Skrill no longer allows Lock Poker players to deposit

Printable View

11-12-2013, 04:14 PM
Dan Druff

Skrill no longer allows Lock Poker players to deposit

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room...k-poker-11-11/

Lock has been claiming for a long time that their cashouts to non-US players have been slow because Skrill had them at very low cashout limits. This did not make sense, but Lock stuck to the story, knowing it was nearly impossible to disprove.

Now, it has pretty much been disproven.

From the above Pokerfuse article:

Quote:

“Skrill can confirm that it is to end the facilitation of deposits to Lock Poker, effective immediately,” a Skrill spokesperson told pokerfuse.

“As a result, Skrill will no longer accept uploads or deposits to Lock Poker but will continue to process withdrawals, enabling customers to receive any funds due to them. Skrill reserves the right to suspend functionalities of any Merchant Account in accordance with the agreed Terms and Conditions.”

While Skrill would not provide a specific reason that they stopped deposits, it's pretty obvious. They must be getting a ton of complaints from customers who used Skrill to deposit to Lock and now cannot cashout.

Since Skrill has NOT disabled withdrawing from Lock (only depositing), Lock's long-running story that low Skrill limits were thwarting the cashouts has been basically proven false.

If Lock's cashout issues to Skrill customers was simply due to low cashout limits, Skrill would have raised those limits rather than suspend deposits. Suspending deposits costs Skrill a ton of money, as they make a hefty fee with each one. Therefore, they clearly did not take this decision lightly, and if the situation could have been rectified by simply raising Lock's cashout limits, they would have.

Laughably, Lock pro Nicky Evans had the following cringeworthy chat on the site today:

Quote:

lovehewitt
why lock change software

nickyevans
its a new network and platform

wistoon
its a lot better

nickyevans
they are not in partner with anyone anymore. they have full control of everything

dajuice32
CAUSE THE COMPANY THEY WAS WORKING WITH BOOTED THEM AS PARTNERS,,,LOL

nickyevans
IN CAPS DOESNT DO ANYTHING

lovehewitt
cashout take how long for usa check?

nickyevans
but no thats not true

muckosaurus
do they have full control over cashier?

nickyevans
they have control over everything

muckosaurus
do you get paid?

nickyevans
they are working with payment processors now. this week will see big changes

nickyevans
no im in the same boat as all of u

muckosaurus
on whose authority you say this?

nickyevans
say what?

cohen8
i lost 5 figures on ultimate bet... ur not on the same boat as me

muckosaurus
"big changes"

nickyevans
whats that got to do with here?

nickyevans
do u think a company that didnt want to pay out people and operate would go to all this effort to create new software. this stuff costs alot

nickyevans
by my boss.... she has told us everythings changing this week

LOL @ "by my boss, she has told us everythings changing this week".

And we all know how much we can trust Jennifer Larson.

There are some reports of cashouts arriving for a few players on Lock this week. I predicted this would happen. They are likely going to do a quick spurt of cashouts to prove the viability of the "new network", and then go back to business as usual of not paying anyone.
11-15-2013, 08:30 PM
Dan Druff

Here is my newest theory regarding Lock and Skrill:

I believe that, like Teddy KGB, Lock was paying players (on Skrill) with their own money.

It is my theory that Lock has not sent a penny to Skrill in a long time for cashouts. Rather, when they get a bunch of deposits through Skrill, Lock keeps some of the money and uses the rest of their Skrill balance to pay select people.

This would also explain the inconsistent payouts through Skrill, where Lock sometimes instantly comes up with a little bit of cash for Skrill payouts, but other times several weeks go by without a single Skrill payment being made. I think these payouts are directly tied to deposits on Skrill, making it so Lock can make these payments without taking a penny out of their own coffers.

(Incidentally, Absolute Poker reportedly used the same system to pay people for many years, even before the cheating scandal occurred in 2007.)

I don't have any of evidence of this. It's just a guess, but it really makes sense when you add everything up.

Skrill likely pulled the plug on this because it looked too Ponzi-like to them. They were probably concerned that Lock was broke and were stealing from new players to pay the old ones.

That would explain why they halted deposits but not cashouts. Basically, if Lock wants to reach into their own pockets and pay people, Skrill will be glad to assist. If Lock wants to cycle deposit money directly into cashouts, they want no part of it.

This would also explain the "limits" BS peddled by Shane. I am guessing that the "limits" were self-imposed by Lock -- basically "limiting" themselves to never cashing out more than was currently coming in through deposits!
11-15-2013, 09:24 PM
Hockey Guy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Here is my newest theory regarding Lock and Skrill:

I believe that, like Teddy KGB, Lock was paying players (on Skrill) with their own money.

It is my theory that Lock has not sent a penny to Skrill in a long time for cashouts. Rather, when they get a bunch of deposits through Skrill, Lock keeps some of the money and uses the rest of their Skrill balance to pay select people.

This would also explain the inconsistent payouts through Skrill, where Lock sometimes instantly comes up with a little bit of cash for Skrill payouts, but other times several weeks go by without a single Skrill payment being made. I think these payouts are directly tied to deposits on Skrill, making it so Lock can make these payments without taking a penny out of their own coffers.

(Incidentally, Absolute Poker reportedly used the same system to pay people for many years, even before the cheating scandal occurred in 2007.)

I don't have any of evidence of this. It's just a guess, but it really makes sense when you add everything up.

Skrill likely pulled the plug on this because it looked too Ponzi-like to them. They were probably concerned that Lock was broke and were stealing from new players to pay the old ones.

That would explain why they halted deposits but not cashouts. Basically, if Lock wants to reach into their own pockets and pay people, Skrill will be glad to assist. If Lock wants to cycle deposit money directly into cashouts, they want no part of it.

This would also explain the "limits" BS peddled by Shane. I am guessing that the "limits" were self-imposed by Lock -- basically "limiting" themselves to never cashing out more than was currently coming in through deposits!

I thought this was pretty much a given.