I'm interested to know what you source or reference when determining payouts fluctuate in "the positive direction". Whenever I make a statistical analysis I source actual data and trends - and aside from Lock saying that the sample size on 2+2 is but a small representation, it's plenty to make a general assessment. I liken it to polling data, where 600 or maybe 1,000 people, a virtual sliver of the populace on any given topic, are made to represent general opinions on the whole.

I'm going back through and re-sifting to make sure the data is complete as can be right now - but so far, there's no indication of any improvement in cashout timeframes from May 1st to now. Just because a few people may have received payouts in a relatively shorter timeframe than others doesn't represent actual improvement in overall wait periods. It's like Lock, though, to point to 3-4 of these shorter waits and say "see - we are improving". No, you're really not when you actually look at the available data.

Imagine what it looks like with ALL of the data at your fingertips...

It's pretty awesome that you're doing that, Nutz. I'm sure everyone appreciates it.

I made a rough count of the reported April cashouts a while back, and I believe it was ~70 or so. It will be interesting to see the real data since then.

Well, I guess this is kind of like saying the data of ~50 poker hands played tells u more about a player than ~5 hands do. Sure, it's true, but neither have real significance anyway. You don't have the data of everyone either, sadily. I can only encourage what you're doing, though.

Do you really think that the cashout times on 2+2 over the past 8 months are really just a statistical outlier? That's its just variance and a small sample size distorting the actual waiting times?

Like he said, you can poll 600 voters and get an accurate assessment of how 130 million will vote.

Did I ever say it isn't correct the cashouts are horrid?

What I stated is that the statistics are inaccurate. I stand by this, too. It's fact even.

Is it still useful? Slightly.

Why is it only "slightly useful"? Because some players get their cashouts quicker?

Even if some of the listed cashouts have actually been paid, fact remains that some that were requested 6-9 months ago still haven't. That alone should be enough to prove that the stats are VERY useful. To not let new players know that their cashouts might be put on hold up to a year (or never get paid), is self-serving at best.

I know that you will not agree with this since you have got 3+ max skrill cashouts in the same timeframe that others have been (and are still) waiting for their first.

You're equating it to making a read based on 50 hands.

I think it's a lot more accurate than that.

A read based on 50 hands can be dead wrong. I don't think there's any chance that Nutz's stats are gonna be dead wrong.

after browsing a few lock threads, a few questions come to mind:

1. Do you feel bad at all drawing a paycheck which is paid by the players its your job to give the run around too?

2. Has anyone from Lock came out and said unequivocally "Yes we have all the players' money on hand?

3. Whats the excuse for obscenely long cash out times?

4. Is this a Japanese company? If not, do you think if it was any of the high level employees would have had the honor and decency by now to stay late at work one night and plunge their grandfather's samurai sword into their stomach?

Sadly, I happen to know the general number of pending cashouts that there are in total on Lock (as of a week ago or so), and what I have charted is actually closer to a third of all pending cashouts. And I'm only charting wait times over two months. I'd say that's pretty darn accurate.

Which is it Mccormick? In one breath, you wish to encourage this effort. And in the next, you say "the statistics are inaccurate". You have been critical of Lock in some limited cases - at least moreso than Shane, Costigan, or Larsen would ever be (though a fly would be more critical than those three). Don't make the leap into complete denial, sir. That's not the company you're going to want to be associated with when this all shakes out.

Simply saying "it's a fact" is akin to saying the earth is flat when presented evidence to the contrary. You can say whatever you want to say - the data on cashouts is pretty accurate, and I stand by it because it's actual data and not supposition - which is all that's been presented against the data.

And the reason I know this is because I went to the source. You can't just assume things and make them true. 2+2 is the largest poker forum in the world. Belittling their significance just doesn't hold up anymore - not when someone starts tracking the wealth of information here and summarizes actual data on what's going on with these skins and networks.

I never said it was 100% collated data - unless you work for Lock, you'll never have 100% access. Don't need 100% access. You just have to see the forest through the trees, Mccormick.

I'm stunned. How on earth can people read my posts so badly just because they somehow have this idea planted in their brain that i'm a shill it's too funny.

