and now it is being used to restrict players, how delightfully ironic

Anyone think that Lock owned accounts could be buying up funds on here for 45%? I wouldn't put it passed them.

So I have a question so we are clear, does the wager total have to be over our current roll? For example if I have 5k in my account can I wager 1k total and cashout 1k or do I have to wager over 5k to cashout anything?

Does a wager in the lock casino count towards the 1:1? I play a lot of lock blackjack (yeah I know dumb) but have mostly broken even.

Almost sure it'd have to be poker, but who knows, maybe they take it in calculation when they review it.

Ya trypsinogen I saw that post, I just want to be clear that we do not need to wager beyond what we have already cashed out. For example if I recieved via transfer and cashed 30k in the past and now I want to cash out 10k. Do I need to wager 40k or 10k? Does that make more sense?

Punish the scum affiliates for sure, but don't mess around with your real players like OP seems to be.

Is the OP at a VIP Level of BlackVIP Elite? If they are, they should have a Dedicated VIP Rep. If I was moving lots of money around on the site like the OP, I would make sure I had a representative of Lock available to help before there was a problem or if there was a problem.

e.g. I'm aware that Lock is not a bank and this is just an example. When you move large sums of money around at your bank, most people have a bank manager that is assisting them with the process. Before you would start shipping your cash around you would sit down with the bank manager and tell them your intentions. They would be able to advise you of what you can and can't do and give you the best course of action.

That best course of action in this case may have been, "don't do it."

The wagering requirement is ******ed. An nl10k multitabler could probably put out $50K in wagers in an hour (0.2 (20vpip) x 500 hands/hr x 5bb average). So surely you're not saying OP didn't play enough?

Being that the play through is based on a wager requirement, then the amount a player raked is not as significant to the situation.

e.g. if a player moves all in pre flop and isn't called, that is considered a wager of the amount of the all in. Since Lock has a no flop/no drop policy, the amount of rake generated is zero.

So the title "Withdraw Cancelled because of Transfer Despite Thousands in Rake" is not correct, it should be "Withdraw Cancelled because of Transfer Despite Meeting Wager Requirement"

Did the OP meet the wager requirement? If yes, then pay them. If no, they should meet the wager requirement and then get paid.

He could have received millions of dollars but really it does not matter. Mainly cause it takes forever to cash out. It was not like OP was going to request a payment and get in 2 weeks. I mean come on with a 10k max payout OP was probably looking at 3 or 4 months for a payout.

Why couldn't support have said listen you need to wager x before you can cashout? The way it seems is OP cannot cashout at all.

I find nothing wrong with people buying Lock funds because if they don't not many will. Did you really think that by players like OP not buying Lock funds the VIG would no longer be what it is? For instance if you put out a auction on a website I assure you that if people do not attempt to buy the price will not increase. The price of Lock funds will now drop because there will be less buyers. I dare anyone here who has 6 figures on Lock to try and get it off in 12 months. I would be amazed if it could be done.

I just had my 10k w/d denied also. There is no way I haven't wagered 10k since then. Also, I am backed so of course have received transfers. I've raked about 10k for your site and have also won about that same amount. I would really like a response as to why this has happened. Also, my w/d was requested about 6 weeks ago, and am ROW. It is absurd that it takes this long to tell me my w/d will not go thru. I have not been involved in buying/selling lock $ for profit, I have solely used funds to play on your site. The vast majority of transfers into my account have been by one person, and that person is my backer.

He did and they told him: Also, if this: Then why did you say:
... and:
lol at this:
Please link one single example of the following so we can see what you mean: Btw, there are tonnes of peeps on forums saying Lock is going down the tubes. Not sure how yet another would make any difference. What does make a difference to excahnge rate is when people actually buy. If these "manipulators" actually bought hundreds of $k then the excahnge rate would most certainly have been lower without them.

Also, please explain why affiliates are given faster cashout times than the rest of your customers.

is the OP contacting the security team again? Is this being reviewed? Is the decision final?

As far as I know affiliates have different agreements than players. UIGEA doesn't specifically deter an affiliate to advertise. Affiliates don't deposit. Affiliates have a marketing agreement; therefore there are more methods of transferring funds to them because affiliate expenses/payments are not part of player bankrolls.

To date, I don't know of any poker affiliates that have gotten in trouble for being an affiliate. The government certainly would deter or suggest to an affiliate that they shouldn't be engaging in advertising for an online gambling company, but there is nothing on the books saying they can't.

This x1000. Any excuse for this Shane?

Excellent point tbh.

Can't wait to hear the spin put on this one.

I dunno about what you are saying, but I saw this casino affiliate reportedly being busted a few days ago.

http://usa-************s.co/blog/spo...ng-sportsbook/

I dont know the exact date, but it was sometime around Feb. 15th. Not that its relevant, but i also had a check canceled in this period that I had been waiting 6 months for, for another bull**** lock excuse.

oh now i understand. Theres no way i possibly could have wagered enough to cover my transfers, playing 400nl-5knl on your site. /sarcasm

Emailed security and received a stock copy/paste of the TOS. (like what has been posted ITC)

I have now replied to that explaining the situation the best I can and have not heard back yet. (over a day and a half now, though I wasn't holding my breath expecting speed)


@shane: Please don't pretend you didn't strongly imply I did something wrong/try discredit me without evidence.

Shane how many points do you think your shambolic attempts at PR on this forum have driven down the price of lock funds?

lock was able to reply to me in <1 hour saying "no my cashout was not cancelled" but now that they did indeed cancel my withdrawal, no response.

If a wagering requirement is made, but is too easy for the purpose that you make it for, then you should make another rule.

People transfer to get money quickly, because they can't get it otherwise. People transfer to stake other players. How are any of these things bad for you if you want more rake?

If you take away the ability for people to cashout fast (IE trading), then less people play on your site.

But really, this is a problem of a rule that is not being followed. You can't say "oh well we made this rule, but it doesn't really work, so we'll just negate the rule in some cases, cancel a withdraw months after it is requested, and then say too bad."

Well, you can, but it costs more than that damn WD long term. If you plan to stay in business, this is the type of thing that prevents five figures of rake from being placed on your site in the long run.

I think you're confusing some things here.

It's also not against the law in many places for players to play poker, but they aren't paid any faster either.

The rules you're talking about, or laws, would be for affiliates, not for businesses running casino/poker/whatever, especially those that may violate certain state laws.

In any case, plenty of non USA affiliates and non USA players report long delays in payments.

It's not good to post this link and talk about it in this way without being specific, otherwise you're spreading around fear.

The case you link to, the guy flew to Panama and also had money wired onto the sportsbook. It sounds like the guy was probably doing something that involved placing bets for players/hands on collusion with a sportsbook to gain customers, and that's a totally different thing in most countries (whether legal or not) from referring players to a poker room.

Edit: If Shane means OP didn't wager enough to cashout 10k, that's fine and on OP, but I didn't think that was the case. It seems like some other rule or executive action was invoked in this case.

its a rule they may or may not impose depends if they like you or your there friend. its the good old boy network. edit no rules just how they feel sounds fair to me.edit its not rule its just who they don't like they get.