Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 200

Thread: PokerFraudAlert Report: Lock Poker -- AVOID

  1. #1

    PokerFraudAlert Report: Lock Poker -- AVOID

    DISCLAIMER #1: This is an editorial, and is strictly the opinion of pokerfraudalert.com. The "facts" presented in this article were deduced in a common-sense fashion from observation of this company's behavior and communications with the public. pokerfraudalert.com is NOT stating any of the below information to have been verified or proven in a court of law, but is rather drawing editorial conclusions from the information available. pokerfraudalert.com is also extending an open invitation to the management of this company to publicly or privately respond to the allegations herein.

    DISCLAIMER #2: Lock Poker has since left the Merge Network (which occurred in mid-2012), and bought the old Cake Network, renaming it Revolution Gaming. They are even more shady on their new network, and appear to be broke or very close to it. Even though some of the Merge-related information below is obsolete, it establishes a history of shadiness, and is still interesting reading.



    This is the first of a series of reports I'll be doing on various poker companies (mostly online).

    If I'm reporting on your company here, it's probably because both you and your company are unethical.

    Of course, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong (no, really, I am!), so I welcome representatives of these companies to step forward and defend themselves. I will post retractions and/or apologies if it turns out I've made any wrongful statements.

    However, keep in mind that I will never softball questions or accept double-speak responses, so you probably shouldn't bother defending your company unless you're actually legitimate and can back it up with facts.

    This report is about Lock Poker, a skin on the Merge Network.

    The Merge Network is currently the biggest network in which US residents are allowed to play poker. It's the only network I'm playing on at the moment. It's comprised of a number of "skin" sites, all of which feed into the same games. For example, if you're sitting at a $5/$10 table on Lock Poker, your opponents at the same table might be playing on Hero Poker, Carbon Poker, Black Chip Poker, or one of many other sites.

    Lock Poker was originally with the Cake Network. Cake slipped, and eventually became a non-factor. Skins were jumping ship in droves, and Lock was one of them, moving over to Merge. This was in March, 2010.

    My first indication that something was wrong at Lock Poker came in the summer of 2010. I had about $300 sitting on Lock, and I really had no interest to play there anymore. I only had money there because they briefly sponsored the site I co-owned at the time, and we had our weekly radio tournaments on there for a few months. I just wanted to cash it out and be done with it. It turned out that this wasn't just hard, but nearly impossible.

    It took over two months to get Lock to process the cash out. Recall that this was before Black Friday, and cashouts weren't as difficult at that point. Even worse, this delay wasn't due to a slow payment processor. Lock just refused to process it. They kept stalling me, promising to "get to it tomorrow", and weeks kept passing by with no action. Eventually they just started completely (and intentionally) ignoring my e-mails. Finally, after 9 weeks of this crap, I had enough and wrote them the following:

    WHY AM I BEING IGNORED?

    I need a response to this within 24 hours.

    I run a large poker forum.

    I will run a front-page story on how Lock Poker does not process cashouts if I do not get satisfaction immediately. I will also bring this to the attention of other poker forums.

    Please handle this immediately.
    Not surprisingly, this got their attention. Suddenly I got a prompt response within 2 hours, and my cashout was immediately approved and processed. However, I knew that had I not been the owner of a somewhat-known poker forum, I probably would have never seen that $300 -- or at least it would have been a lot more time and trouble.

    I posted about this ordeal shortly after it happened, but then Lock fell off my radar for awhile. Deep down, I knew they were shady, but they were such a small fish in a big pond, nobody was really going to care about any complaints about Lock Poker. I mean, at the time we still had Ultimatebet doing brisk business, and they had a much worse record than Lock.

    However, others were starting to take notice of Lock and its questionable operations.

    Calvin Ayre, Bodog founder and self-styled billionaire playboy, took a break from counting his money to write this blog about Jennifer Larson, owner/CEO of Lock Poker:

    http://calvinayre.com/2010/12/04/pok...er-case-study/

    The blog was written in December, 2010, four months before Black Friday. This is interesting because, with Pokerstars, Full Tilt, and UB still dominating the US market, a big player like Calvin Ayre still found the time and desire to personally blog about Jennifer Larson and her allegedly shady behavior.

