using socialist principles in this capitalist game for their own gain.

Everyone knows what they're getting into when they sit down at the table, and it's completely voluntary.

McCormick, if you're feeling guilty about winning money at poker you can donate your winnings to the fish. Lock would probably appreciate it

-1

+1

Capitalism is an inherently selfish model. But this doesn't mean it's bad. It allows for those with enough passion and guts to create business that is 100% theirs. This wouldn't be possible obviously in other economic models.

Lock can basically do whatever it wants and it is up to the market to decide how it responds. There aren't many choices out there right now for U.S. players, so more are willing to put up with more crap than they otherwise would if more choices were available. You see this with cable providers and cell phone providers, among other markets. Note that Lock operates in an unregulated market and there is nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want, so its like Capitalism but without regulatory bodies overseeing their moves as far as I am concerned. If this were within the U.S. then you'd probably not see an Oligopoly rise up and the gov't would be striking down anything that allowed the market to constrict further, such as the blocking of the T-Mobile acquisition by AT&T last year or whenever it was. Another historical example is obviously Microsoft.

If Lock doesn't make money, they cease operations. Hence, their primary motive is to make money and not appease profitable players. They will do whatever they believe to be in their best interests to maximize profits, either in short term or long term visions, at their sole discretion, regardless of outsider opinions. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what Mccormick was trying to point out. I don't think anyone is debating the fact that they don't handle things well (obviously mismanaged). Likewise, a for-profit player will continue to play until he/she realizes his time spent is better off doing something else, whether that entails playing elsewhere or finding another profession. It is by this very method that you might see Lock change course and realize their strategy was NOT in their best interests, which is to maximize profits (because high volume professional players leave). Like it or not, if you continue to play and support Lock despite your own strong personal opposition to their strategy, you're supporting them. This is simply how it works and there really isn't room for emotions in this. Sometimes personal freedom to own and operate your own entity can be a blessing and a curse.

If you expand outside of the U.S. market for poker players, you see many sites and networks implementing methods of preserving the poker ecology, i.e. prevent fish from losing their money so quickly. Only time will tell, but for all we know, high volume players with high rewards who require more expenses for payment processing may NOT be the most viable method for both short term and long term profitability.

Anytime I see someone pointing out a larger or aggregate view of the situation they get flamed it bothers me. YES, people are pissed off, and I am one of them (even though it doesn't effect SNG's I am still effected in other ways since black friday) and I strongly urge people to take a step back and try not to look at the big picture and realize what's really going on here (beyond the poor payments and bad management by Lock) and more so the direction poker is heading.

I personally believe that when you look at online poker historically, there used to be a lot of Prop Players to help start tables. Well, you rarely see that anymore. It very well could turn into an environment where for profit players that withdraw 90% of the money from a site (who also receive high rewards) aren't necessary when you look at long term forecasts on liquidity and profits earned. At the very least we all know this is a profit grab and that break-even or fish level players can play lower stakes and rake less but still provide much, much higher margins for the sites such as Lock Poker.

tl;dr

Anyone who tries to justify any of this, in any way, is wrong. It's not even a debate. Wrong.

See the two posts above you for the truth.

I think we are going to see more and more implementing features like "Fair Play" and whatever Party's system is called. To my understanding, there are two major schools of thought on what the optimal way to ensure long-term prosperity of a poker site. Catering to the traditional "grinder", high raking and typically a winning player or breakeven/losing but winning after rakeback/reward programs. The other school of thought is catering to the more recreational players that poker games are typically build around.

It appears that the consensus is shifting to catering towards recreational players. Different sites are taking different actions but they have the same goal in mind. Bovada with their anonymous tables, non-existant RB, etc., Party and Lock with their skill segregation systems. There are probably other sites doing similar things but I'm a US player so I'm not very aware of what other sites are doing.

There is a topic in the Affiliate/Rakeback forum that discusses this topic with many well-thought out opinions. I will probably go and read that thread again since I forgot most of it. If I do, I'll link it here, it was a pretty interesting discussion and relevant to the changes going on in online poker today.

You posted while I was typing my post but this is the point I was trying to make. There's a fundamental shift in the business model that many poker sites are using. Even though it facing a lot of resistance from players, it could very well be a correct change. Only time will tell.

I hate the beast as much as the next guy but I'd be playing enough where I'd likely be at least breaking even in it. Bbj sucks but pretty minimal at the higher stakes, just huge variance.

How criminal is 50+day row cashouts. How about having to sell funds at 40% vig?

Lock isn't a country though so while I definitely understand your analogy, I don't see how it applies. They are changing their strategy/mission/direction to do what they believe will maximize their long term profits.

A private entity can operate however they want (in capitalism), as long as they are doing so within local/state/federal authority and not breaking any rules. Poker being unregulated only exacerbates this issue.

I think it's more a matter (or question) of really asking if what Lock is doing with this Fair Play thing is going to help them more than hurt them. Only time will tell.

NOTE: I am not defending Lock, I am not a Lock troll, and I have no interests in Lock.... I say this because I get flamed for chiming in with a more neutral view with the FPT thing (and NOT over their horrid payout issues and terrible service).

I personally am finished with Lock but I do agree that they have the ability to do as they wish. I just hope I get whats owed to me. Good luck to all who they owe $$ and to all who continue to stay with them for the long haul. I really do hope it all works out.

Yep, definately more criminal than any of the others. That being said, the BBJ / the beast is 100% sure a real decision made by them, the cashout problems don't have to be a "decision".

having a bbj or spreading games where high win rates are impossible is different than having different rules for different players.

Response doesn't surprise me. Hopefully this wasn't tl;dr for you?

I have a dream:

That all players, fish, break-even, and regulars/pros can all play together equally!

I have a dream

I really do hope that this is the direction poker evolves in.... unfortunately it seems to be devolving from that direction as it once used to be that way especially if you go back a ways

The one positive is if you look at PokerStars as a model, they've proven it can work and I hope with progress that over the next few years this is used as a benchmark and not these models that squeeze profitable players for the sake of more profit per player (if you broke it down as a ratio based on deposits).

We get it. You think very highly of yourself and are angry with everyone who disagrees.

You've stated your PSA several times already.

No-one appreciates your rudeness and you add nothing to the discussion.

Now please go away.