Shane can you answer why Lock didn't just buy Jhubs/HookieGregs money dollar for dollar in private rather than letting them go try selling publicly for 35 cents on the dollar? Or at least try to get some of the other pros to buy it privately? At least you would have avoided the wildfire this has started and also not hurt some of your players who are trying to sell some of their own funds.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...e-points-1529/

How about asking people who are waiting on big cashouts if they don't mind their cashout being split? I find it hard to believe that many people would object to this, and you'd only have to split one cashout per batch.

Example - next payments in the queue:

Player 1 - $5,000
Player 2 - $10,000
Player 3 - $5,000
Player 4 - $7,000
Player 5 - $3,000
Player 6 - $18,000

Let's say you are sending out $25,000 in a batch - you send complete payouts to players 1-3, and $5,000 to player 4. Next it turns out you can send $20,000 - player 4 gets their remaining $2,000, player 5 gets his $3,000, player 6 gets $15,000 sent and $3,000 held over to the next batch, and so on.

I understand I've probably oversimplified the process, but the general idea seems pretty straightforward and sensible to me.

These posts would be pretty useless in this forum in general, but to make them in a thread about cashouts is even worse.

Has it occurred to you that people in this thread may not even be playing there? And that those who are may be doing so just to while away the time with part of their bankroll while they wait to get the rest?

Sure is a good thing you posted this, and did so in all-caps, bold, and red, because it was a super-important and original thought that everyone just had to see, amirite?


From now on, others who think this it's a brilliant idea to scream insults at people trying to get their funds will probably find themselves getting an infraction, as this poster just did.

Okay so aside from the general scumminess of unloading funds at such a discounted rate while continuing to trawl for referrals, there's also something pretty unseemly about someone with more complete information than the general public using that information to move the market. I realize the LockPros don't have minute-by-minute access to Lock's account books, but they clearly have access to more information than the average player. They have contacts at the site, obviously. And they they know, for instance, if those contacts stop responding to emails, or give them vague brush-offs or tell them X, Y, or Z. Or maybe Jen Larson told them X, Y, or Z at the Portugal retreat and based on the past few months they can make conclusions about the veracity of X, Y or Z and use those conclusions to form a more accurate valuation of Lock funds.

This wouldn't be an issue at like Pokerstars, but for a site whose funds are a) already suffering from a lack of confidence, b) volatile, and c) an active component of the trading due to cashout issues this is just really scummy IMO. Especially at an amount large enough to move the market. I don't dispute that these guys are probably just trying to get money off like anyone else, because they dont have total confidence theyll be able to cashout their complete balance before Lock collapses. But it still is really unseemly, on top of the still promoting Lock to twitter followers thing.

The math ends up being more like this:

For a rough example say there is a $100,000 skrill batch.

Now most of the cashouts will be the max or fairly close to the batch so they will keep going out but eventually you go from cashouts in the 1000's to cashouts in the hundreds.

The sort of cashouts that get added to the end of a batch are $100 to $500 type cashouts, we have seen a couple of 2+2 posters mention getting these types of cashouts fast as well.


So say you have $900 left and the next oldest cashout is $10,000 your model would offer that player $900 and then he would receive the remaining $9,100 in the following weeks batch. For some players that would be a slap in the face but I can definitely see how that could create some goodwill with that player.

But then you have to compare that to the current situation where the next in line player waiting on the $10,000 becomes happy when his cashout comes a week later than if he got the $900 first which is obviously not perfect but at the same time 2 smaller players with say a $500 and $400 cashout get their cashouts quicker and are very happy.

The current system spreads the goodwill a little moves through some smaller cashouts as it has always done. Obviously when cashouts were fine this wasnt a big deal but with the cashouts still coming out of the recent backlog this has been magnified and has led to this discussion. From our point of view the real problem is the backlog and speed of cashouts, we need to keep working to get this sorted and then the issue of smaller cashouts at the end of batches is no longer an issue.

even more ridiculous is still shilling for the site on twitter I think. Nice to have a pro that tells everyone its product is worth .33 on the dollar good to have someone like that representing your site.

