Explain how Lock's overhead is significantly different than BCPs? And for the record, I've never had a problem with Lock's customer service.

Also, is your money really any safer or less safe between different skins on the same network. Say we have another FTP situation again. Wouldn't the whole network be insolvent? Is it possible for one skin to be pulling an FTP thing and go down in flames and leave the network and the other skins OK? I was under the impression all the skins are in the same boat with whatever network they're on. Maybe I'm wrong.

http://www.pokeraddict.net/lock-poke...ack-promotion/


As I was saying...

lol, if they sponsor 50 ppl like FTP, there is no wonder that money is missing

I would also suggest BCP over RPM and Lock , Hero i dont know and Carbon (wtf)

as previouse poster said, no scandal, great support and fast handling everything even its a small problem .

But its your choice where to play

Dunno about you guys but Lock >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Black Chip if they really can cash me out in 3 weeks instead of the 8 I just waited for my check from RPM (which would've taken just as long on Black Chip since same cashier).

Id rather just trade BCP for cash in the xfer thread tbh. **** waiting for checks imo

If you're comparing VIP programs, be sure to note that BCP only allows you to convert a certain number of points per months to cash, so your effective rakeback per month is actually a lot less than it would seem just looking at the conversion rate.

I'm a Lock Player who is increasingly frustrated with the Casino bonus, however, in Lock's defense, there are a number of inaccuracies in that article.

Reading this kind of thread makes me wonder if playing on any of the smaller sites is worth it. Just Stars or big publicly listed companies?

purple monkey dishwasher

I'm sure he won't take offense, and I'm not taking any on his behalf, but PokerAddict is a mod here and knows a lot about the poker industry. I'd take his site as a solid source long before a lot of much more "polished" sites (gambling911, anyone?) you see around.

Please explain. My sources were three disgruntled players and the threads running in this forum and Lock's. What do you feel is inaccurate? I will be happy to make corrections. I was vague in a couple of points because not all of the sources agreed on exact dates, is that what you are getting at or is it something else?

RPM Seth is a pretty cool guy. I sent them an email about cashing out a little over 5 figures and got this reply back.

"Hello,

I do appreciate the kind words about our support, and please know that
our frustration is likely higher than yours.

We do look forward to the day when you are able to receive *your
money* as quickly as you'd like.

Best,

--
RPM Seth"

My issue with the article, is that Blackjack was included in the 160x catagory. I have always played Blackjack to attempt to clear my bonus (i've never successfully cleared it btw lol). However, in my experience, BJ has always cleared at the 40x rate. Although it should be noted, that when a player "splits" or "doubles", they do not get credit for their additional bets, only their initial wager. Over a long session, like the one that is required to clear the bonus, this can really add up. However, it still isn't as bad as 160x.

I just felt it was unfair to be included in the 160x catagory, since it's the most player-friendly game, and judging from the Lock forum, it's the game the majority of players play to clear their bonus.

TBH, i'm not sure which games clear at 160x, although I have seen it mentioned in the Lock Forum that this applies to some games.

I think your article is very well-written, and does a good job of explaining the situation overall. I just felt that Blackjack being included in the 160x catagory was unfair. I can't blame you for getting this incorrect though, it seems even the Lock staff is unsure how the bonus is supposed to work

All three sources agreed that BJ was 160x after the terms changed and there are about a dozen posts that say the same. Was this at the start of the casino bonus promotion that you found it to be 40x?

Here is what others are saying. The threads are full of similar posts:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=11

It is hard to write about issues that did not first hand affect me, but I felt this was important enough to get out there. Lock has had some major problems in their short life. I felt it was time to let people know that after 8 months they still had not figured out a promotion they offered.

That is strange. I've made a habit of checking what rate my bets clear at for the last couple months, since I first heard of the 160x issue. For me, BJ has always cleared at 40x. i.e. I get $1 credit towards my bonus, for every $1 I wager.

I confirmed this as recently as last month. I really don't have an explanation for the discrepancies, although i'm sure my bonus has always cleared at 40x when playing BJ.

Here is a post from the same thread where MicroBob mentions he doesn't think BJ is included in the 160x, although he seems unsure. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&postcount=19

I think this just further illustrates the point, of how unclear the terms of this bonus are.

I appreciate very much, the time you took to write this article. I hope my initial comment didn't come across as insulting. I agree that this issue is one that needs attention from more people than just the Lock community. The Casino Bonus tilts me to no end, and the indifference from Lock staff is even more frustrating. I'm sure it's difficult to write an article like this, but it seems like you did a good job finding sources. I am not sure where the discrepancy of the BJ play through rate is coming from. I've certainly heard of this being the case for other games, although, in my experience it's always been 40x for BJ.

However, the main point of your article is the deceit and neglect on the part of Lock poker in reference to the Casino Bonus, and you covered that nicely. Hopefully this will encourage Lock to make right on their promises, and give us a better bonus option in the future.