- Lock's cashouts are horrid.

- Your data is limited, Lock has thousands of customers, not 65.

- We don't need to see your limited data to know the cashouts are horrid, we know this from months and months of posts about this and people sharing their experience.

- I'm really confused why we're arguing about any of this, it seems very obvious to me.

- If I ever get "associated" with Lock it's because this world is filled with ******s, that's not my fault and I won't care about that, I'm not one to follow the masses their unnuanced opinions like a sheep, I don't know how many times I've said Lock is crap yet somehow I'm still the "shill" it's really beyond a joke.

- Inaccurate was possibly the wrong word, by the way, the data is very limited is the better choice of words, but it's really almost the same thing, unless you're just going to extrapolate and assume it's the same for everyone, at which point it now likely becomes inaccurate.

Thousands of customers, yes. We're talking about cashouts. And from Shanes lips to God's ears, the number of total pending cashouts is less than 250, sir. As of a week or so ago. In the strictest sense, the data in my report is "limited" - but it's quite an accurate glimpse, especially since that 250 does not include a two-month or greater delineator as my report does.

EDIT (3:50pm): To be clear, the less than 250 reference is limited to 2+2 - and is not the total number across all of Lock. Just wanted to make sure that was crystal.

The tracking is for players and to hold the company as accountable as we can. There's something to be said about independent tracking of information, sir. Because we surely know Lock isn't interested in putting any of this information out there themselves.

Again - you can say "very limited" and devalue the data until you're blue in the face. It doesn't make it true. I know for a fact that not 100% of players waiting for cashouts wait two months or more - and that's reflected in the data as well. You miss my points, sir. A: we have no other way to track or hold Lock accountable unless we simply take them at their word; and B: the players waiting deserve to be quantified and people should be more aware of what's happening to them. They deserve at least that much, don't they?

Plus - I've seen it once if I've seen it a million times. People enjoy a summary of a large block of information. The reports do that as well, and serve as a "point-to" so that they don't have to sift through endless pages of posts to find out relevant information. There's no slant, there's no bias. It's just the data as it is. I have no vested interest in the outcome, either.

Before this erupts, i just want to say thanks nuts for the personal time you invest, and the insight it brings here. Thanks pal.

Mccormick does have a point, you run the same data your running here at that other website where Dakota is helping cashouts and your obviously gonna have skewed data.

Combine the two and it would be intresting to see how different the graph would be then, lock cashouts suck, but worth .27 suck?

Glad to do it.

June 25th conversation with Shane:

shane.lockpoker: "There are {xx - less than 50} players in the cardschat list (which by no means is a definitely priority list, its just the total list of players they have sent). I have {xx - less than 250} in my 2+2/Support list. And the average value of each individual cashout is 3 times higher on the 2+2 list."

It's not going to raise the wait-times that much if these general numbers are accurate. Not sure if Shane wanted that info public, so I generalized.

If Shane has <250 on his list and I have 65 from 2+2, then I'd be able to nab approximately 13 or 14 from CC if the same variable of what's public and what's not is given. It would probably drive the wait-times down, but not significantly.

Besides sir, aside from the fact that I'm running data on the #1 poker forum in the world and there's always going to be fringe examples on other forums - the cashout list in the vig report is only those waiting two months or more. Doesn't seem like many, if any, on CC are waiting that long.

well if we all of a sudden decided to believe everything shane has to say, then if you got some liquidity might wanna start buying some lock.


[7/1/2013 1:39:17 PM] shane.lockpoker: Lock isn't going to go under, the casino platform is a huge money spinner for us and overall despite the loss of traffic from Fair Play Lock as a whole is still in good shape.

edit: I was just pointing out that Mccormick has a point, not that he is right and your wrong or vice versa. You know and i've told you b4 that I like many others appreciate what your doing with the data.

Just a poor boy with a dream to make a difference, sir.