Haven't you guys been working on this issue for close to a year now? Is it hard for you to look in the mirror each day?

furthermore, they are validating that the product is worth AT MOST .33 on the dollar. if they truly valued it at something significantly higher than .33 they would never offer it. conversely, since they have more info than the average customer (it is debatable how much info they actually have) they could actually value it at .1 or .2 but since the market is trading at ~ .33 they might be more than happy to get that price.

i guess the most troubling thing for customers is that while the market sample size is relatively small, and could be several standard deviations off of what is the actual value knowing all information, employees of lock verified that the concerns are at least as bad as we think it is. and it could even be worse.

What a bunch of rubbish^ why do you have to spread out payments to people with skrill again instead of paying it all at once? The suggestion bobo posted would be all well and good if they had the funds to payout but becoming more and more clear that luck is busto as can be why else would a lock pro be selling at .30 on the dollar? It just doesn't add up any of it.

Is Shane really trying to say that they don't have bookkeeping to a point where they could pay out skrill payments in one shot and they are so mismanaged that they have to payout in the most idiotic way I have ever seen? There should be no issue with paying out row players. What a complete sham

fwiw I like bobos idea , from my understanding the majority of 6+ month cash outs are usa so splitting them would be easy . why I cant and don't believe this story shane. how you pay some usa players and leave the other 6 month players is just not right , the low cash out limit on usa players should be easier.

Isn't it funny and interesting in keeping in line with this thread how shane said that affiliates were responsible for driving down locks value and that is why they tried to institute no cashout policy for transferes before amending it? Now it is locks own pros driving down the price of locks worth I think that's very interesting and funny indeed.

At one point I considered that they were evil geniuses with a brilliant exit strategy to enrich themselves and flee to Costa Rica. Now I just think they are complete morons................

Shane why will you not answer the question why Lock would not just buy one of its pros funds at 1:1 privately rather than having them sell publicly at a third of that. From a perception point of view would this not be better?

Shane, can you please explain one more time why there is a batch maximum for ROW players?

This whole "batches" thing is BS, and is yet another excuse from Lock.

Shane once again displaying (willful?) ignorance as to how under-the-radar cashouts work for payment processors.

These processors don't just assign an arbitrary number (such as $100,000) as their overall "limit" so they don't get caught.

Typically processors get busted due to the number of transactions, rather than the total amount of them. The amounts only come into play when individual transactions are large -- typically over $10,000. In such a case, the cashouts are split into smaller parts.

Processors get busted when their banks notice something suspicious. Basically, the bank wonders, "So why has this business cut 4,000 checks in the past month?"

Small businesses RECEIVE multiple payments all the time, but it is very uncommon for small businesses to SEND OUT hundreds or thousands of checks to individuals in a month. When a bank notices this occurring, they suspect something shady is happening, and they tend to report it.

To understand this, let's say I am a payment processor and I pretend to sell golf balls, listing a phony sale transaction when I am taking poker deposits. If my bank sees that I received 5,000 payments in a month, they typically aren't that suspicious, as I can simply explain that I am selling a lot of golf balls over the internet.

However, if I am SENDING out 5,000 checks, all to different people (and never to other companies), that's a lot harder to explain.

So back to Lock's situation.

No processor is going to care if the extra check they're "fitting in" is for $50 or for $1500. To them, it's simply an extra check. While a bank might get suspicious of a business sending out large checks, something like $1500 would fly under the radar just as much as $50.

As SGT RJ correctly pointed out, most of the people here waiting 6 months for $10,000 would be thrilled to get their money broken up in several $1500 (or even less) payments. Lock won't do this, because in reality, they don't have enough money to get this done, and they don't want to establish a precedent where EVERYONE owed thousands of dollars can get something like $1500 immediately.

Instead, they are sending out a few larger cashouts (for appearances), and then making good on the small cashouts when people complain enough (again, for appearances).

However, there is no processor that sets a hard limit and "squeezes in" smaller cashouts at the site's request.

Processors are not worried about exceeding some magic number for the "batch", such as $100,000.