    Calvin described Jennifer as "a moderately competent search and social media manager" prior to her founding of Lock Poker. He mocked her for running the entire operation out of a Vancouver condo.

    He took her to task for the site's curious partnership with Sharkscope, a data mining operation that seeks to help professional online tournament players get useful information about their opponents. Calvin, always a believer in gearing online poker towards the recreational player and not the pro, found this behavior to be reprehensible. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the data mining argument, so I won't delve into that any further. Besides, Lock ended up being guilty of far more than partnering with a data miner.

    The spring of 2011 brought a few interesting developments for Lock Poker.

    Read on for the rest of the story...

  2. #2
    Lock Looks the Other Way When Their Own Pro Cheats

    In March 2011, Lock partnered with BLUFF Magazine to announce an exciting contest, where all of Lock's players would be competing during the month of April as to who could win the most money. The biggest April money winner would get a very nice package, including a seat to the $10k World Series of Poker Main Event. The details can still be found here: http://news.bluffmagazine.com/bluff-...allenge-19030/

    Of course, it doesn't take a genius to realize the big flaw in this contest. Since the only criteria was total winnings in the calendar month of April, it would be extremely tempting for one player to dump chips to another, and then split the value of the prize package.

    And that's exactly what happened. But it wasn't just any old player who engaged in the chip-dumping scheme. It was existing Lock Poker Pro Jose "Girah" Macedo who won the contest, and he did so with super-obvious cheating. Rather than slowly getting friends to dump him money in order to finish first, Macedo waited until April 30th, played a super-high-limit PLO match with a previously-unknown account, and "won" over 100k, barely putting him ahead of the legitimate second-place finisher, who had labored hard to win the contest.

    This had obvious cheating written all over it. Among the suspicious factors:


    • Macedo was a $5/$10 NL grinder with a moderate profit. On the final day of the contest, he played $25/$50 PLO heads up, a game many times higher limit than $5/$10 NL. (It's a lot more than 5 times higher, because PLO plays way bigger than NL.)
    • Macedo's opponent, who "lost" around 100k to him in one night, had never been seen at the high limit games before, or really anywhere on Merge for that matter. Therefore, it seemed that the money just magically appeared in his opponent's account, as if someone had transferred it there. Therefore, Macedo didn't even win the money against a legitimate high limit baller. He won it against a strange account that suddenly showed up with 100k.
    • Macedo won just enough to finish ahead of the existing leader of the contest, and he did so on the final day of the contest.


    This was classic chip dumping, and there's no more speculation required. Macedo later admitted to cheating in the contest, but at the time he professed innocence. You can even read an interview on BLUFF where Macedo's associate admits to being the chip dumper: http://news.bluffmagazine.com/haseeb...network-24259/

    So why was this Lock's problem? Sure, they could be accused of running a flawed contest, and using poor judgment in choosing pros, but is it really their fault when someone else cheats?

    Normally, no. However, in this case, Lock purposely ignored all of the evidence and awarded Macedo the prize. They did not question anything. They did not look up any IP addresses. They did not raise any of the obvious issues that came from this highly improbable come-from-behind victory. Instead, they congratulated Macedo, put out a press release naming him the winner, and gave the middle finger to the guy who actually should have won. They were very clearly willfully ignorant to his cheating, in order to gain the PR from one of their own pros winning the contest (and getting featured on the cover of BLUFF).

    Think of it this way: Say I ran in a marathon with a $25,000 prize for first place. World class marathoners finish the race in a little over two hours. If I crossed the finish line after 45 minutes -- something humanly impossible to do -- and the organizers still awarded me the $25,000, they would also be somewhat guilty of defrauding everyone else in the contest. Why? Because it's the responsibility of the contest organizers -- both legally and morally -- to deny prizes in cases of blatant, obvious cheating. This cheating was about as blatant and obvious as it could be, and yet Lock kept their mouths shut, instead choosing to glorify Macedo's "accomplishment".

