However, Cake Gaming N.V., the company owned and operated the Cake Poker network, dont exist anymore.

Yeah, this feels like more a case of happenstance than an evil plot. I mean look at how they handled "Fair Play" and one does not see the makings of master criminals at work.

I still have no idea why this unimportant side topic matter to this little guy, since I cannot see any gain from the general situation to anyone. He seems to think something sinister is at work, only he will not say why or to what purpose, maybe they just like creating evil.

SUNSIBAR

MCCORMICK


....Last ditch efforts to paint a pretty picture for lock.

Mostly Sunsibar.

Every post you have made under this account has either derailed threads like this or posted neutral or positive lock responses.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=125

^^ http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=128



Just updated for tonight. Thing is, the last two days of trades are going against an entire month of trades. So the vig where it is now is only going to drop slightly. But, of course, since we're now at July 1st, we start with a fresh monthly vig number. So - whatever happens from midnight tonight on should prove interesting if nothing else.

hmm, what about this

and why the cake and lock have same address? Do you knoiw?

And what is it mean "Software provider?

Lock confirmed themselves that they never went through with the purchase. They didn't bother to mention this until very recently (I believe May 2013).

The skins claim that Cake owns the network, and that Cake owes them money. They say the source of the money owed is from Lock owing Cake (the network, again, Cake owns Revolution, it used to be called Cake, and Cake is the owner, so it's called both Cake and Revolution... official branding is Revolution, I don't know what the actual business name is though, could be xxxx enterprises for all I know).

Lock wasn't fully segregated by Merge when they were on the Merge network, so as one poster said, no, they didn't just get player balances paid in full when they left. They were responsible for some of their own balances, they were cashing out players via their own processors at times, via the casino. Sometimes the processors went down and they'd push it all through the poker client (Merge processing), sometimes casino was faster and they'd push it through there.

Things like the wiki end up being incorrect. It was announced when Lock came to Cake that they had bought the network and rebranded it Revolution. Myself and many others in the industry wondered what they bought, given Cake still ran their own skins, the other big skins such as Intertops remained independent, the software was often crashing and Lock had roughly doubled the size of the network. Speculation was that Lock had become the marketing head of the network and perhaps had some ownership, but didn't actually pay anything. Turns out they didn't actually go through with it, so they do not own it (Shane or Jennifer mentioned this around the time of the G911 marketing article done after the Portugal trip this year).

Thanks for the explanation Ry. Has Lock provided a reason for not paying the network? Payment processing problems I presume?

you blame him? people have bankrolls tied up on this site

Batches are amounts of money sent to the processor, normally e-Wallets dont need this but since our ROW deposits pale in comparison to ROW cashouts then they too need funds wired to the wallets to complete the cashouts. Hence our batches for all cashouts.

The restriction on batches comes from moving money safely to the processor for these cashouts.


Playing favourites to the pros is something we have been accused of for a long time, this is not something we want to be doing.


As above the batch limits come from moving the funds to the eWallets as deposits on those methods dont come close to matching cashouts from those methods.


Cake were looking to be brought out because they were struggling, they wanted to move quickly and we agreed but only with the full rebrand. This all went through but it came to light that not everything was as promised so the deal wasn't completed.

The network then chose to quietly seek new investors and left the rebranding in place. Our control of the network ended at that point with our only real input being as the major room on the network. We have no ability to force changes such as removing Fair Play just as we have no ability to force the network to pay the other network partners. The last part is very baffling in light of the amount of funds owed to those rooms vs the amount we pay to the network.


Lock does pay the network.

For what it is worth, I do believe the Little Shane when he says that Lock Pros get no special treatment in terms of cashing out. That does not change the validity of what others have said about the choices these pros are making now.

Little Shane also cleared up the who owns the network confusion yet again, so perhaps that weird troll who seems to use it as a vehicle for derailing will have to pick a new topic.

What Little Shane was not so specific on was when he made the very general statement of the following:

That is something a person who owes $100,000 would say after paying back a couple hundred dollars. Technically he is paying back the debt.

What it would be nice to hear Little Shane talk about is whether Lock is claiming they are paying their full settlement payments every month and whether they owe Cake anything, because if Little Shane claims they are up to date and do not owe Cake anything then he will be saying it is only Cake Poker that is causing the financial grief in this whole situation.

Cake has yet to post anything about this, but perhaps if Lock puts them in that position they may become a bit more willing to share the information as to what is going on.

I give Little Shane an 8 out of 10 for his above post in terms of propaganda value because it deals in great detail with a few topics he can talk about (pros not getting cashout preference, the inner workings of processing, the network structure) which provides solid cover fire for the vague tiny statement about a sensitive topic they seem to continue to avoid.

