Every site since about 2008 has just put the cash in your account. Most would give you a little extra for expenses if do end up playing in it.

Don't fall out of that helicopter.

lmfao, perfect murder.. all the way in the Grand Canyon

By definition, any site operating in the US collecting real money deposits and processing withdrawals is violating UIGEA whether taking 6 months or 3 days.

he's the DOJ 😱

Keep a tight hold of your wallet!

All part of the Lock make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach.

lol

grats on the win. I guess you just have to hope that Lock holds together for another 4 months!

Thanks Well, didn't win yet, the month is still 9 days to go but don't see anyone catching up at this point unless i drop dead only have to keep checking every now and then and see if Jerkydude climbed a bit too much in which case i'd just start playing more again aswell, at which point i don't think he can possibly catch up anymore.

If Lock is the Titanic, the boat will snap in half in about two weeks I say...then it all goes under in about a month.

I was one of the first to get off on the lifeboat

I see no possible light from whatever lock do in whatever way you look at it. If they have limited games because they can't meet payment demands it shows they are incompetent, and again the network isn't even ran properly, they should sell the network off to intertops who have more cashflow from other portfolios, sports betting casino etc that have the money to work on better network stability and better software. Lock can do what the hell it wants then because everyone with sense will go to the better skins while lock have more time and less expenditure and more money after the sell off to improve their skin. (Just a thought)

It's my understanding that UIGEA has effect only in states where such actions are illegal according to that state's laws.

It's all still pretty grey, imo. Congress makes the law, the DOJ enforces it, and then it's up to the courts to interpret it. The UIGEA is particularly confusing because it doesn't make operating the site illegal, only the transfering of funds. So by using 3rd party processors, one could argue that the sites aren't violating any laws. Further complicating this is the issue-ing of opinions regarding these laws, that imply legality or a lack of enforcement. But until the courts rule, has it really been decided? There's a distinct lack of precedent here.

Another complication in this whole situation is the question of authority. Under international law, even the payment processing into the US is legal. The WTO has ruled against the US in this, saying that blocking an internet export is a violation of their agreement. Fines have been levied, but of course, Uncle Sam hasn't paid. Then there's the question of Fed vs State, which is of more interest to US players, particularly with a few states legalizing and setting up internet poker. The Feds have implied that they will allow it, the DOJ has written an opinion that it won't violate the Wire Act. But really, until the courts rule on it, it's all open to interpretation.

The only other source of revenue I can think of would be for running the Revolution network, but I'm not sure how that works. Do the other skins pay a fee/rake for being part of it?

I can see a few arguments for segregation, although I'm not sure if I agree with them. In theory, a player who loses less will deposit more. If a losing recreational player loses his deposit very rapidly everytime he deposits, he might just hang it up and stop playing. If he gets a lot of mileage out of his deposit, and thus more recreational enjoyment, he is more likely to reload. Online poker is marketing driven, and dependent on new player signups and fresh deposits. Lock seems to spending far more on marketing than the other skins. If the grinders play more on the other skins due to faster cashouts, then those skins reap the stability and benefits of Lock's marketing. So there is some validity to the "poker ecology" argument.

Still, I don't know if this is a good move on Lock's part or not. They have been trying to have "exclusive" tables for a while now, within their promotions. We can all see how empty the "Grind For Glory" tables are. Time will tell, suppose.

I don't believe this is 100% accurate.

Well, kinda.

This is my understanding as well.

UIGEA was, in essence, a law for the banks. There is nothing that makes it illegal for players or sites to offer services to one another unless it is expressly prohibited at the state level, just illegal for banks to knowingly process transactions with illegal gambling sites or for the sites to misconstrue their intentions to the banks and then you fall into the whole bank fraud aspect like FTP/Stars did for miscoding the transactions, but that wasn't a violation of UIGEA, it was fraud.

To the best of my knowledge it has never been litigated and as it stands now I have yet to see anybody explain how either deposits or withdrawals with third party services like western union, which completely circumvent the banking system in regards to processing between players and sites, are in violation of UIGEA as it's currently written. Are they incredibly inefficient? For sure! Illegal? As long as everyone who's hands the money is passing through is reporting to their respective tax bureaus, no.

Unfortunately, the money is not the players'. Sure, it was in our bank accounts and we deposited it onto the site, but it isn't ours. It is theirs, and we have taken the risk that they will eventually pay out withdrawals. This sense of entitlement that players have is (unfortunately) false, as we are 100% at the mercy of the site and those running it.

I do not have any special knowledge, it is just the way I see it. If I'm wrong, please call it out because it'd be great if it wasn't this way.

i don't think this is true. this isn't world of warcraft.

So if i walk into a casino, the money in my pockets is theirs, not mine anymore, and i'm at the mercy of them to let me leave with the money? Or even, once i traded $ in my pockets into chips, i'm at their mercy to let me trade it back to actual $'s?

sense of entitlement? really?

Honestly though, from a legal point of view i actually am ~80% sure you have to be wrong.

From an ethical point of view, 100% sure ofcourse.

No, the example that you describe is what I determine to be the difference between online and brick and mortar casinos. Live casinos are regulated and the transactions it processes are legal. Online casinos like Lock are essentially unregulated and we can't sue them for the rights to our account balances.

there's a difference between saying that our money is 100% lock's and that lock owns our money de facto because we have no recourse to obtain it. in addition to that, much of what you are saying is pure speculation.

I'm going to do some digging later as I'm on my way to work now, but this is essentially and more importantly legally correct. The closest analogy is when you deposit you are exchanging cash for casino chips.

If you remember what happened to the MIT blackjack guys after the Mike Tyson fight, the casino can refuse to honour those chips at any time for various reasons.

Basically you are paying for a service (credit toward playing on their site). Obviously 99.999999% of the time they offer to give you cash when you access your "profit" e.g. but they could very well just pay you in Amazon vouchers or whatever.

It really is about time we stop looking on these sites on the same trust level as a bank account IMO...

Another fun fact: When you deposit your hard earned cash in the bank, that doesn't belong to you either...

lol no I quit. You can stop now. Good job, man. You earned it.

Great effort from both of you, was talking with our CEO today she had been watching Jerkydude's run to challenge Mccormickxx with great interest.

Was a great battle but looks like the Belgian will hang on, Im guessing he will celebrate with a Hoegaarden and maybe some Pommes frites with mayonaise.

Was she discussing a solid plan to resolve the massive issues plaguing her site, or at least acknowledge they need to be fixed?

I actually wrote this article for 4Flush. All the information in there is verifiable and I do think the situation at Lock is poor. There are more rumors that I couldn't include in the post that are much more damning. I trust the sources but again, as a previous poster mentioned it's still just speculation.

I want Lock to succeed as I don't want US players to lose another network. However, the segregation of cash tables from the rest of the network and the lack of an announcement regarding the change is not acceptable. No one knows if they even told the other skins that they were making this move.

If Lock would make this move to their sister skins on the network, (sites that help liquidity and make Lock money) it's tough to imagine how they might treat players and affiliates if things go sour.

yea I didn't respond to the post about Jen's great excitement or whatever while watching the race, but I had the same thoughts.

Also, congrats to Mccormick. I'm impressed

Thank you! very happy about it, were long days but now i can finish it off slowly.

Hahahaha, i will do just that