Quote:
Originally Posted by vindictive27
Player A has $0. Player B transfers $1000 to Player A. Player A loses a little and now has $400 left, but wants to multi-table and needs more $. So Player B transfers Player A an additional $1000, resulting in Player A having $1400. If Player A wins $1600 in his next session and currently has $3000, what is the amount he can/cannot withdraw? Will Lock say, the transferred amount was $2,000 so he can't withdraw $2,000? If they say that, then ever since he had $1400, he needed a minimum of $600 profit just to break even at that point. And if they say, well, it's $1,000 because that's the most recent transfer that he won from, then wouldn't people just make sure to get transferred a small amount as their most recent transaction for Lock to use as deriving profit from?
How can you assume or infer which transferred $ was used to derive his profit from?
Here goes sanity. A former Lock lover back from the dead, who's read up quite a bit on all this stuff and thinks he sees something to offer up. This is just my opinion on the subject, but at least it's informed. And yes - the fact that Lock sells for almost .3 in the P2P thread right now is probably the most glaring "poll" of what people think of Lock these days.
Lock's statement on transfers is thus: "...crack down on accounts abusing the player transfers to bulk withdraw funds with absolutely no play on the accounts...". If you take that at face value (...waits to hear laugh track), then the example quoted above should be confident (as confident as you can be considering) that he should be able to withdraw the full $3,000 (if he is able to do it all in one check - I know WU's were $2k max per toss at one point...not sure what limits are in place on different accounts these days). Now, he might not get it for 6 months, but as long as the guy is playing, then it would seem he would be okay with cashing out the $3k.
Lock's failure is as it has always been - communication. Sure - they've done some really stupid things along the way as well. But as I've said many moons ago, if they simply woke up one morning and decided to own their issues, they would. They would attack the issue and be on top of it publicly. And as a result, perhaps their money would be worth a little more on the P2P market. The fact that people have to use P2P transfers if they have any hope of seeing real money is Lock's own fault to begin with. So as long as you aren't just doing it to "launder money" as it's been put (really - aren't there far easier and vastly more secure ways to achieve that in this day in age?) and are playing that kind of volume, I don't see why they would summarily stop your cashout request if you've made a transfer recently.
If Lock simply did the PR blitz and attempted to own the problems they've created, they'd solve a lot of them. Even getting their value back around 50 cents on the dollar would probably be enough to save at least a few folks from having to play the waiting game on checks and WU's. And at this point, like Old Man Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life" when he guaranteed .5 on anyone's money that was in the old Bailey Building and Loan bank when it got ran on, I think some would cut their losses and walk away with half. It's better than nothing, after all.