All the best.

I have stated again and again that Lock is completely up to date with payments to the network. So yes we fully settle with the network.

Just like Lock pays its players, right?

Shane you stated that Lock does not owe the network. While this may technically be true since the network and Lock are two separate companies, would it not be more accurate to say that Revolution and Lock are owned and run by the same group of people, at least in part? This would be the reason why it was believed that Lock owned Revolution at the beginning. So while it might be technically true when you now say that Lock does not own the network, the network does own Lock which means that the same people owe the other skins the payments. I am kinda on the right track Shame?

no matter how you guys phrase the question the answers gonna be the same, mabbe try a different avenue then asking a rep that doesn't even answer? lol.

This information on the homepage of cakepoker.eu is obviously not actual because the Curacao Chamber says: "There is no company with a Statutory or Tradename like Cake Gaming N.V.."
And the homepage cakepokernetwork.net is obviously not actual as well because the last press release is from May 2012.

Yes, I know.

Thank you! Can the skins specify as well the name of the company they have signed a legally binding agreement? Cake Poker = Cake Entertainment N.V.

I know that Cake Poker = Cake Entertainment N.V. pay their customers delayed, meanwhile in average 6 - 8 weeks, although they accept no US players, so there are no excuses about processor problems, etc.. And if Cake Poker is the owner of the network which dont pay several skins as well, probably the issue is at Cake Poker.

Just posting what I believe to be true and/or thinking out loud posting to get more ideas from others and form an opinion based on getting extra information on the topic or other viewpoints.


FORMULA72

.... good efforts to paint a bad picture about Lock.


See my point? It's not because I believe something about someone to be true, I'm somehow emotionally attached to said person or thing (in this case Lock). I simply post based on the dots I connect with the knowledge I have, with as little emotional attachment to it as possible.

I have little reason to defend Lock, the only reason I can think of is because it may or may not keep them afloat longer if they are indeed in financial problems, but I much doubt the impact would ever be enough anyway.

do u even play on lock anymore? Honest question, no sarcasm intended, I bailed last week right before the price of lock dipped below .4. I know see its going for as low as .25 in marketplace

This is his intention:

Mccormick and Sunsibar were although judging by leaderboards they have tailed off a bit lock's highest rakers for a bit of course there gonna put the best possible spin on it, if they actually believed that lock was going under tommorrow then they would be ******ed to play there.

Spin (positive or negative) does not have any impact. In the end the market speaks and it does so with money, in this case what Lock trades at in the marketplace.

If Lock hits the 10-20 cent "terminal" level, then these guys can try to spin it however they like if it makes them feel better though the outcome will be inevitable.

If they are still playing on Lock I hope they win a ton because that will help with the current settlement issues by a bit. Guess they need to play the non segregated games though to do this, so perhaps they can crush some 10NL...

I saw someone selling at .25, I feel like i hit the lottery selling at .4 when I did.

Yes, I still play. Raked 1700$ this month. Way below my previous volume, but I had no incentive to go for any Leaderboard, since there was none (untill they suddenly decided like halfway in the month they would give out prizes, ofcourse.. gg Lock). Other than that, I could use a break anyway after so many months of playing so much.


Wtf are you saying? Just so lovely when people make these assumptions in their heads. What do you know about my motives, reasons to play, stakes/games I play, anything, really? Don't fill it in just like that please. My main game is FLHE, which is nearly dead on Lock now, so it's hard for me to put in volume now, also as said above, there were no Leaderboard prizes to go for. I've said this many times before, given the information out there, I think there's a very reasonable chance Lock indeed is going under.
You can backtrack my posts and see I've never stated otherwise, whether I think it's that extremely likely, like the majority of posters here seem to think, is another thing. It's not like it'll be my fault anyway if/when they go under, I've never promoted this site, I've never told anyone to play here, infact, I've stated multiple times people shouldn't play here untill they sort themselves out, but I simply don't share this opinion of the majority here that it's all a big scam and Lock are pure thieves, but hey maybe i'm just naive. It's just what I make of the dots of information given, and I simply think people on this forum comment way too much from their viewpoint and frustrations rather than being able to keep any sort of image about the bigger picture with regards to Lock.

Then again, I've also stated numerous times that the information given to us as a community is so limited, it's extremely hard to form an opinion anyway, so in reality it's anyone's guess, but that also means the negative posts are also just that: guesses.

Cake and Lock dont share any ownership.

Lock is independently owned and was going to purchase the network side of the Cake business but that deal eventually didn't go through.