i do have very good inside infomation, yes

im not going into any infomation how i no. but do have bit inside infomation, that is how the netwok works. and if lock was not paying the other skins on the network they 100% would have been segregated from the rest off the skins. meaning lock poker players could only play lock poker players. so no money would need to change hands.... if this was the case the whole network would be in big trouble as lock has 30-50% off players on the skin.
i play the cake poker network and have over 100k there. my cashouts which are $5,000 max via bank transfer , have never taken longer than 21 days. some as fast as 8 days.

If the company Cake Entertainment N.V. owns the company Revolution Gaming, this relation will be openly available.

And if Revolution Gaming is only a trademark and not a company then it is as well openly available who has registered this trademark.

Why or for what Lock has to pay other skins?


What is the Cake Poker Network? As I know Cake Poker is a skin on the Revolution Gaming Network...

the cake poker network owns the network, but cake poker has its own skin on the network. the way network is worked is that the skins that go through the revolution network, at the end off each month say a lock player lose to a player on intertops. then a intertops player lose to player on the cake skin. the money is in your account instintly but the networks settle accounts every month. because they use diffrent payment processors the netwrok then sais lock poker owes 1m to cake skin. intertops needs to receive 800k from from comeon poker etc,etc, but if there is a problem with the paymets the network its self has to come the loss if a skin on the network does not pay. now you understand??

What is the Cake Poker Network?

Which company owns or operate the Cake Poker Network?

What are the partner of the Cake Poker Network?

Some people said that the Revolution Gaming system is working like this and that Lock has not paid the money they owe to other skins.
But where is the proof/accounting that Lock players has lost more money to other skin players than they lost to Lock players?
And if this is the case where is the proof that Lock has not paid?

Yes, I understand, you say this rumors/lies are not true because in that case the Revolution Gaming Network would have segregated the Lock players.

Its just common sense. Lock is not Full Tilt. It doesn't have any exceptional software or a brand name that is worth anything. Why would anyone buy something and take on more debt than the value of what they are buying in the process?

Ahh, its common sense that there is 0 chance of anyone buying Lock and paying out players.

Tower Gaming, an ex skin of Revolution Gaming gave up business and sold their player accounts to Cake Poker and Jetbull. So it lookslike that every account has a worth.

Ahh, you know the worth of the brand name Lock Poker and Lock Casino and you know the financial situation of Lock(how much % of the player founds still left, depts, etc.) and this is the proof that no one will buy it.

Thank you for the proof!

I'm sure it's worth loads really, the site has a significant playerbase which indeed as said above could be sold off. Furthermore, the name is well known, although mostly in a negative way, but a new owner could promote the fact he's just that, a new owner and is going to do things in a different way.

How exactly does accounts being taken up by other skins from Tower show that all accounts have a positive worth? Do you think that Tower didn't have any player funds and that other skins decided to pay their balances for them just to get those players? If they wanted to do that, they could just give away free money and business would be booming.

Also, its not really necessary to prove insolvency in a hypothetical scenario involving a company that stops operating due to insolvency.

I'm sure UB will be up and running any second now too.

You are the specialist who knows the worth of a skin brand name and their financial situation. Use the same analysis method you have used for Lock and you´ll know it.

If you ask me: I think they made a calculation how much revenue one account in average brings in a certain time period.

I think that Tower had all player founds and that Cake paid for the expected average revenue.

Stopped Lock operating due to insolvency or is it just a hypotetical scenario that they are broke?

I know this is really confusing to you, but my post was in response to this post, the one just above it:

Obviously if you think Tower had player funds, then that is much different then a scenario where Lock is broke and cannot cover player balances.

Lol this made me laugh.

Oh and you won't get anywhere with that "surprised" guy. He'll only aim sarcastic, smart-alec remarks your way for stating your opinions. I learned that the hard way, I gotta stop entertaining trolls. Apparently everything we say needs proof first anyways.

