Seems like once again - as has become a pattern for Lock - the policy itself, while unfavorable, is not the real scandal. It's the way the policy is implemented. Little or no notice to players, lack of transparency, details set in an arbitrary way, with some scapegoat other than Lock itself as the villain.

Putting up playthrough requirements or transfer limits to cut down on purely speculative traders is justifiable, though it arguably hurts players trying to get money off the site through means other than the available withdrawal methods. But doing so in this way, without notice, without giving details on what will and won't be permitted, cancelling a pending withdrawal after a month is just really awful.

Your total incoming for 2013 is just over $100,000.

Your total incoming since June 2012 is $386,876.

Those are both 6 figure amounts.

This type of policy will force the price of Lock money down, unless Lock increases cashout speed considerably.

An increase in the number of people accepting transfers can only HELP or NOT EFFECT the going rate for transfers.

It's logically impossible for someone willing to accept a trade (on the buy side) to cause the bid price to fall.

I seriously can't believe that on 2+2 of all places you're trying to get away using this lol logic.

Mid-2012 I received some transfers to play in nosebleed games that were running on your site (100/200 and 200/400 I think.) I lost a few buyins in these games.

Not sure how transfers from almost a year ago before any restrictions of any kind were in place that I used to play are relevant.

I do know the fact that I'm now being punished for it/having it brought up in a thread concerning a cash out from a month ago (note for any reasonable site this is a horrific amount of time to be pending) certainly doesn't encourage me to play these games on your site again.

ummmmmm.....no

This is one of the posts that TRULY deserve the DUCY? comment

i agree plus , players being able to cash out at all double whammy imo. ill leave you with this at worst the juggernaut offered a serviced you could or would not perform the abilty to cash out and now you have muted this.

Is what people sell their Lock Dollars for a direct concern for Lock?

You're 100% right, Lock is not a Bank, the speed of cashouts will keep the price up, but Lock Dollars are meant to be used to play with and earn money, not exchanged outside of the site to earn money with. The market for them is completely outside of Lock.

+1

It's clear shane is just using bull**** logic to justify not being able to pay players their own money. Didn't someone actually ask if he could travel to Lock HQ on his own dime and get HIS money that way and they said no? It's pretty clear Lock's having money issues and making up countless excuses to justify it, even ones like this that are the opposite. People transferring/buying/selling funds on the open marketplace should lower Lock processing fees and actually be a net positive for them. That assumes they actually have the money to pay out in the first place and that the only issue is processing though, which is more and more being shown not to be the case.

We could activities on message boards etc linked to some of these accounts that were engaging in activities to decrease the value of Lock funds before then buying them at a low rate to profit.

We have had players speculate on this forum previously about this very possibility, and then this weekend we found evidence of a connected and very organised group of people involved in this practice.

I also want to point out that there may very well be some innocent people caught up in the clean up of this problem, if you feel this is you then the you need to contact security@lockpoker.eu and discuss your situation.

shane i know your jobs tough but jfc man

Thought experiment for you: Do you think that lock funds trading at 60c/dollar would increase or decrease traffic compared to the 45c/dollar now?
Do you think 25c/dollar will have any effect on the traffic?

It matters the price to lock because it will affect traffic.

The playthrough requirement has been in place for several months, this isnt new.

What was new was players getting around the playthrough requirements by claiming to be affiliates. Todays action was this loophole being closed for these non-genuine affiliates accounts.

id like to see the figures of some usa lock pros incoming out going plus a select few others cash outs to keep it honest. you know keep the thread honest. lmao if you don't think 3-4 month pay out times are what drove lock trade values down we need a lot more numbers then that bad old juggernaut.

Anyone wanna set the line for when lock goes under?

Without a monopoly, how can individual people decrease the value of Lock funds? Back when I played on Lock and cashouts were taking closer to 1-2 months I would routinely buy enough to cash out at 80% because I thought Lock funds were undervalued, and I was one of the lucky ones to get all my money off. If cashout times were solid (which buying/selling can NOT affect if you actually have the money), no amount of buying/selling could lower the market price, because everyone would exploit that and buy at higher than they were offering and if they were selling at that lower price everyone would buy it.

Your posts here just show an extreme lack of understanding at how markets work in general and it's pretty obvious you're trying to make up arguments to reach a conclusion your superiors have told you to reach. The issue is poker players aren't as ******ed as you seem to expect.

You're 100% right. I was agreeing with you it's important for them to raise the price on the market, but the market itself is not Lock's business. I guess they can use it as a place to see how they're doing. I didn't say it didn't matter to them, they just can't directly profit from it (directly being most important word in sentence).

Bro, dude, you make yourself look like a clown when you do this, playing these silly games. OP has been very forthright, providing screenshots, you not so much.

What is the net amount he has transfered/received? That's the only thing that should be relevant for the explanation of why Lock implemented the policy to make sense. Otherwise, you're just implementing the policy to make it harder to get money off the site. That seems like a very likely explanation to me. If that's the case, it's going to be pretty obvious soon enough. If it's not then, well, you're not helping yourself prove it; either you're messing up right now or Lock messed up when implementing the policy.

Either accuse OP outright or admit that he's done nothing wrong and pay the man his money. Pussyfooting around like this just makes you, as I have said, look like a clown. Your options:

1) Provide evidence of wrongdoing
2) Admit it was an error, process cashout
3) Admit that Lock simply doesn't want to give him his money
4) Ignore/lock/delete this thread and pretend like nothing's happening

Currently you're doing option 5 which is 'make vague statements whist listening to no one and doing nothing', which is a stall tactic at best, eventually you'll have to do one of the above 4. I'd recommend one of the first two options.

Im not saying the slow cashouts didnt play a role in all this, lets be honest if our cashout speeds had been great the whole time this opportunity would never have existed.

This group of people used our poor performance on cashout times to manipulate the market for profit. So they are not 100% responsible for the current trade value, but they most certainly are guilty of manipulating it.

WTF is this ****.

Either you think I'm stupid (and willing to buy into your illogical thinking)...or you're dumb enough to actually believe that an increase in the number of bidders drive down prices.

Jesus christ...I seriously can't believe someone can't sit there, take 5 seconds, and figure out why it's IMPOSSIBLE for an increase in the number of bidders to cause the bid price to go down.

Please give ONE example of how they "manipulated it."

Someone previously tried setting it for September, I tried to take the bet but then they werent interested anymore.


I have been trying to avoid posting his information here, but OP continuing to post small snippets of information that distort the picture of his situation has forced my hand to post more.

His total net amount is $247,672

More damning evidence also comes from the fact that a large portion of his outgoing transfers went to the account that received the most transfers.


And again the transfer policy isnt new, its been in place for several months.

If a person goes onto a forum creating several threads and making several posts about how Lock is going down and everyone needs to get their money off ASAP and then turns around and buys hundreds of thousands dollars worth of Lock funds I think its fair to say they manipulated the market for profit.

and in case you missed it again:




This accounts for ~150k of the net.


Care to attempt to spin this against a legitimate player further?

This is an actual manipulation of the market, and shouldn't be allowed (by lock or by 2+2).

Now...how does "more people willing to buy lock funds" drive down lock funds values?