How about you try and explain how Lock and Shane are going out of their way to make us (the players) happy.. What have they done to appease the requests in these transfers? Explain to us what you mean by making us happy to line their pockets. Because if that is their focus then it just reveals even more how incompetent they are.

I will pretty angry if Lock pros are included in the group and not Black Elites and I'm not one of them. I think the players should come first and Black Elites have reached the highest level of the rewards program.

Maybe they're trying it on people that cashed a large amount in a tournament? Casino whales?

Agreed there, it actually should be. On the other hand, though, people like to be informed as much as possible. If he doesn't post anything about it people aren't exactly happy either and will likely think and/or say "can't you inform us sooner"? Also, afaik, he did say from the start it'd be pretty exclusive, what exactly that means is ofcourse open to interpretation.

McCormick?

Your stance is that Lock is slow paying us, segregating players, implementing new tech, and ignoring our emails to go out of their way to make us happy huh? And I'm the one who's not getting it? Get a clue!!

Thanks for proving exactly that Shane isn't to blame, but rather the rest of the Lock team (in the respective teams responsible for the mentioned things) / upper management. Get a clue?

I think my post speaks for itself! I'm done going in circles with you McCormick. It's obvious you have a man crush on Shane!!

It is beyond obvious lock is DESPERATE for new Deposits.

1. Hire grinder to bring in money

2. Seg off Intertops

3. Stiff Affiliates

4. Fair Play to encourage fish to deposit

100% Ponzi Scheme

There are actually no indicators that lock isn't a pozni/scam


Please remember ponzi schemes ALWAYS PAY UNTIL THEY CAN'T

People want to know about bad things (segregation, downtime for maintenance, etc.) ahead of time so that they can plan accordingly. Some people will always find things to complain about but I think the masses will mostly be pleased by pleasant surprises. Obviously the latter is better than promising something and not delivering.

Yep, i realise this is everyone's ******ed logic. Guess what: it's inherent to saying things in advance (things can get messed up or change inbetween the time you said it and it actually happening) there's only 2 choices: say things in advance and having the risk of it ****ing up, or never saying anything in advance and always remaining in the dark about what's happening behind the scenes at Lock.

you clearly know nothing about finance.
go get an education

http://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-St...rs/Mccormickxx

this too


then go to the graph, notice on 1 february 2013 +1200€, then all the way down to -15k on 6 march, all the while having made like 20k instead .. off by 35k, how do they do that ;-) oh right, it doesn't track even half your hands, nor rakeback or promotions. Infact, if PTR says -4k and 19k rake paid, with 100% RB that's 15K profit right there even according to PTR. (but it doesn't display it like that). Yes, i can only win with good RB/promo's. That sums up 99% of the FLHE players, by the way: edges are very thin there.

anyways, not at all excited about fair play, but i do see why it makes sense from their perspective.

Its funny, the first link shows that on merge he was a pretty big loser. But, your second link counters your argument because his graph shows that he's up about 10k profit, plus godly rakeback in the last 3-4 months.

No.

How did this get to discussing my winrate? lmfao. I bet he's holocene or something LOL (a FLHE reg)

mind posting your graph, whoever you are?

I've never played with you. However it's important to know why people are arguing so vehemently for certain things. In this case it probably has something to do with you being able to play with the worst players because of your winrate.

Please, do go find and quote all posts that show i'm "arguing so vehemently" for this. I've both a few arguments for, and some against the thing, across this thread, and in the partypoker thread where basically the same is going on. I'm someone who likes to get a discussion going, someone who tries to find ALL aspects (both positive and negative) about a certain thing before making a final decision / opinion on the matter. I'm really not like most of you people who see it and just decide "oh, this is going to hurt my pockets = it's bad" for everyone. Infact, i'll often state an argument both for and against something to get reaction, to see if the argument can get broken down. This what a forum is for to me, and will help both me and others in making a decision (also Lock, if they read, or if Shane passes on solid arguments)


But really, please do point out how i'm fanatically defending either one, i'm not. I really don't get where all the hate towards me comes from on this forum suddenly.. well, guess i'll start posting less (to me so far it seems mostly jelly haters about the GFG promo because it's mostly comments about the flips or my winrate one way or the other).


Oh well, whatever See you at the WSOP right ;-)

Mccormick, I always appreciate your posts because they are usually spot on and give valuable information. Please don't let "the sky is falling" people prevent you from keeping the good posts coming.

Thanks.

It kinda does. If you knew how to read a graph+ basic math, you would see that going from stuck $14k to stuck around $4k is up about $10k in the last 3-4 months...

and the ridiculous rakeback

Thank you!



I'd like to add, by the way: does being a losing player equal to having less importance in the matter? Infact, i think this is a solid argument: the losing players indeed DO favor this, and guess what, there's many more of those than winning players. In a democracy, this change would be an easy vote. It isn't a democracy however, and the losing players will have little say in this either way, whereas we on 2+2 actually do have a say. I'm sure Lock realises all of this and realises that while the uproar may seem quite big on 2+2, for their overall playerpool it might just be a good thing. I do say "might", i'm not sure either. And i've also stated plenty times before that they can't have too many "levels". 3 levels where they're all interconnected except for the outer ones seems fine to me. Make 10 levels or more or whatever, and indeed, you've created an unbeatable break-even game with rake killing everyone. With only 3 groups, i don't see the problem however, but obviously it sucks for the top group (but again, since stated multiple times the middle group is also the biggest one, it does mean the biggest group is still available to the top group in either case)

The biggest group is not the middle. All groups are equal, it's a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split.

If you're in the top tier, you're getting cutoff from 33% of the network.

Every winner will be in the top tier, plus probably some breakeven players.

There are poker players and then there are rake chasers it's pretty clear that Lock favors the rake chaser!!

So what you are saying here is that the middle 1/3 can play with the entire player pool? But the top 1/3 cannot play against the bottom 1/3, and vice versa?

Yes.