fyp

You see and then that anology isn't great either. The apple market is kind of gigantic in comparison to Lock's xfer market. You're not going to panic anyone in the market buying lots at a low price. With Lock's reputation, slow cashouts, everything considered however, the case here is different where when an organised group of people decide they're going to influence the price by putting many "buy orders" at a low price, then it WILL happen because they're a large percentage of total buyers, aswell as inflict more panic in the market as a whole, also possibly by other posts in the forums.

That being said, fix the damn cashout times already. This almost makes me feel like you know you're not going to have it fixed in the near future because otherwise enforcing a policy like this wouldn't even be needed anymore anyway once the cashout times were fine.

Yup...this has been their MO forever.

Step 1: Hold funds from acct/cashout attempt/transfer

Step 2: Accuse player of fraud (chargebacks/scamming transfers for cash/collusion/cheating)

Step 3: Refer player to a mysterious email addy that is supposed to go directly to the security dept.

Step 4: Send no real response from security about the actual issue...only auto responses or responses that don't relate to questions in the email sent.

Step 5: Profit

this is actually true, and does make some sense. my apologies from earlier

It's only true if people will sell at that rate.

Theres a reason the price of Lock didn't just go from 70c to 50c overnight.

Confidence in the room affected the price of Lock over the longterm not buyers trying to drive the price down.

This is just another way of Lock trying to pin the blame on everyone but themselves. If you believe this **** then you are a fool.

Haha, hopefully he didn't set your cashout limit to zero as well. So what do you think will happen now?

lol id bet even lock knows this isnt true, shane just cant come out and say that

Why does it matter? Why would Lock care what the market is for Lock funds? If Lock was so concerned with the marker value of Locks dollar then increase cashouts. There is still a net debt on locks books whether its one or 100 players that need paid. Pay the man or provide evidence of wrongdoing.

Whether the money belongs to 1 or 100 players isn't as important like you said, the issue is when a transfer is made, according to the player to player transfer rules in the TOS, the player receiving the transfer is supposed to play. If they don't play then the site loses rake revenue.

Player transfers are meant as a courtesy to stimulate game play on the site, not for the player to open up their own "Lock Stock Futures Market".

Somewhere ITT the moderator, Shane, admitted that none of this would have happened if Lock had faster payouts. But, he didn't say that it was an open invitation for people to make money off the problem.

The sellers contribute the problem by selling to buyer who are profiting...

It's a complete mess and Lock is 100% to blame. They have to take some course of action to correct the problem and it will not happen over night.

not good if your saying this

So you'd be OK with me telling all my friends to come play at Lock, buy you people's funds at 0.5 and cashing out 10k at a time through Skrill while turning over the $ like once on coin flips which will make us lose next to nothing? Buy 10k with 5k, lose 400$ without rakeback on the flips say ~250$ with rakeback that's 4750$ profit every time. In the meanwhile, your cashouts get pushed back if everyone would be doing this thus re-enforcing the problem even more and making it more likely you want to sell. If people don't see this as stealing, then really, I SHOULD BE DOING IT ASAP. (i even told Shane on Skype i maybe shouldn't have made the post the first time because i'd give people idea's..)



Well, i didn't have all information yet, it looked really bad, and i still think it is for the most part. A company with more respect towards its customers would have warned the players in question first and just told them to stop doing what they're doing, but let the current cashouts get through as normal. I don't think you can blame people for both trying to make money out of this whole mess aswell as infact help people while doing it because they're happy they actually get the cash. However, if you look at the picture in a more broad way (somewhat as described above) you can see that people who do this are infact not only profiting and "helping" people, they're also making it worse for own gain for the very people they're helping.

Also would like to add: why not good if I say this? Get it through your thick skull please, i'm no shill. I speak my mind, and while defending Lock in quite some instances was my mind, it doesn't mean it will always be so.

how would your friends push back cashouts in the queue? i thought this whole problem was created by affiliates who bought up funds that had ways to expedite their withdrawal?

Because only X cashouts happen in Y time always. Sure, my friend's cashout doesn't push yours back directly if you already requested one before said friend, but once yours is processed completely, you request a new one, and now there's more requests infront of you than there otherwise would have been. In this manner, my friends buying your funds is imo comparable to stealing from you because they're profiting off a situation they're now helping creating.

i dont understand then. do you think lock should get rid of p2p altogether? should the play through requirement be higher/different? because in the example you provided it seems they would meet the 1:1 wager threshold.

I don't think they should get rid of p2p, they should fix their cashout issues. Also, i don't think they're going to remove p2p. THIS is their move, this is their fix to the situation, and rightfully so. While using p2p is fine for intends such as staking and buying/selling some once in a while on 2+2 is fine, it looks like they simply don't want people to make a big organisation out of it for profit.

fix to what situation though? are you agreeing with lock/shane that these affiliates (if true) created an artificial market for lock funds? if not, then all lock is doing is suppressing people to make a profit in an open market, while at the same time following locks play through requirements. if so, then we agree to disagree, cheers.

The situation where people are making an organisation out of buying up Lock funds to cash out with priority over others rather than buying the funds for other reasons.

If you don't disagree with this, then basically you're saying you're fine with always having to sell your funds at 0.5 as long as you get them instantly.

Hey, to me that's fine, i hope everyone else on this forum agrees with you, then i can start being the one on the other side making the business out of it. Everyone happy.

buy up all the funds you want. i personally have no qualms. i believe people are disagreeing with shane on if these people have corrupted the price of the market.

no one has to sell funds at .5 on the dollar. thats up to the individual seller.

now if these affiliates went into the p2p thread with multiple accounts, continually posting fake transactions under market value, then yes i can understand the corruption.

