Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroBob
But to say I am complicit in anything Lock has done is completely idiotic. Go away now. Or go running around and pointing fingers and placing blame at anyone else on 2+2 who still has funds stuck on there if you like. That should go well.
It's obviously not a popular point, but it's one I do stand by.
Not everyone with money on is to blame (blame is a bad word, it's more like is someone a victim or are they just getting screwed being greedy).
There were many players that knew Lock had lied to them before and done some shady things and made things up when asked direct questions and reasoning, but they still played there anyways knowing full well.
People compare to FTP here, but FTP is a poor example. I think the "oh FTP had pros too" part is what confuses everyone. FTP happened and it shocked everyone. If Lock went under in a month, everyone would not be shocked. Lock is more like UB/AP, the ones that promoted them the hardest were the ones that voiced the "new management and ownership is different, the problems are put behind them" lines the most, until the very end. Many probably believed those lines too, I heard some good people in this industry repeat them enough to where it sounded true enough.
But back to Lock. I knew a player receiving about 120% rakeback for massive volume last summer. I said... think about this for a minute, does it make any sense to you? You can't get over 50% on Merge, you can't get double digit value on Bovada even, and your max on Winning is under 50%. Why would a US facing site not only pay you over 2x more than their competition, but lose probably 30-40% of your rake and do this for a few months? Especially to someone who plays such an insane amount of volume as you...
He acknowledged that it was likely shady, not legitimate, but he simply could not stop playing there. His words, flat out, were that it was too good of an opportunity to pass up.
And he was not a unique player at all. So if he has like 20k stuck on Lock and they disappear in a week, is he a victim? In my mind, he was a speculator, full aware of a major risk of things busting, and he participated for profit. How is he any different from a pro or affiliate? The only distinction I can see is that affiliates and pros try to get others to sign up. The player doesn't do that, but the player generates rake and improves the action on the site. How can a pro get a ton of hate, an affiliate a little bit, but an informed player get none? Whether you think they should all get a ton of hate, a little bit of hate or no hate, I think the opinion on those three groups of people should be a lot closer than is currently reflected in public posts.
I don't know, I'm not throwing darts at these guys on a high horse either Bob. I'm simply pointing out that there were many more people outside of the pros that had at least as much information and signs of things being not right and they didn't demand answers to these questions either, they just kept playing as long as it was good for their bottom line.
And insolvency isn't the only questions, it's just the largest. If Lock is solvent, their history suggests they could blatantly take money or change rules retroactively at any time. This is a company that flat out made up a 10-20% bonus, pros and affiliates told players they'd get 10-20% more rakeback. Then they retroactively attached conditions that made it worth less than half of that. They then said they couldn't pay it out, even though the Network said that they could pay it out.
Anyhow, my point isn't that you're to blame Bob. When you had money on there I assumed you were playing with it, because it didn't make sense otherwise (but you said you were lazy/fearful about it, so my assumption was wrong), and people playing and generating rake with full knowledge of these issues... I'm not trying to say they or any of these other people are responsible for anything other than continuing to feed a beast they themselves do not trust.
It's not a popular opinion, it's easier to just identify a few mainstream pros and hate them for taking $$. But many more have taken money knowing even more negative things than pros, so I don't feel it's appropriate to look at this so narrowly (and incorrectly imo).