And McC would have more of a point if he was a little further removed from the equation, in my opinion. I haven't played seriously on Lock since early February - and even then, my MTT total was <300. But I don't fault anyone for playing on Lock, even now. There's a point when some say that further contributing to their rake only furthers their potential to continue their current practices. However - I know there are some like me who, occasionally, take a flier at .25 or .3 or .4 or whatever to try to ship a tourney or the like to try to make some dough. You can't fault players for trying to make some money in this ridiculous climate - especially US players. Our options are a bit limited right now.

I actually think what Shane said regarding their casino is somewhat true. I'm sure there's more profit to be had there than on the poker side. Less overhead, overlays, etc.

The point is - the hope is, I should say - when confronted with the type of data that's been compiled, you'd hope the company would rectify the situation. The players on the pending cashout list deserve to be paid - just as much as Mccormick does, or anyone else. When someone tries to belittle the data in the way it's been attempted by him or, to a far greater extent, Costigan...it's pretty sad. You can question it - hold it up to scrutiny as far as how accurate it is to what's posted here. That's no problem and I have no issue showing how I cull the data. If it were that type of scrutiny, then that's fine, and welcome.

But the angle it has come from to date - it's an angle of denial for no other reason than personal stake. That's where I draw the line and feel the need to defend it. The people on this list, and the people having gone through the process, deserve at least that.

Ask any of the sportsbook guys and they'll tell you the same thing. It's their online casinos that keep them in business. Poker is a loss leader. The sportsbook hate having online poker rooms but they understand the potential to bring in new customers by offering poker and converting these people into casino players. A rather large number of poker players also enjoy wagering on sports.

And make no mistake about it, a well run online sportsbook makes a helluva a lot more profit than any online poker site (with the exception of Stars I suppose). Hence the reason you see Carbon pushing their new sportsbook platform more so than the online poker room.

The only people who make money on the operational side of things with online poker are the affiliates.

Too bad Lock isn't well run.

You should ask some of your expert friends what it means when a site is taking months to pay its non-US customers.

Week to Date MTT Rake Earned Per Network
(tourneys with $5k GTD's or higher)
(net earnings after overlays - NOT gross)

Bovada: $31,656
Merge: $4,638
Winning Poker: $1,429
Revolution: -$5,180

Tracking from Monday, July 1st through 2am EST on July 6th. Figures do not include the $6k GTD Turbo on Bovada on 7/1, or the $5k GTD on Winning Poker on 7/1.

Now - obviously, overlays can drive business. Cash game earnings are much more difficult to track. I'm not saying Revolution is losing money based solely on this. I'm saying that 3 of the 4 major US-facing networks seem to be able to at least break even on MTT's - and in Bovada's case, they actually seem to be making some decent coin.

Back up at least some of what you say, sir, with factual information and data to support your arguments.

So as long as the casino is making money it's totally ok to make promises to poker players then not come through with those promises and take up to 7 months to pay people?

Seems like a great way have a loss leader (not that rooms are, bc they certainly are not. Well run rooms make money, not lose money. The only thing that you've said thats true is that they dont make as much as sportsbooks/casino)
Lets bring people in that play poker make them hate us then maybe they'll gamble at our casino! Probably logical for you and lock though.

A profitable Sportsbook, or in Lock's case the casino, has nothing to do with the cashout situation at all since Lock claims that the player funds are segregated. A fraction of players like to wager on the casino since most are aware that those are house games with a ridiculous win rate. Playing an online slot or casino slot are two different things.

Well run??? LOL

Not if only 5% of your players still play on the site. But again, that statement itself is ridiculous.

That's because players earn obscene (unsustainable) amounts of bonuses/rakeback. Then after paying affiliates.. How much money is left for lock poker??

Seriously the only reason why they had continual deposit bonuses is cause they were 'desperate' to expedite cashouts.. It's so gross

@FT
The player bonuses are actually deducted before the affiliates get paid.

Let's say player X raked $100 and you're at 35% revenue share = $35.

Player X exchanged 700 points for $10, received another $25 in rake back and also cleared $15 of his deposit bonus. He received a total of $50 in bonuses so the affiliate basically gets $0 that month from player X.

Hehe, yeah. Online slots have far bigger payout percentages.

+1