Is this Lock only, or revolution as a whole?

Lock only

ty.

good night sweet prince!

i would believe anything you deposit should be eligible for cashout.

deposit = your money,eligible for cashout

received transfer = money to play with,not eligible for cashout

thats how i understand it

Not that I think your justification here makes any sense(backer/backee relationship is small part of overall trades) but there's no indication this is how the backer/backee relationship is looked at by lock. You start with 1k transfer from backer,you make 1k, and you transfer ur backer 1k back. Where did lock specify that the 1k you transfered back was "initial trasnfer" and not"profit". Now you 're acct still has 1k of transferred uncashable funds and on other side you're backer just accepted you're transfer and he as well has 1k of uncashable funds

i guess this could be true and needs to be verified. in any case im inthe process of switching my play to another site. i just dont see it as theft, because they arent taking the money from you. they are just insisting you play with that money. the whole purpose sites allow p2p transfers is to allow you to play poker. they arent money transferring services

so instead of doing away with p2p they make it highly profitable for them by making all p2p worthless. I wonder if this is retroactive a great way to steal players funds , making funds uncashable is stealing to me

Hi, I never post here, but these things that have come about with Lock have me questioning...

I staked someone with x amount of money. They ran up my stake to x amount and we agreed to end the stake, an he sent me back my cut. Does that mean I can't cash out what he transferred, and he can't cash out what I staked him? I'm very confused about this, and I definitely want some answers because this is simply unfair. We had the staking arrangement made before these policies ever even emerged.

according to the emails, you are fine. it's just the people who can't trade back that are screwed.

No, no, no.

This is indeed stealing and a terrible policy.

Think of it this way:

I'm at Commerce Casino, and I see a fellow player named John Smith. I know John plays on Lock, and I want some chips there so I can play.

I hand John $2k, and he sends me $2k in Lock chips.

Over the next 6 months, I actively play on Lock and run my $2,000 into $25,000.

Unfortunately, that time period is not as kind to John. He chunks off everything he has on Lock, busts there, and then busts the rest of his bankroll playing live. John vanishes from the poker world and is unreachable.

What becomes of my $2,000 now? I can't just send it to John, because I can't reach him, and I have no guarantee that he would be willing to "trade back" the money.

So in this scenario under Lock's policy, I can cash out $23,000, and the last $2k is useless and can never be cashed out.

Thus, Lock has stolen $2,000 from me.

It is completely unreasonable to require someone who bought Lock money from someone else to have to track down that person again months (or years) later and "trade back" in order for the money to be cashed out.

And then, of course, there's the matter of the 2+2 trading thread, where Lock fully allowed people to trade money with one another at less than 1:1. They can't just retroactively cheat the recipients of that money. Again, that's stealing. If Lock wants to make this policy going forward, they need to grandfather all previous transfers to be allowed to be cashed out, and then make it VERY CLEAR at the time of transfer that the policy has changed.

In reality, this is all a bunch of BS, and again a stalling tactic to prevent cashouts while Lock tries to entice suckers to deposit under false pretenses, in order to bail themselves out.

exactly. it's hilarious that support is saying "hey, you're screwed if you received a transfer. so stick someone else with the worthless money!"

So I will get the 55% of winnings he sent me, even though I haven't played on the money that he sent me at all?

I was the staker, not the person being staked.

it is more than a stalling tactic. they have dramatically reduced their overall burden by deeming a large amount of money ineligble for cashouts. this is their solution to covering cashouts. rather than coming up with the necessary money, they suddenly and retroactively devalued the money in peoples' accounts.

How can they even be saying this? If you xfer the money back to the person that initially xferred it to you, can they cash it out?

This is a ****ing insane joke.

Lock steals the 55% winnings, since that was a transfer

Yeah, I agree. This is highway robbery.

The fact that no notice was made of any of these policy changes is probably the most damning part of it all. This is ridiculous.

Wow, so that means that I lost not only the money I staked the guy, but also his winnings?

Holy ****, I am pissed.

curious im wondering something. Lets say you get 2k transfer. You go busto on that 2k. You get another 2k transfer and you run it up to 10k? Would your eligible transfer be 8k or 6k?

You're right, but this isn't the solution to cashouts. They are likely so broke at this point that even this policy would barely make a dent in their obligations.

But I do agree that this is a way to reduce their overall burden of immediate cashouts, so they can afford to pay a bunch of people in June and say, "See, we're all right!", when in reality they have almost none of the other player money sitting behind.

By this policy, you could only cash out $6k, and then you would have to track down BOTH people who sent you $2k (even if it's months or years later), and somehow get them to "trade back" with you at full value.

Just another ludicrous Lock policy to steal from people.

yea its amazing like the wild west of online poker. no rules , they just make them up as they go along .

Yeah, I mean there was no way to even plan for this.

How on Earth can they group us with people who may be abusing the system? So what some people may be sending huge amounts of money through Lock. That doesn't mean that everyone is doing it illegitimately.

Its bait and switch! "Come here, and you can transfer funds with people if you want!"

3 weeks later

"Oh yeah we forgot to tell you that transfers make money unattainable!"

so even though i lost the original 2k and my balance was zero when i received another 2k i would still be liable for it? Do they just add up your entire transfer history and tell you thats what you can't withdrawal?

I mean does anyone really think that any rational reasonable human being would transfer money if they knew THEY COULD NEVER GET IT BACK?

I mean seriously, this is a sham. It reeks of it.

So if you stake someone $200 and they make $10K profit and send back the $200+$5K back to you...the only amount you would be allowed to cash out is the original $200? This does not seem right.

What about the person staked? He can cash out 4.8K?