Quick question, if Lock does go bankrupt as a skin on the network, would the network itself still be liable for Lock's player funds or do they disappear with Lock? So if Lock goes bankrupt, the only chance of seeing our money would be if Lock as a skin was bought out by another skin or another party? (which as I think we can agree, doesn't make enough financial sense)

Lol this made me laugh. Stating Lock has no value for someone has to be as sarcastic, or you're just really dumb. You (and i) have no idea whatsoever, no data whatsoever, what any "debt" they have would be (if there is) no real idea what the value of their brand is, etc. then why make such statements?

That being said, though, "surprised" imo sounds a lot more as the guy with the hidden agenda than he accuses others of.

Mccormick, it was in regards to IF Lock went bankrupt, which assuming if they were to declare bankruptcy, not only would they not be able to payout any pending requests through not having the $ to do so (which we can only assume pending requests is an absurd amount of $ in total), but ALSO, not pay out the remaining player balances. Why would a company declare bankruptcy if they had the funds to pay out, but not the "ability" to do so. Plenty of other companies are paying out just fine, so to blame processors is reeeeeally bold at this point.

Again, the scenario of bankruptcy I was referring to included not having the funds to pay pending withdrawals or player balances. In the very least, they'd most likely get away with not paying U.S. pending withdrawals/player balances even if they did have the money. They could simply say, eh, we don't have it.

Edit: So if THAT were to happen, would the network be responsible at all to the Lock player funds? That's all I was wondering.

Obviously Lock would be an asset if it had the money to back its players' balances. You only need to not be an idiot to understand that it would be a liability if it burns through its player's funds.

Your post was in response to what post?

(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

You stated no other company would possibly buy them out. While this definately wouldn't be the most likely scenario, you can't rule it out, the brand for sure has lots of value, you have no data to comment on it, so why go there is beyond me.

As for the processing, it's likely far more complicated than that, it's not because other companies have a processor that they're also willing to do business with Lock or that they can find an agreement. (whether this be because said processor can't handle to take on more requests, maybe they can't agree a price, maybe the risk assessment is too big facing a US market, maybe .. **** knows man the list goes on, there's just so many factors involved in businesses like that and we have no idea what's going on there.

D'oh. OBVIOUSLY. But obviously when you buy another company, you now have the power to make changes, u know? changes in company structure, employees, rakeback %/promotions, changes in budget for advertising, Lock Pro's, picking processors, you name it. Obviously the current owner isn't exactly doing everything right, it's not like they're currently flourishing. Another owner could possibly make the changes happen, that's just an assessment potential buyers would need to make if they see value in the brand as is.

He said if Lock goes bankrupt. Im not sure if you know the definition of bankruptcy but here it is:

Bankruptcy is a legal status of a person or other entity that cannot repay the debts it owes to creditors.

So by definition they will most certainly have debt. And I think its pretty safe to say they have very little of player funds as of right now. Checks that Shane promised by the middle of this week, to many players waiting upwards of 5 months, have not even been traced let alone received.

Lock as an acquisition, well most likely no larger experienced operator would waste their time. The player pool is much to small for a large operator to want to assume the debt that would most certainly be there if they declared bankruptcy.

Now we all know Lock plans on running with the cash anyway so.

EDIT: previous posts beat me to this point

.. and you don't understand the concept of a brand having value?

Say someone wants to start up a new poker company. Lock is out there on the market for sale, but has the negative balances to cover. Now, a potential buyer could make the assessment whether his investment is bigger if he has to start up something new completely (and have to advertise ****loads, nobody knows his name at all, etc.)

He could instead buy up Lock, which is widely recognised, and now the cost on advertising has gone way down, the cost on having a client developed goes way down potentially, and loads of other costs because of contracts running and whatnot possibly aswell.

As i said, i don't have the data on anything, i'm simply stating that Lock as a brand could have big value in the eyes of potential buyers even with player balances to cover.

And if Lock does have too much debt for anyone to want to buy? Would the network itself (for having Lock as a skin on it's network) be liable/responsible for covering any amount of the pending player withdrawals or player balances? I'm not sure anyone has anymore of a clue on that than myself, but I obviously don't mind hearing speculation.

Great detective work, chief, but I wasn't trying to say that I haven't responded to any of your posts. I was trying to explain to you the very obvious context of my original post in this thread. Apparently that was a wasted effort.

What do you think about asking Revolution Gaming directly?

-> info@revolutiongaming.eu