I was under the impression or rather told that you guys (Lock) were doing the tournament schedule from when you came on the network! So this should have been done already from the start or?

Best regards,

The Intertops Poker Team

Hi Shane

Maybe you see our poker room as "tiny" and maybe players do as well! However, our poker room is doing very good and is a very valuable asset to Intertops. That is why we spend money on processing and our support, so our players receive what they deserve.
Furthermore, we have never complained about any tournament overlays nor have we said that we want to opt out of any kind of tournaments or network promos, so please let me know from where you heard this and I will talk to the responsible.

Best regards,

The Intertops Poker Team

no shane said you don't invest player funds in poker. you know huge rb pros overlays. you need to make poker a Ponzi on intertops. you got to spend players funds to make a site. then don't pay out . you need to be a deposit only site like lock.

Oddly enough (according to Shane i guess) 2 sports books, Intertops and Bovada, have the best poker cash out times for US players

@Intertops It seems odd that you wouldn't just talk to your contact at Revolution. Why are you posting here?

So you add a bunch of crappy Lock exclusive tournaments to the schedule yet you want us to believe it was at the insistence of the skins that you removed the better value ones?

Umm why wouldn't he? Shane is throwing them under the bus publicly. Makes sense to respond the same way.

This may have been one of those times where Shane got a little confused. That can happen to people when they try to keep hundreds of plates spinning on sticks without them falling down.

Intertops definitely did not complain about the overlays, and it is comical that Shane suggested that, but perhaps Shane believes himself when he says uninformed comments like that.

I do believe there is a chance that Shane and Lock got surprised by the changes, and that would be because Cake made them without telling him, and again that would be because Lock already owes Cake so much that they are finding ways to reduce the bleeding (in this case overlays that Lock cannot afford to pay their share). The new Lock only sit-and-gos (oops, I mean MTTs...) are pretty much a non-issue in and by themselves.

A fun game could be to have people guess how much Lock owes Cake at this point given all of these desperate changes on the part of Cake. The more I read all of the threads in this forum, the less I believe Lock has much to do with anything other than being a badly run company that is slowly drowning Cake Poker in growing uncollectible debt, and it seems like this Shane guy is just a pawn in all of this as well, so perhaps we should not blame him nor give him as much credit for anything in future, other than being the "Scrambling Lock Official Poker" dude, or SLOP for short.

The reality is if Lock owes Cake too much then Cake is just in a bad spot and these desperate changes may be what they have to do, much like if a player enters the Sunday Million with $300,000 in debt and he plays a high variance wild win it all or lose style.

Guess we will see what other surprises Cake Poker brings to the table in future, as that will be a good indication with how bad the situation really is at that time.

That's cool, where's my money though? Did you guys not talk about that when you were getting drunk and making tournament schedules?

Someone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I think the entire premise behind this is fundamentally wrong.

I am pretty sure that Lock owns the "Cake" network that you're referring to and has since renamed it the Revolution network, of which, they have the largest share.

Intertops and Cake (Juicy) are now just skins (that are getting screwed by Lock) on the Revolution network.

And major props to Intertops rep; please keep telling it like it is...so refreshing to see.

Feel free to ask SLOP (ie: Shane) if Lock owns the Cake network or not, and try to get a specific yes or no answer on that to correct you if you are wrong. Pretty sure others have tried this before.

Cake Poker owns the network. Lock Poker owes Cake a ton of money, and they cannot meet their monthly settlement payments. Lock money is below 50 cents on the dollar and continues to drop. The recent changes (by Cake) are all a byproduct of that dynamic.

I'm going to look through the thread again. Where did Shane call out Intertops specifically? (I see where he said "tiny". But tiny as compared to their sportsbook).

The point is, shouldn't the person who is using the Intertops 2+2 account have some type of red batphone that they can call Revolution and talk?

Shane didn't take the tourneys down? He was he messenger of the change. Think if you owned Intertops and you saw your 2+2 Rep infighting in public with the Lock PR guy over an issue that is related to Revolution, it just seems odd.

It seems odd until you put the pieces together.

Lock owes Cake a ton of money.

Overlays mean skins need to pay the network to cover the extra costs for not making a guarantee.

Since Lock already owes Cake a ton of money, Cake decides to get rid of these tournaments that have overlays because each time they run Lock owes them even more money.

Cake puts in "Fair Play" changes that hurt all but Lock players (no Lock only players are on the highest tier). They do this so Lock players will generate more rake so that Lock can hopefully pay back some of the debt they owe Cake. This had nothing to do with protecting donks, if they wanted to really do that they could do something like what Full Tilt did.

Smaller skins drop out because Cake will not pay them the monthly settlements until Lock pays Cake.


If Lock owes too much than Intertops cannot simply call on the Batphone and change the world because while Intertops represents health and some income to Cake, it cannot make up for the fact that Lock Poker's debt keeps growing and growing, a situation that will only get worse as Lock money drops in value and more people either quit or try to chip dump to other skins (which is stupid since Intertops is as crazy as Stars in fighting fraud).


