Who says that it was the petition that ensured the change? I mean they are stupid but not that dumb to not see how much it hurt their traffic.

Fair Play hasnt been removed, Lock isnt the only room still affected.

Signed.

That's not what the article stated, so I apologize if I'm working off incorrect information.

But the article seems to say that sites can now withdraw from FPT if they desire. You stated that Lock would withdraw if they could. Now they have that chance, and haven't withdrawn completely.

If you could explain what was incorrect about the article that would help, because it makes it sound like you could withdraw if you wanted.

Edit: Also, I couldn't care less what other skins/sites are effected. This is the Lock forum for issues about Lock. Saying "well X is still doing it" isn't a valid argument for anything, even if it's 100% true.

Fair Play still exists across the entire network.

The fact that Fair Play was removed for all rooms except Lock is incorrect as is the suggestion that all rooms could opt-out of Fair Play and Lock chose to leave it in place.

So the entire article was just wrong?

Yes. The network management team had no idea where it came from and how it was suddenly being passed off as news.

This is an interesting fabrication Shane. PokerFuse independently confirmed that Fair Play was gone.


I'd like the reader here to ask yourself what is more likely:

1) That PokerFuse as well as PROFRB are just making up fairy tales.

or the alternative

2) That Shane is once again not telling the entire truth.






--
Kahn

Shane can we also have a petition for a few of your TOP LOCK Pro's from trying to dump approximately $45K in funds for .33 while they are actively promoting new deposits that are not worth 1:1... Please amuse us by stating LOCK is fine... Seriously, how can you live with yourself? How can you continue lie about your company?

It probably came from the fact that players have been noticing a marked increase in the number of tables available to them, as well as a significant decrease in the difference between different skins in the number of tables available.

Are their observations inaccurate? If not, what is the reason for the change?

I agree that it's probably an observation which lead to the article. Here's a post made the day before that article was published, which shows some things were being played with:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=939

Another post confirming changes were made the Fair Play system from yesterday:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=994

There was a big change to Fair Play which was clearly evident on the tables late last week, this went through more changes early this week.

So the reason for the change was to give a fairly big reduction on the players that are affected by Fair Play giving more players more access to more players.

A change in Fair Play is very different to what has been reported.


Im not sure who they confirmed that with since the Pokerfuse editor reached out to me directly for confirmation of their story and I spoke to the network management and passed back the message that story of Fair Plays full removal was not true.

I know he received my message as he replied to thank me.


The stories life cycle is pretty easy to follow. The affiliate website first ran it, 2+2 then talked about it quoting the original article, Pokerfuse runs the story quoting 2+2 and referencing the original article, OPReport runs the story quoting 2+2 and referencing Pokerfuse, CalvinAyre.com runs the story referencing the original source and OPReport.

The only attempt I have seen to confirm the story was the Pokerfuse editor reaching out to me, but despite the story being rebuked it still stands. No one from Revolution or any individual room as been quoted to support the story its just a rumour that has been repeated enough times for people to assume its true.

I will guess , since anything lock related you have to guess because they are no honest answers from lock that they have tweaked fairplay again in some way . Pretty sad when your rep again dances around the question. I didn't lie or answer the question he will say another classic shane comment. lmao he beat me to it

Thanks.

I'm going to post this again in here too. Seems kind of on toptic.

This is the kind of bull**** that gives Lock a bad name. It's bad enough the stats (cashouts, vigs, on and on) are bad - what really drives the outlook of the company amongst the masses into the toilet is these kind of twisted, deflectionary responses.

You talk about the need of there being some kind of poker media out there that is unbiased and reports fairly - yet, Lock only gives an interview to a guy in their back pocket and speeds up cashout times for people on the only forum that gives Lock a glowing review. You dismiss 2+2 as a barren sand heap full of miscreant lost souls and can't give straight answers to people when pressed on misleading responses.

The reason some reporters have to quote anonymous sources is because no one at the top can tell the truth. It's so easy to sit back and deny, deny, deny. It's a lot harder to be accountable and honest. You just sit there and let other people dictate the public view of your company - and then accuse them of simply spreading rumors and not verifying their information when they have legitimate news. How convenient it must be to be in that position.

EDIT: I'm finished beating a dead horse. Save your company/don't save your company. I don't have a stake in it. But a lot of people do, and every day this nonsense continues it's like you just sit them down in front of you and slap them in the face. I'll go back to mining data and leave the commentary to others on this forum. But just know there are a few of us who once gave a **** about Lock and still give a **** about the people left dangling by this continuing ineptitude - even if you won't.

I didnt say anything about 2+2 I was merely pointing out that the story despite several incarnations only has one source.

No source was ever quoted anonymous or otherwise.
- The original story used the term "sources" but makes no mention of what these sources and apparent the source gave no statement that could be used in a quote.
- Pokerfuse makes mention of confirming the story but makes no mention of their source and again their source gives them no quotable statement. Obviously in addition to this I have the chat from my personal conversation with the editor which denies the facts of their story.


Im not sure what Im twisting here in my responses. I was asked if Fair Play was removed both here and with the Pokerfuse editor. In both occasions I said no it was no removed but its effects were reduced for some players. When the story continued I pointed out what had transpired and traced the lifeline of the story. There is nothing for me to twist, Fair Play still exists despite the original report and those that followed.


For the story to be legitimate news it needs to be correct. Has Fair Play undergone 2 large changes in the last week? Yes. Was it completely removed with only Lock's 25/50c and above + HU SnGs still segregated? No it was not.

Now is the truth a story? Probably, but the truth isn't whats being reported passed along and reported again.

Do you have any kind of detailed explanation for exactly how the FPT system looks now? Apologies if you've posted it elsewhere.

you could have stated that in earlier about fair play being tweaked but to go on about totally false there reports and not saying anything about fair play changing is why your a bad rep for any company imo. theres no need for it other then just trying to make people look bad, when you would get more respect from players by just posting the facts of the change which is a reps job.

No network management continue to not allow me to post any details or explanation of how the system currently works.

Considering how much players are able to understand by sharing screenshots and logging into different clients this is kind of crazy but its their decision and I have to abide by it.

Its also important to mention that I dont even know how it fully works, I can obviously ask them about how our players are currently affected but its clear that Fair Play isnt applied evenly across all rooms and I cant ask how other rooms are affected.

I'd like Pokerfuse to respond to these allegations of running a false story that directly contradicts what they were told by Shane.

Is Hood a PokerFuse guy?

your close on this one PLAYERS having to share screenshots to figure out whats going on is crazy.

I'm thinking that we're starting to duplicate conversation a bit between this thread and the FAQ thread, so I might lock this one up and link people there. Objections?

Thanks.

Yes.

I pm'ed Hood to see if anyone from PF wants to respond to Shane's allegations.


No way I'm taking Shane's word for it.

Hey. Thread grunching here, but I was asked to respond to this so i'm just posting things from my perspective.

After reading the report on professionalrakeback.com, I spoke to a representative from a skin on the Revolution network seeking confirmation. They told us that they had been informed by the network that FPT was over. The specific words were, "There is no more player categorization. All player tiers are removed."

Given these two separate sources, I considered it a reliable confirmation and wrote the story. We published in the morning.

Later that day, I spoke to pokerfuse co-editor Mike who said he'd spoken to Shane, after we published the article, and shane had stated that the article was wrong, and the network had told shane that FPT was largely scaled back, but not completely removed.

At this point it was already 12 hours since the article had gone up and it was way off the top of the homepage, I decided at that stage that the article did not warrant correction, because none of the sources on either side were directly from the network itself, and only one second-hand source is saying FPT is not completely ended, rather just "largely scaled back." I had planned to research it further and either run a subsequent article if the situation had changed, but haven't yet had the opportunity.

Thats pretty much it. Obviously I don't think is "running a false story" at all. I'm not up to speed on anything that's happened in the last 36 hours.

edit: fwiw, no on at "the network" ever speaks directly to anyone, to my knowledge, only via skins, and even then often skins are in the dark. So stuff is always second-hand knowledge. I would not be surprised if the network had said different things to different poker rooms.