Different issues are being mixed up itt.

Lock shouldn't care if players transfer money, its a normal part of poker and helps everyone, site included. That is true even if someone decides just to act as a broker, without ever playing. A broker helps in creating liquidity - imagine you wanted to swap Lock for FTP quickly, it would be pretty difficult if you had to wait until there was a player who wanted to swap the same amount in the opposite direction.

The underlying problem here is not that people trade funds, its that Lock allowed some players to jump the queue. Not surprisingly, with funds trading at 50c, some people were smart enough to take advantage. Instead of solving the fundamental issue (i.e. treating everyones cashouts equally), Lock attacked it by blocking withdrawals which had already been approved, many apparently by legit players.

On supply/demand (and, yes, I've done Economics 101 and the rest), there is no way that more demand reduces price (except in some unusual scenarios that don't apply here), whatever the buyers' price or size.

A separate issue is price manipulation. In thin markets unscrupulous participants can affect price through techniques like spreading false rumours, making large artificial trades at prices outside the market level etc. Obv these techniques don't work in a market where the commodity is properly underwritten and liquid (e.g. this couldn't happen on PS because nobody would sell at say 90%, knowing that PS will pay 100% if they just withdraw). Fears over Locks solvency and its slow payout times are the kind of conditions that facilitate this. However, in this particular case no evidence of such manipulation has been presented. Also note that it would be very difficult to damage Lock with rumours given how bad its rep is already.

Very nicely worded post.

Would just like to add that the emails people have gotten from support in the cash out thread (stating delays with processing and backlogs),
combined with the emails from 'joseph stone' in this thread (not allowing cashouts from transfers, yet still cancelling a majority of seemingly legitimate players cashouts) Seems to directly contradict the suggestion made only a week or so ago that the back log of withdrawls is now clearing up.
Surely all of these things can't be true?
Support says backlog is creating delays
Forum rep says backlogs are cleared and delays are getting better
Security rep says transfers can't be cashed out and ppls pending cashouts from weeks ago are cancelled...
Forum rep can't answer questions
Security doesn't seem to be responding to player inquiries
How are we suppose to find a solution in this case.

All of us who are allegedly part of this big scam, can't even prove our innocence as we can't get a response, or a viable line of communication open to someone with the means to make a decision on each 'case'

Catch 22 was mentioned earlier and it truly is an absurd situation where as players, we actually cannot do anything at the moment because there isn't a dialogue here, or a conversation, let alone the ability to give us a warning or indication that the policy is going to change, and that we are being targeted as potential manipulators.

Drinking to much lock kool-aid again . if y buys up 10 $1k cash outs then cash out 10k there would be 9 less people on that list I'm not bright but I can figure that out. That's at 1k if they cash out were $100 they would reduce cash-outs of 99 players from the list. This will drive down trades more , no sharp player will buy at any price when lock can , will not pay if they don't like them or its to much on transfers. p2p might as well be dead . Only 2 reason to do all this , either lock has some one buying up at cheaper rate , or they don't have the funds to pay-out . Plus the fact you knowingly add innocent players to list just because size of cash out , to be sorted out later by security is complete non sense. I mean if your worry about 10k getting off your site then your not liquid imo.

I've held my tongue on this issue but can't stand listening to any more lies of Shanes going unchallenged.

I know for a FACT that affiliates didn't get their cashouts any quicker than anybody else. I know two very big Lock affiliates and they were both waiting 2-3 months for cashouts recently.

The ONLY THING that was different was that some of the play through requirements were negated.

@raidalot I agree with @LegitimizeMyFries in saying "nicely written post". Do you think that because no evidence has been presented that the manipulation didn't happen?

People try to do this under the more watchful eye of the SEC and succeed. The SEC has some very qualified people in it making it very difficult.

Isn't it plausible that an organised group of people could get together and manipulate the small buy/sell market of Lock funds under the nose of Lock Security which is likely less competent than the SEC?

we all know the reason why locks at .50 its because of slowest pay out time of any site other than ever leaf. shane is a very good science-fiction writer. Instead of fixing cash out times with in the last year and half , they opt to pay out less with longer pay out times. When op started this thread , he gets the shane try and dig up dirt treatment , bullying him and linking him and every one to some grand scheme. Proof sorry cant give that out security concerns . This should quiet the players with large amounts on here, speak out back of the line pal, make thread you might not get paid. Its proof shane will and has gone out of his way to look up accounts of players who speak out.

Who knows, it may have happened. I just haven't seen any evidence. The right conditions were in place. But, as I mentioned, with Lock's reputation there is probably little incremental effect of anyone talking it down. I mean, its not like its hard to find negative comments about Lock on forums. If that's all the evidence they have (although they haven't shown us even that) then its not very impressive.

It's a pretty panicky aggressive reaction by Lock - cancelling previously approved transactions, blocking cash-outs pretty indiscriminately, not communicating with the victims, implying the first one to complain was a scammer etc. A normal site without financial problems would have just changed policy to stop the queue-jumping.

If you ignore all the Lock smokescreen the bottom line effect of their actions will logically be:

(1) Reducing the potential for players to get rid of Lock funds through transfers (since they're effectively closing down the brokers)
(2) Lowering the value of Lock funds
(3) Pissing off yet more players