    Only after public outrage occurred did Lock sheepishly disqualify him, and even then, they put out a dishonest press-release claiming that he was only disqualified for some minor infractions of the contest rules:

    We pride ourselves in standing for trust, legitimacy and loyalty. The truth is sometimes hard to stand by but it is the only way we can move forward. Although José won enough money from his own IP to have legitimately won the challenge, the unfortunate fact remains that breaking the rules is strictly disallowed. It nevertheless remains José is an exceptional player and I firmly believe that his mistakes only lead to greatness if he learns from them and himself moves forward.

    --Jennifer Larson, Lock Poker CEO
    This explanation was a complete lie.

    Jose did NOT win enough money to have legitimately won the contest. In fact, most reports had Jose either down money or just a tiny bit ahead coming into April 30th. It was the 100k that he blatantly "won" through super-obvious chip-dumping that allowed him to emerge victorious.

    Instead, Jennifer Larson spun this as a tale of a legitimate win being tainted by a technicality -- trying to give the reader the impression that Jose had won 100k on his own, but was disqualified because he let a friend use his account and win a very small amount on top of that. It simply wasn't true. Jose completely cheated, and in fact did so in such a laughably obvious way that it's amazing he or Lock thought this could be passed off as legitimate.

    This by itself should have been a HUGE red flag about Lock Poker and CEO Jennifer Larson. This was downright despicable. One of Lock's own pros clearly cheated to win a high-profile contest on the site, their management looked the other way and awarded it to him (and screwed the real winner), and then put out a completely dishonest press release when the whole mess was discovered and publicized.

    How could anyone trust a site like this with their money? But it was about to get worse. In fact, a new scandal had already started, but no one realized it just yet.

    Read on for more information...

  3. #3
    20% Bonus Rakeback! Sign Up Now! You in? Okay, we were just kidding about the bonus.

    April, 2011 was a big month for Lock Poker, but not exactly in a good way.

    Not only was it the month of the ill-fated BLUFF Challenge referenced in the post above, but April 15th brought the infamous Black Friday.

    All of a sudden, with Full Tilt and UB gone, and Pokerstars out of the US market, Merge became the largest US-facing poker network. US poker players, all of a sudden jonesing for a place to play after being locked out of their favorite sites, flooded into the various Merge skins.

    In April, Lock offered a great promotion that separated it from the other Merge skins. See, the Merge network had a rule in place that maximized player rakeback at 35%. Even if the skin wanted to give more, they couldn't. It wasn't allowed. This rule was put in place in order to prevent "poaching" -- the act of one skin stealing another skin's active players by promising them better rakeback.

    However, Lock decided that the rules didn't apply to them. In a peculiar and brazen move, Lock ran an openly-advertised promotion that gave users "bonus rakeback" up to 20% above and beyond the standard 35%.

    Lock somehow felt they could get away with this by putting the bonus rakeback into the player's casino account, rather than their poker account. Thus, it was technically a casino bonus, not a poker bonus.

    Knowing that most poker grinders were not interested in playing -EV casino games, Lock made it clear that the money could immediately be transferred to the player's poker account, and required no actual casino play. Other than the very minor effort to transfer the money between the poker and casino accounts on Lock, the money was supposed to be just as good as traditional rakeback, and was to be immediately available for withdrawal. There was also no play-through requirement (that is, the player didn't have to play any more in order to be entitled to withdraw the money.)

    This sounded like a great deal. Many dedicated grinders, desperately looking for a new place to play, chose Lock over the other skins for this reason. Others actually switched from other Merge skins to Lock in order to get this extra rakeback, which defeated the purpose of the 35% cap in the first place. While players are allowed to have accounts on all of the Merge skins, thus allowing them to multi-account on the network, they could only have rakeback at one place at a time. Anyone switching to Lock for this deal had to terminate rakeback at their other skin.

