that's the exact reason why it should have been worked out privately before we all get involved... we don't have all the facts...

no one is on trial here by the way.

- Judge Dredd

oh your wrong the op has been. why we need a honest 2+2 mod if there is one

@champstone You win. Now pay the man his money

lmao easy said then done

The security team spent all weekend trying to find reasons not to pay out players. Nice.

Wheres the team that is spending all weekend trying to help speed up cashouts?

This thread makes me want to throw up. I cannot believe this garbage. Shane please go back to economics 101. Lock funds are down not because of people buying up Lock funds. Lock funds are down because people cannot cashout in a timely manner. False rumors mean nothing if cashouts are reasonable. Even UB/AP was trading high before Black Friday and look at all the negative things that happened there.

Trust me with this thread the Lock funds are going to decrease in price. Play chips here we come.

Given some of the pros and affiliates talk about cashouts taking forever for them, it seems weird that some are given priority cashout status.

And obviously there would be no incentive to buy funds in bulk to cashout if cashouts came in a timely manner.

If the wager requirement is 1:1 then let it be 1:1, if it's something else, tell everyone what it is ahead of time so it's transparent.

If people have priority cashouts, stop giving people priority cashouts and pay people equally.

It really comes down to cashouts not coming in a timely manner for a vast majority though. If that is fixed, this thread is a non issue.

lock: our decisions are final until you make a 2+2 thread

I do think that Lock is going bust sooner or later in 2013

Reading all these posts are pretty crazy, hope OP get his money away. Stay away from Lock Poker.

So am i correct in assuming that some affiliates got faster cashouts than the general population? So these affiliates could buy lock for .50 and get the money in a reasonable time frame? If so, i can see how people who don't use the transfers get screwed more.

What exactly is the playthru requirement for transfers? I think being more explicit would be good, so there are no misunderstandings going forward. Is it $1 of rake (or net loss) per $1 of transfer? Surely it can't be anything close to the rate at which bonuses clear?

As for OP, i don't have all the facts, but assuming he did nothing outright illegal, considering he's been a solid member of the 2+2 and staking communities, just let it go with a warning and have all future transfers go with the playthru/winnings requirement ( have a transparent policy). Because you did just impose these changes over the weekend, and the cashouts on your site have been like the Wild West. So it's not unreasonable to expect people to do what they can. But keep in mind OP is a large staker and high stakes player so you would expect him to have more transfers than the typical player. Also, Unless he was a terrible player and businessman, you would expect his NET transfers to be significantly positive. Why? Well ANY reasonable player wanting to play on your site would buy lock funds (rather than send you money directly for 50 cents on the dollar). And as a staker sending you dozens of customers, he should be making money from most of his stakes. So you need a metric other than just net transfers. Otherwise you could lose a lot of current business and more importantly, future business.

Went to bed yesterday after receiving this:



woke up to this:



Excellent work lock. Just to be clear to everyone in this thread, Im a high stakes cash reg on their site. I also used to stake players on their site (before cashouts were nonexistant). Any transfer into my account has been solely to play poker, or to encourage play of poker, and never to withdraw money or "fix" the lock market.

And actually, not hat it should be relevant at all, but that part of the TOS states they can limit my player transfers, or take them away, but at no point says theyre allowed to cancel my withdrawal.

Changing policy on something like this to ensure their own (liquidity) health is fine by me. They sure would do good in warning people first before randomly starting to cancel their withdrawals and whatnot, though.

So stakers need to quit staking on Lock entirely?

Waiting > 60 days for a withdrawal and then cancelling it is taking the piss.

Lock's done a fine job of eliminating that by just making their tables all play money. Who would stake anyone at play money?

@gadolparah Sounds like you got a raw deal. Especially when the Security Team comes back to you with something you read already.

Isn't there some kind of staking account you can create on Lock? Is there a way to have a working relationship with someone at Lock to legitimately do player staking?

Like a High Stakes VIP Player Manager or something?

This is out of control. Basically any account that has transferred money is being seized by Lock now.

Not that they haven't already done this by just not paying anyone but come on.

It has been said a few times but I still think Shane needs a little lesson in Economics 101 on how market prices work...

demand(buyers)>>>>supply(sellers): drives market price up

supply(sellers)>>>>demand(buyers): drives market price down

Right now the xfer threads are overloaded with sellers of Lock because of cashout times. The vig rate didn't spike overnight, it has gradually increased as Lock cashout times have slowed to be almost nonexistent. When cashouts were ~1month last fall, you could sell @.75-.80 which is not much less than what WPN trades at(even though 1 month cashout times is still ridiculous and a lot longer than WPN cashouts). When WU disappeared as an option, the vig increased and you could sell at @.65-.70. If it were going to spike, it should have been at this point where the only cashout option for US players was to sell in the xfer thread or wait 4months for a check.

In January you could still sell @.60-.65 but now after all of the latest bs with FPT, Lock segregation, people still waiting for Jan WUs, and Skrill cashouts taking months, people have fled from the site. They can't cashout and receive that money in a timely manner so this has overloaded the market with sellers, therefore driving the price down even further. .45-.52 is about all you can get for Lock atm, AND THIS IS DIRECTLY LOCK'S FAULT! No one else is to blame here, these "affiliates" taking advantage of priority cashouts did not take advantage of the market. The market itself set the price, these people just bought it up because they found a way to cash it out.

I honestly think if these few people weren't buying up Lock that the vig rate would actually increase even further. There would be no one to buy the funds in xfer threads, in return causing it to be further flooded with sellers. If you want to help the situation, improve cashouts to less than 2 weeks WU, 2-3 days skrill, and maybe 4-6weeks check. This would cause the market to approach equilibrium(or close to it) when people realize they can actually get their cash 1:1 within a reasonable time. Intertops trades @.95-1.00 for a reason.

/rant

+1

What JonathanFisk said.

JonathanFisk's post should be a sticky.

The fact that Lock waits weeks or months to inform people they can't withdraw has to be one of the more overlooked issues here. Lock is waiting this long before they even look at whether or not they'll pass this on to a payment processor and hence the processor cannot be blamed for this portion of the delayed time frames. Shane, care to chime in here?

Can you tell us the exact date of your requested withdrawal? I think a lot of us will start seeing these emails.

so is this play through requirement amount wagered or amount raked? I have seen things about some wagering requirement. if so, does that work out to be less or more than rake?

this is all kind of confusing and not transparent enough tbh.

It was a well publicised 1:1 wagering requirement.

The amount wagered works out to be much higher and therefore easier cover the transfer.

IE. If you are sitting at a high stakes cash game table and you raise to $1000 you have now wagered $1000.

This rule wasn't put in place to be restrictive to our players, it was just put in place to ensure the transfer system was for actual players and not just funds traders.