The skin on skin fight is sort of secondary but is understandable because you have Lock dragging down yet another network.


I agree none of anything makes much sense if one believes Lock actually controls the network and is financially solvent.

@Monteroy you could be onto something. Makes sense to me.

Let's say Lock is part owner of Revolution and Revolution is part owner of Cake, if Lock owes Cake then they owe Revolution, this is confusing.

Thanks for quoting the Batphone reference, just a joke and I'm sure you're aware.

Do as I suggest then and ask SLOP over and over "yes or no, does Lock Poker own the network and/or Cake Poker" and see what answers you get.

You are right than not much of anything makes sense if one assumes Lock Poker owns the network, unless their goal is to destroy their own business, so if one believes they are not trying to destroy their own business then perhaps the original assumptions (ie: who owns the network) need to be looked at again.

People here, including Lock supporters, are free to prove me wrong by getting direct evidence and answers to disprove my theories.

I see what you are saying but do we know for sure Lock owes Cake a ton of money?

@Monteroy where are the Lock supporters? Please find one for me.

I think you could be spot on with your theory.

If you have theories, why is the burden for anyone to prove you wrong? Perhaps you can show direct evidence to make your theory hold some more weight.

Lock owns a portion of Revolution, that seems to be a fact I have seen and Revolution is the result of a merger with Cake. Lock Poker is the charter site of Revolution, just as Carbon and PDC were the charter sites of Merge. Is that true?

If Lock owed Cake they owe Revolution; if Revolution is Lock then Revolution owes Cake, this is the conundrum because Cake and Revolution have merged.

Maybe the voice of reason Intertops can tell us the ownership? Since they have so much street credit now for speaking up against the beast.

The people you guys should be asking these questions are Cake Poker and Lock Poker, and I have caught up with a lot of these threads, and I see that variations of these questions have been asked a lot of times, and have been deftly deflected instead of directly answered.

Can I say with proof that Lock owes Cake $3,874,231.47 and growing? No, I cannot, but what I can do is put together a ton of pieces of behavior that on the surface make no sense if Lock owned the network (Shane was shocked the tournaments were removed, maybe he forgot to tell himself?), and create a much more logical framework where all of these recent changes make some sense.

I never have and never will have a Lock account, and I do not wish anything bad on those that are unfortunate to have money there, but I would say those people (with actual money on the room) are the ones who should be yelling and screaming at Cake and Lock and demanding these answers and some truth for a change. They may not love the truth if and when it is finally told, but at least that will get everyone into the same world.

That's cool, so you stand nothing to gain by discovering the truth.

For conversation sake, can I ask you if a real money player on the site got the answer as to the division of ownership, how does that help them?

What if Lock came on here and said, "we own 10% of the network", there would be an outcry of that it wasn't true. So without seeing the private information of their agreement, how can we know what is fact.

Should they put the contract they made with Cake on public display? If you owned a privately held company would you put your agreements on the table for everyone to read?

I absolutely would gain, because as someone who backs a lot of players (including Americans) it is always helpful to find out who is being honest and what the situations are in the industry.


They can then make a better choice whether helping Lock for the future (knowing the real story) is better or worse than selling their Lock money for 45 cents on the dollar and calling it a day there.


If there is enough uproar about the issue then the owners eventually have to decide if it is better for them to just be honest or continue with the vague charades, and all the while their players will get a better understanding of what and who they are dealing with for the future.


I see a lot of anger on these forums, and many have quit and moved on out of frustration, but I have not seen real pressure put on Cake and Lock to uncover some fairly simple truths of what this network is about, and honestly it is difficult to respect people who keep money on sites like that who are too afraid to ask questions for fear the answers may not be what they want to hear.


As I already said, I simply proposed a general theory that made sense given all of the recent behaviors, but I am happy to hear an equally logical one that incorporates all of them (smaller skins quitting/posting about it, Fair Play, MTTs dropped etc) with Lock as the proud owner of the network.

Lock bought/bailed out the cake network and re branded to the "revolution network"

Lock controls the network, other than the technology (poker software/ client) cake is really just a skin now (JuicyStakes for US and Cake for ROW and a slew of other ****ty skins they absorbed when they failed on the cake network (Colt Poker, OnlyPoker, Power Poker etc)

Lock/Cake also just ended their exclusive agreement with PokerListings.com after a few years, which is why you see Bovada listed on there now... for the longest time it was only Cake Brands (Juicy, Cake, Fugu) and Lock poker listed.

@Monteroy all makes sense to me. Thanks. The problem is that Shane is not authorized to disclose that information and beating on him to get it won't do anything more. He can only relay the question. I could only imagine how frustrating it must be for him. I wouldn't want to be in that spot.

http://www.4flush.com/online-poker-n...rnaments/13627

further evidence to support their terrible liquidity problem to even now they refuse they have.

How about asking Cake Poker, not Lock?

This is the only press release I saw on Cake:
http://cakenetwork.net/pressReleases/20120507.aspx