    The bonus rakeback was to start on May 1, 2011. Unfortunately, the deal players actually got did not at all resemble what they were promised.

    Their May payments came 6 months late. All other payments came on time, but with a very severe change in terms: The players were required to "play through" between 40-160 times the amount they wanted to cash out of the bonus money. The play-through was also required at the casino (where the house always has an edge), not the poker room. That is, if they earned $1000 in bonus rakeback, they were required to wager between $40,000 and $160,000 in the casino before they could cash any of it out!

    The amount of playthrough required is frustratingly tied to the expected win rate of the game. Table games like blackjack, where the odds aren't that unfavorable for the player, require an outrageous 160x playthrough. Slots, with a huge casino edge, only require 40x, which is more than enough to send most bonus bankrolls to zero.

    Even worse, the original bonus was never available for cashout -- it was only money to be used to win other money. So if you made $1000 in rakeback bonus, and successfully made $160,000 in wagers in their casino and miraculously came out $500 ahead, you could only cash out $500 -- not $1500! This restriction is referred to as the bonus being "sticky", which is a horrible thing for players, and again not disclosed at the time of the promotion.

    Remember the May bonus that showed up 6 months late? That was also retroactively subject to the new obnoxious restrictions, even though they weren't announced until June.

    In reality, it is almost impossible to wager that much money at -EV casino games without losing the original stake. This made the promised bonuses literally worthless.

    Basically, Lock earned a lot of money by poaching players from other sites with promises of 10-20% bonus rakeback, yet never delivered on that promise. Not only did the players themselves get cheated, but so did the other skins that the players abandoned in order to play on Lock.

    How did Lock explain this reprehensible and fraudulent behavior?

    They passed the buck, and blamed it on Merge.

    Lock started out by stating something truthful: Merge got wind of the promotion early on, and clamped down on Lock, telling them it had to end and that the terms were against the network rules.

    Had Lock simply ended the promotion at that point, paid out the players what they had already earned, and perhaps compensated them a bit more for their trouble, nobody would have faulted them, except for gross stupidity and incompetence.

    However, Lock realized that this would be a killer for business. If all of these grinders realized they weren't getting additional rakeback, they wouldn't be encouraged to play as much, and might even return to the skins they left. In addition, they'd be on the hook to pay a lot of this bonus rakeback to players that might leave and never come back.

    Instead, Lock pulled a stalling maneuver. There is currently an 80-or-so-page thread on 2+2 about the whole mess. The thread was started in July. It is now March. The matter is no closer to being resolved today than when the thread was started. Lock's presence in the thread, mostly by casino manager Eric "Rizen" Lynch, has been sporadic and unresponsive. Questions are avoided or dodged. Empty promises are made. Excuses are aplenty. Anything and everything is being done to keep everyone playing and not compensating players for the massive amount of money that is legally and legitimately owed to them.

    Nine months later, these players have not been compensated for the thousands of dollars each were expecting but never received as promised. Almost everyone attempting the near-impossible playthrough requirements busted their bonus accounts, making all of that extra rakeback literally worthless.

    Everyone is being promised that Lock is -- and has been -- doing the maximum allowed by Merge for the people affected.

    But can Lock do anything about this? Aren't their hands tied by Merge?

    Read on to find out the truth.

  4. #4
    Papa Merge Says We Can't Compensate You. So Sorry!

    As I mentioned in the last post, Lock is correct that Merge forced them to end or change their Casino Bonus promotion because it violated network rules.

    However, that's where the truth in Lock's excuses ends.

    While Lock can't continue to allow its members to receive the promised extra rakeback, the network does NOT care if Lock chooses to compensate the affected players in another way. That is, Lock is allowed to drop a lump sum of money in any of its players' accounts, and Merge would be just fine with that.