Processors are worried about the following:

1) Sending out too many checks
2) Sending out too many large checks
3) Sending out very large checks ($10,000+)

Of course, we're talking about checks here, not Skrill.

The Skrill "batches" and limits make absolutely no sense, since these are RoW players, and no laws are being broken by paying them.

That's just a lot of nonsense by Shane to cover up the obvious fact that Lock is broke.

Im guessing they don't have the 30gs. Would certainly make more sense then having pro give it away. Lock should boot of all row players so Shanes lies would make some sense and have an iota of validity to them. By having row players not being paid lock is exposed as a complete and total sham of a site.

Kilowatt you seem to have a fair bit of info. Do you happen to know if Cake and Juicy use the same processors as Lock? I find it very strange that these skins have trouble paying their players while Intertops seems to get things right despite being on the same network.

Not necessarily. It fits coherently, for example, if they needed money very quickly or had so much in their rolls and wanted to get some kind of money out

Here is my question:

Are they even paying the oldest smaller cashouts at "the end of the batch"?

It seems like some of these reports of players receiving cashouts are even bypassing other older smaller cashouts.

If that's the case that is totally wrong.

I've had a $500 cashout pending since March.

i agree to a certain extent, and i must admit my diction was rather hasty.

but to continue the conversation, aren't both of your suggested cases reasons why lock is valued as it is? they want their money quickly and/or want SOME money out (two of the main concerns that customers have). there has been an unending amount of speculation regarding lock's solvency, which has been constantly refuted by their main "PR" (think air quotes) force.

so let's say i/we are lock pros and we have 100k in our account. if we had any sort of confidence in our company and their assets, wouldn't our very very very very last choice be to sell our assets on a public facing forum. to reiterate, it's our very very very very very very very very last choice. wouldn't we go to lock first maybe 29 times, asking for some sort of expedited payment so that we wouldn't have to 2+2 and make our desperation clear? after that we would go to other lock pro's and try to sell off some lock dollars, in the case that we had to pay our landlord or keep our cable on.

that would be my thought process, but maybe i'm crazy.

but no, several lock pros are trying to sell assets at exactly the same vig at generally the same time.

while they might just need money, and while shane might say that pro's are treated the same ways as other customers when it comes to withdrawals, it seems like there would be many other options they would explore and get rejected BEFORE they try selling >= $10k on the P2P thread, when the average trade is probably ~$200. (sorry for the awkward run on sentence)

Why don't people just start selling their lock money for .10? I mean, sure, giving money away sucks but there's a chance you might not see it anyways. Mite as well try to take lock out before they close up shop and nobody gets a dime anyways. If Lock wants to play games, why not play back? Good chance money will never come anyways judging by last few days. Mite as well go down swinging and take em with. I think the satisfaction would be worth the difference in vig anyways wouldn't it?

I disagree. One could have confidence in lock and still want to sell off assets via transfer. For example, the fastest we have ever seen WU one could only receive about 4k/month. So If I had 100K I would be looking to sell off some even if cashouts were that quick, with cashouts being so slow I can understand wanting to get money off even more so.

or

if one plans on making 6k+/month it makes sense to look into selling off assets via transfers because your account would only continue to grow even with maximum cashouts.

I agree that selling at .33 doesn't project great confidence, which leads me to believe that needing funds quickly was the root of the transfer inquiry.


I suspect most of the reason for the devaluing of lock money is the fear of insolvency. With cashout times so lengthy it is understandable why many suspect that to be the case. I wonder what lock funds would sell at if everyone knew their money was safe, everyone was going to eventually be paid, and that cashouts were just taking an extremely long time.

Anyone know if they are prioritizing paying out people with larger cashouts (over 1k) or smaller cashouts? (couple hundred dollars or less)

read the thread.......


kilowatts posts are the most informative.


Shane, if lock has the money, why not go to intertops cap in hand and BEG them to use their processor/s, which have no problem with these times. If lock is profitable i am sure you can sweeten the deal. How otherwise are you ever going to get out of this mire, payout customers who are literally at breaking point and eventually restore your company?

p.s now is a good time for Jen to be public again, those "improvements by June" are a month overdue.