    In fact, this is how many of the other Merge skins get away with offering secret "extra rakeback" deals. Rather than advertising such deals, as Lock stupidly did, the other skins simply occasionally transfer money into the player's account, and those transfers just happen to correspond with the extra rakeback being earned by the player. Merge could scrutinize each of these transfers, but they don't. They made a decision a long time ago not to get involved in matters such as these. Merge's only concerns lie with actual poaching or advertisement of these unauthorized deals. Merge does NOT tell its skins whether they're allowed or not to compensate aggrieved players.

    For example, let's say Carbon Poker (another Merge skin) said to me, "Hey, Todd! I think you're really handsome. I'm going to give you a bonus of $3000 because you're such a good looking guy."

    That would be completely fine by Merge rules. Carbon couldn't advertise that they are giving an extra $3000 to all handsome players, but Merge would have nothing against Carbon's CEO shipping me $3000 for being so studly.

    Now, let's say the CEO of RPM Poker (another Merge skin) contacted me and said, "Hey, Todd, how about you wear an RPM patch at any tournament you choose to play in any casino anywhere, and I'll send you $2500."

    That would also be 100% allowed by Merge rules. Again, RPM couldn't advertise that any new players get $2500 for wearing their patch, but if the CEO decided to give me that money individually (or even to a number of hand-picked people), he could do so without getting in any trouble.

    My point? There are tons of ways that Lock could compensate the affected players without breaking any rules. They could choose to "sponsor" everyone screwed by this promotion, and give each person a lump sum to wear a Lock patch in any live tournament they play for the next 3 months. They could give people money just for all the trouble and hassle they went through with this mess, as compensation for their wasted time and energy. There are so many legitimate ways in which this could be packaged, but Lock isn't doing it.

    Why?

    Because Lock just doesn't want to pay.

    They found an excuse to weasel out of paying extra rakeback (Merge forcing them to stop the promotion), and now have applied it retroactively to all the bonus money ever earned on it. Even worse, they have stalled in order to encourage players to stay and keep playing, promising a solution that they are never presenting.

    If you could sue Lock in a court of law in the US, you would win ALL of the promised bonus rakeback. This wouldn't be subjective or vary from judge to judge. You would win 100% of the time, because this is a blatant case of false advertising and FRAUD. Unfortunately, you can't sue Lock, as they exist abroad, but the fact remains that they are cheating everyone who signed up for this.

    I won't bother to describe the chain of lies and carefully crafted misleading responses posted on 2+2 by Lock's reps, but trust me when I say that it's more of the same type of frustrating double-talk that was found in their press release about the BLUFF Challenge scandal.

    Even worse, these responses seem to only come sporadically, leaving the players hanging and constantly begging for specific answers that never come.

    So has anything else happened at Lock that you should know about?

    Read on...

  5. #5
    You Wanna Buy a Piece of Me? Oh crap, I've got a huge stack. Sorry, let's forget about the whole thing!

    Sometimes water seeks its own level.

    It seems that Lock Poker is finally signing pros that more accurately represent their level of honesty and integrity.

    In the spring of 2011 (bad time for Lock, huh?), Tim "tmay420" West sold pieces of himself for the $10k Harrah's Rincon tournament.

    He sold a lot of himself to 2+2ers.

    In the middle of the tournament, he accumulated a huge stack and suddenly regretted selling so much to people on the forum. Rather than simply kicking himself for his bad timing in selling pieces, he decided to claim that he accidentally oversold and needed to refund those people their money (a total of 13%), thus cancelling their pieces of him in a spot where he looked likely to win big.

    Not surprisingly, a huge thread erupted about the matter, and Tim acted like a complete self-righteous douche. If you want to read the huge thread, it's here:

    http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...n-10k-1001130/

    If you want to read a quick Cliffs Notes of the thread, go to this single post:

    http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...50&postcount=8

    So this is Lock Poker's new pro, signed in February, 2012.

    At least I can say that it's fitting.

    So does Calvin Ayre have anything more to say about Lock? Read on...

  6. #6
    ​More from CalvinAyre.com

    Calvin Ayre himself stopped blogging about Lock Poker after his first essay about Jennifer Larson, but that didn't stop his employee Peter Amsel from picking up the slack.

    Peter started blogging about Lock in May, 2011, and revealed some interesting details. He seems to take the same tone about Lock as his boss Calvin did.

    In May, 2011, Peter stated that sportsbook.com actually owns Merge. I am not sure if this is still true, but it's an interesting fact, especially given that sportsbook.com itself stopped taking US players! He also indirectly slammed Lock (and their promotion, before they were forced to stop it) for ruining the network model with ridiculous rakeback deals:

    It’s also difficult to understand how (and why) Sportsbook.com, the owner of Merge Gaming Network, can continue to tolerate the smaller sites on their network cannibalizing the bigger sites by offering such extravagant rakeback deals.
    The blog is here: http://calvinayre.com/2011/05/02/bus...afford-growth/

    Amsel goes after Lock and CEO Jennifer Larson a lot more directly in these two pieces, written in October and December, 2011, respectively:

    http://calvinayre.com/2011/10/23/bus...nnifer-larson/

    http://calvinayre.com/2011/12/17/leg...oker-intrigue/

    In these pieces, complete with some funny photoshops, Amsel accuses Larson of partnering up with a really shady lawyer, and then speculates that a former Lock employee might be talking to the DOJ in preparation of busting Lock.

    Name:  jennifer-larson-bryce-vincent-geoffrey-bonnie-clyde.jpg
Views: 9365
Size:  47.3 KB

    They're interesting reads, and give you a bit more insight into the behind-the-scenes maneuvering at Lock.

    Amsel also scolds Larson for her press releases, stating that she "is well known for releasing a lot of media, most of it considered ridiculous by knowledgeable industry observers but the noise factor is there."

  7. #7
    (This portion updated 3/11/2012):

    Encryption? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Encryption!

    In June, 2011, a player on the Lock Casino discovered a shockingly disturbing security flaw: His password appeared in plain text in the source code of the java on the page. This also meant that, on the other side (Lock's server) his password was also stored in plain text, meaning it was accessible to any Lock employees that had access to the server!

    In addition, it means that your password is also being sent unencrypted over the internet, as well!

    The source of the java is listed below. Note that the username and password have been changed to myusername and mypassword for purposes of this post, and the IP has been changed to 0.0.0.0. However, these all appear as the real values when actually logged into the Lock Casino.

    var flashvars = {
    user : 'myusername',
    sPassword : 'mypassword',
    token : '',
    encrypted : 'false',
    forReal : (forMoney) ? 'true' : 'false',
    IP : '0.0.0.0',
    portBase : '0',
    returnURL : '',
    casinoName : 'Lock Casino',
    errorURL : '',
    useLegacySystem: 0,
    gameid: gameObj.gameID,
    machid: gameObj.machID,
    handcount: gameObj.hands,
    denom: 25,
    showVersion: 'false'
    };

    This user reported it to Lock Poker back when he discovered it (June 2011), and was told that they will get right on fixing it. But guess what? Ten months later, this major security flaw still exists!

    Apparently Lock isn't just unethical, but they are incompetent, as well.

    The 2+2 thread about this is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...issue-1178821/


    --------------------------------------------------------


    Le Grande Conclusion


    Bottom Line: Lock is uber-shady.

    I'm not even going to go into the terrible relationship they've had with their affiliates, several of whom have expressed outrage and frustration with them.

    This company cannot be trusted.

    There are many skins on the Merge Network that still allow US players. Pick one at random, and you will be better off there than you will at Lock.

    It's only a matter of time before the next scandal hits. And with the DOJ looking to bust more sites (Calvin Ayre just got indicted, if you haven't heard), do you really want Lock being your skin of choice if anything bad were to go down?

  8. #8
    Contributor chinamaniac's Avatar
    Reputation
    199
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,270
    Blog Entries
    2
    hof

  9. #9
    Walking Image Library bukowski72's Avatar
    Reputation
    233
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,340
    Wow. Nice write up. I thought the idea of this site was kind of dumb and too narrow but if you keep cranking out stuff like this it will thrive.

    I must remember to never doubt Druff. You are like one those annoying players in HU sitngos who never give up no matter how many times I knock them down to 240 chips or what not.

    I know this would never happen but 2+2 should hire you and roll this into their site. You would be a great asset.

  10. #10
    Great site Druff. I'm sure you saw this but TMay put up a tweet yesterday saying to sign up through him for rakeback on Lock. We all know that Merge isn't offering rake back anymore except for under the table deals. He has since deleted the tweet but I just thought it was glaringly obvious how shady they are based on a single tweet by one of their sponsored pros.

  11. #11
    Member XteraveX's Avatar
    Reputation
    10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Eastern Time Zone
    Posts
    181
    I think she's kinda hot in a way--- like i wanna tie her limbs up to the bedposts and have rough sex with her, but what's with the man arms? (edit-- LOL -- its a photoshop of a dude)

    EDIT: wait a second is there a rule against only serious posts in this sub-forum?????

    I wonder what stops people with the big bucks from flying down to the Cayman Islands and opening up a Bank account so the money can be shipped easily in and out....or is there more to it than that. Even if you have to go down there once every 9 months or so it's a hell of a nice place to visit.





    article

    Last edited by XteraveX; 03-08-2012 at 01:13 PM.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by chinamaniac View Post
    hof

  13. #13

  14. #14
    Contributor Hockey Guy's Avatar
    Reputation
    373
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,191
    Great read.
    Definitely HOF.
    (•_•) ..
    ∫\ \___( •_•)
    _∫∫ _∫∫ɯ \ \

    Quote Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
    I'd say good luck in the freeroll but I'm pretty sure you'll go on a bender to self-sabotage yourself & miss it completely or use it as the excuse of why you didn't cash.

  15. #15
    In just this ONE SINGLE POST, Druff has put more effort into his site than Micon has put into his own in two years.

    Well done!

  16. #16
    Contributor chinamaniac's Avatar
    Reputation
    199
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,270
    Blog Entries
    2
    I would like to add to this story

    I just had a dream that Ray Bitar was working for Lock Support and I tried to get a hold of him but could not because he was unavailable

  17. #17

  18. #18
    UPDATE: Yet another scandal involving Lock!

    Just added this section to the report:

    Encryption? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Encryption!

    In June, 2011, a player on the Lock Casino discovered a shockingly disturbing security flaw: His password appeared in plain text in the source code of the java on the page. This also meant that, on the other side (Lock's server) his password was also stored in plain text, meaning it was accessible to any Lock employees that had access to the server!

    In addition, it means that your password is also being sent unencrypted over the internet, as well!

    The source of the java is listed below. Note that the username and password have been changed to myusername and mypassword for purposes of this post, and the IP has been changed to 0.0.0.0. However, these all appear as the real values when actually logged into the Lock Casino.

    var flashvars = {
    user : 'myusername',
    sPassword : 'mypassword',
    token : '',
    encrypted : 'false',
    forReal : (forMoney) ? 'true' : 'false',
    IP : '0.0.0.0',
    portBase : '0',
    returnURL : '',
    casinoName : 'Lock Casino',
    errorURL : '',
    useLegacySystem: 0,
    gameid: gameObj.gameID,
    machid: gameObj.machID,
    handcount: gameObj.hands,
    denom: 25,
    showVersion: 'false'
    };

    This user reported it to Lock Poker back when he discovered it (June 2011), and was told that they will get right on fixing it. But guess what? Ten months later, this major security flaw still exists!

    Apparently Lock isn't just unethical, but they are incompetent, as well.

    The 2+2 thread about this is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...issue-1178821/

  19. #19

  20. #20
    Sounds like the New UB to me

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 12:33 PM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 05-07-2012, 09:22 PM
  3. Another Lock Poker Pro...
    By GDog1666 in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-30-2012, 03:53 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2012, 02:08 AM
  5. Chinas LOCK Thread (Not Lock Poker)
    By chinamaniac in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-13-2012, 05:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •