You're not even kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseHerName
Calvin Ayre reported years ago that Lock was being run from Jen Larson's condo when it first went up.
Printable View
You're not even kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseHerName
Calvin Ayre reported years ago that Lock was being run from Jen Larson's condo when it first went up.
Well, this is interesting. Just checked Pokernewsboy. The Superwins page is gone, but Lock is still listed as a "featured room".
I'm not in Gerry's head, but I suppose one could think Lock was on the up and up (that there isn't theft going on) but still have reservations about the site. This will be my last post on Gerry's involvement, because I'm not Gerry, so I'll be very brunt: Gerry is a high-quality individual who many people (myself included) feel is making a very bad decision. I wish he would just break off from Lock, because he is a very honest person, and even if we all think he is 100% wrong he believes what he says, he's not just saying things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I won't disown a friend because he is making what I think is a serious mistake. I do not condone his role with Lock Poker (and have told him so for quite some time), and I'm disappointed that he still has Lock ads up on PNB, but if I washed my hands of every friend who made a bad choice I'd have zero friends. Gerry thinks he is doing the right thing (and not just for himself) and he has his reasons, he is not maliciously doing anything. His intentions are good even if his actions don't particularly demonstrate that to others.
As to taking things down: Honestly, I know PFO was going in a different direction already and this latest incident probably hastened the new direction. I've also rationalized it to Gerry and he has removed any link to the "very suspect" (my words not his) SuperWins on PNB. I had hoped he would take down the Lock ads as well (and he still might), but since I have not been a part of PNB since December and no longer contribute there it's not much of a concern of mine --the site has been completely inactive since mid-December fwiw.
I've said my peace about Lock, I wouldn't direct anyone to the site and actively dissuade people from joining the site, I do not think they are solvent, and there have been far too many red flags, especially in the past year or so.
I just don't see how you could be giving Gerry any credit for believing there is even a 1% chance Lock is legit at this point.
Anyone with enough industry awareness to run a successful affiliate site should also be able to see the Lock situation clearly.
You keep saying that he's a great guy, but a great guy wouldn't keep pushing people towards Lock Poker so they can get scammed (and so he can get a piece of their stolen money).
How does he explain the 10/10 review he gave them on Pokernewsboy -- something that still exists? Wouldn't it at least be ethical of him to severely lower the review, and post a clear warning that Lock hasn't paid out many cashouts dating back to 2012?
An ethical person would never intentionally steer innocent people into a scam, and that's exactly what Gerry is doing.
I am guessing that Lock probably has a generous affiliate deal with him, and he doesn't want to give that up.
I really hope you don't believe the nonsense that Gerry still believes in them. He doesn't. He believes in fattening his own wallet at the expense of future scam victims.
Still wondering why it doesn't bother you to have your full name associated with both sites when they are actively promoting Lock, especially since it appears to an outside observer that you might be the owner (even though I believe you're not).
Also LOL @ the bonus deals of 200% up to $4000.
Yeah, that's not indicative at all of a site trying to steal.
How do you know it doesn't bother me? How do you know I haven't wrestled with this for days, weeks, or months?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The only site I am slightly active on that belongs to Gerry no longer has any ads, links, or anything to Lock Poker or Superwins. And even with that I am torn over whether I will continue on at the site if Lock ads remain at PNB btw, because yes it does bother me despite what you might think.
And you can pretend I am somehow complicit in promoting Lock Poker because of a tertiary relationship to a site I used to write for, but I'm not a Lock affiliate, never have been, and haven't offered up anything but negative thoughts on the site in a year, when my opinion of the company went completely to shit.
I told Gerry a year ago I didn't want anything to do with Lock and wouldn't write any more articles about the site, and when their "cashouts will get better" response after their retreat never happened I progressively reduced my workload at PNB and I severed ties entirely in December. And even before this kerfuffle I lobbied to get the Lock banner removed from PFO entirely.
I may not take to the forums to declare my outrage, and I'm a bit more measured in my reactions to things, but I've done more than you think I have, I just go about it in a different way. It wasn't your outrage, or 2+2 that got the Superwins page at PNB removed, and it wasn't your posts that got the lock banner removed at PFO several months ago.
When you think about, I've probably done more to rid the internet of Lock Poker ads than you have.
"Gerry is a high-quality individual who many people (myself included) feel is making a very bad decision."
Ummm Steve-O, that's a nice way to sugarcoat it, but the truth is Gerry is a low quality individual making an immoral decision, despite being fully aware of the current situation. And I think I speak for many players when I say this: if I happen to pass him on the street in the future I can't say I would hesitate to knock him the fuck out.
I've included warnings about Lock(ed Balances) Poker in some of the PPA Weekly Updates. Anyone have a list of sites with Lock (or related) banners?
Glad to hear this is being done. Perhaps someone can compile a list of affiliates for Lock Poker and post them here (and 2+2), and then Engineer can release this list in his PPA bulletin.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
Not that I want to get into a "who has done more to thwart Lock" pissing contest, but which sites have you gotten Lock removed from, aside from two that you were already heavily involved with content generation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OHow do you know it doesn't bother me? How do you know I haven't wrestled with this for days, weeks, or months?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The only site I am slightly active on that belongs to Gerry no longer has any ads, links, or anything to Lock Poker or Superwins. And even with that I am torn over whether I will continue on at the site if Lock ads remain at PNB btw, because yes it does bother me despite what you might think.
And you can pretend I am somehow complicit in promoting Lock Poker because of a tertiary relationship to a site I used to write for, but I'm not a Lock affiliate, never have been, and haven't offered up anything but negative thoughts on the site in a year, when my opinion of the company went completely to shit.
I told Gerry a year ago I didn't want anything to do with Lock and wouldn't write any more articles about the site, and when their "cashouts will get better" response after their retreat never happened I progressively reduced my workload at PNB and I severed ties entirely in December. And even before this kerfuffle I lobbied to get the Lock banner removed from PFO entirely.
I may not take to the forums to declare my outrage, and I'm a bit more measured in my reactions to things, but I've done more than you think I have, I just go about it in a different way. It wasn't your outrage, or 2+2 that got the Superwins page at PNB removed, and it wasn't your posts that got the lock banner removed at PFO several months ago.
When you think about, I've probably done more to rid the internet of Lock Poker ads than you have.
You said that your opinion of Lock went to shit about a year ago. That is likely accurate, as I remember debating with you about Lock when this site first went up in early 2012. I was insisting back then that Lock was uber-shady, and I wasn't just taking a lucky guess. They had committed so many acts of fraud and dishonesty by that point, I felt that advising people to stay away was a no-brainer. You didn't seem so sure, and in fact questioned a lot of my conclusions at the time.
But let's stick to the present.
I don't know how you feel internally about Gerry being in bed with Lock. You claim it bothers you, and it's very possible you're telling the truth. I still don't understand why you don't ask Gerry (who is your friend) to take your name down from the articles on those sites. When people deposit to Lock through Gerry's link and get their money stolen, do you really want them going back there and blaming you? Because it appears to the casual observer that you are at least a part-owner there, even if that's not true.
I also feel that removing your name from all past contributions to pokerforums and pokernewsboy would be a strong statement to those observing, and might actually be the tipping point to finally shame Gerry into taking all of those links down.
From a simple Google search, I have found the following affiliate sites still providing links and promotions to sign up to Lock, with no warning about Lock's longtime, ongoing issues with paying people:
Rakebrain: www.rakebrain.com/lock-poker.php
HighStakesDB: www.highstakesdb.com/rakeback-lockpoker.aspx
Rakemeback: http://www.rakemeback.com/rake-back-...keback/
RakebackNation: www.rakebacknation.com/lock-poker-rakeback/
LockPokerBonus (LOL): www.lockpokerbonus.com/lock-poker-rakeback/
poker.org: www.poker.org/lock-poker/
poker.com: www.poker.com/rakeback/lock-poker.htm
pokersites.us: www.pokersites.us/lock-poker/
There are tons more. These are the top 8 that I found on google.
And of course, there's still Pokernewsboy promoting Lock as the "featured room" with a 10/10 review.
It appears that Superwins has no more affiliates at the moment, as Gerry was the only one and removed it.
Thanks Druff.
LOL. More like BonusForLockPoker or LockPoker'sBonus :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
How can you all forget CardPlayer?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineerThanks Druff.
LOL. More like BonusForLockPoker or LockPoker'sBonus :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Oops. I totally meant to type Cardplayer, and then forgot before I hit Submit.Quote:
Originally Posted by haleylhHow can you all forget CardPlayer?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
Cardplayer: www.cardplayer.com/online-poker-bonus/33-lock-poker
BTW, the print ads for Lock are gone from the magazine, as are the Lock banners from the website. I assume Lock can no longer afford to pay for advertising, so now they are simply an affiliate link on the site (which is still bad, obviously).
I assume they didn't have any kind of fallout with Lock, or the affiliate link would have been removed, too.
This is a good review of Superwins and the type of review Gerry should publish. Of course he might risk losing out on sports tickets or dinner from Jennifer Larson if he does.
http://www.safestpokersites.com/superwins-poker-review/
Highlight:
What I like about Superwins – Nothing
Y'know, if you look around the industry and see all the people who have drunk Jen Larson's kool-aid (an unfortunate Jonestown Tragedy reference), it's kind of amazing all the people who formerly had good reps who are now ruined because they've stuck by her.
All I can say is she must be one hell of a confidence artist and trickster.
Just want to say +1 to Mr. Druff for the links and also...
Got the ball rolling on this and hopefully will be a part of a future webcast to continue to spread the word. Also got wind of an extensive article about to be published on this subject. Should be good to see it properly highlighted.
There is no kool-aid and no "sticking with her". You are trying to romance this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by haleylh
This has nothing to do with folks believing in anything more than a quick buck.
Times are lean for these affiliates. The affiliate deal is probably very generous. The proper amount to get these financially stressed "good folk" to become accessories to theft.
No salesmanship. The "good folks" and Jen simply agreed to do business.
You give too much credit to Jen. She doesn't have to work too hard to find people willing to cheat for the quick buck.
It's the way of the world.
I'm going to go the middle route on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal sonThere is no kool-aid and no "sticking with her". You are trying to romance this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by haleylh
This has nothing to do with folks believing in anything more than a quick buck.
Times are lean for these affiliates. The affiliate deal is probably very generous. The proper amount to get these financially stressed "good folk" to become accessories to theft.
No salesmanship. The "good folks" and Jen simply agreed to do business.
You give too much credit to Jen. She doesn't have to work too hard to find people willing to cheat for the quick buck.
It's the way of the world.
Indeed, a lot of the "I believe in Lock" crap was financially motivated. Many of Lock's biggest believers were either broke poker pros or cold/greedy assholes who didn't give a fuck about anyone else, as long as the checks kept rolling in.
At the same time, I do believe that Jen was good at being likable in person, and in fact presented a "family" atmosphere for those associated with Lock. She fostered an environment of, "I care about all of you, so please care about Lock in return." A lot of morons bought into this, especially ones who needed the money and it was much easier to err on the side of believing her rather than look too closely as to what was really happening.
Gank was a great example of this.
He was never a friend of mine, but I got to know him over the years somewhat, and I concluded that he was mostly a principled guy. He put a lot of time and effort into the Occupy Las Vegas movement, even getting himself arrested, just because he felt what he was doing was right. I don't agree with the Occupy movement or most of its message, but I can at least give credit to some of its participants for putting a lot of effort into what they thought was right. Gank also was fairly outspoken about the AP/UB scandal, and was very quick to criticize Mark Seif and many other pros associated with that company.
So why did Gank stay with Lock for so long, despite all that was happening?
I am convinced it was a combination of needing the money and truly believing the shit that Jen was shoveling at him. Now, if Gank was a millionaire, I'm sure he would have ditched Lock at the first sign of trouble. But he seemed to trust Jen, and that allowed him to look at the situation with rose colored glasses for awhile, especially because the consequences (losing out on the money) were not as pleasant as continuing to trust her. Basically, I'm saying that Gank wasn't staying with Lock out of greed, but because he subconsciously forced himself to believe Jen for his own good. Once the evidence became too overwhelming, and once friends he respected got on his ass about it, he finally made the right decision and left. Unlike other pros who left quietly, Gank at least was honest that he left because the site didn't appear to be operating honestly.
Unfortunately, most of the other Lock pros weren't as socially conscious as Gank, and just stayed on because they needed/wanted the money, and they didn't give a shit if others suffered because they were promoting a scam.
I always thought that Steve was the owner of both PNB and PFO. I see now that that's not the case, but that's certainly how it looks. I would not want my name all over that.
I have been very quiet regarding my departure from Low Limit Poker Radio. I will admit that LLPR going to bed with Pokerforums.org and their association with Lock Poker was one of several reasons why I no longer associate with that podcast.
The well has been dry for a while now. I wonder how long Jenny and the shady crew can continue to survive? It seems they are desperate praying a good exit strategy will come but what value does a failed poker site have besides the a user list of gambler names they can sell which I hate when companies do that but it happens all the time. My guess is UB sold my name since I used to get a bunch of postcards in the mail from various gambling sites and of the ones I signed up for UB was the most logical choice to do this.
Anyways, I think it's LOL that Melanie Weiser can take a few hours of her time out to do Live at the Bike this week but when it came to Lock Poker and the accusations of her taking advantage of a special speed cashout option she used for her own financial gain she refused to take a minute to comment on it.
She looks 35 there. Either shes aged or its her famous variance again.
Not even a whiff of sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYou're not even kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseHerName
Calvin Ayre reported years ago that Lock was being run from Jen Larson's condo when it first went up.
Yep he was right, it was a cottage industry. From what I know of their commercial dealings..things like due diligence, capacity, ability were at best minimal. And that's me giving some benefit of the doubt.
It's kind of sad to realize that's where the poker industry sank to, post-UIGEA, when a person such as Larson was able to establish a strong US-facing toehold. For a few months there Lock might have been the largest US-facing site. While the PPA and I are likely to have another major disagreement very soon, I do agree that the Lock experience is a made-to-order object lesson arguing for proper regulation and legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseHerNameNot even a whiff of sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yep he was right, it was a cottage industry. From what I know of their commercial dealings..things like due diligence, capacity, ability were at best minimal. And that's me giving some benefit of the doubt.
Definitely. I'm looking forward to having you on the webcast on Monday. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by IHasTehNutzJust want to say +1 to Mr. Druff for the links and also...
Got the ball rolling on this and hopefully will be a part of a future webcast to continue to spread the word. Also got wind of an extensive article about to be published on this subject. Should be good to see it properly highlighted.
I hope we won't have a major disagreement. Feel free to reach out to John Pappas or me if you have any questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by haleylhIt's kind of sad to realize that's where the poker industry sank to, post-UIGEA, when a person such as Larson was able to establish a strong US-facing toehold. For a few months there Lock might have been the largest US-facing site. While the PPA and I are likely to have another major disagreementp very soon, I do agree that the Lock experience is a made-to-order object lesson arguing for proper regulation and legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseHerName
P.S. Your deconstruction of Thackston's collusion argument was terrific.
I know that, and I really don't have any personal dislike for you or John. You're protecting your self-interests, financially and professionally, and that's how it goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineerI hope we won't have a major disagreement. Feel free to reach out to John Pappas or me if you have any questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by haleylh
P.S. Your deconstruction of Thackston's collusion argument was terrific.
Now, and this should probably go in that other thread, but since you've addressed me here, that's fine. I'm mindful of that attack piece John spewed at me via P5s regarding my series last year, and all the wrongful stuff it contained. I just left that matter sit after that, because I figured more of the story would come out. And now it has. I'm also now aware that virtually everything I asserted as being probable in that series last year is factually true, despite the attacks. There are some things that John said that were technically true in the very narrowest sense, but can now only be properly understood as lies of omission and misdirection.
I also saw Sanimar's comments over there in the other thread. The problem with his complaints is that the sites I write for want me to write long-form, and if I tried to tell this tale in four sentences, I'd spend twice as much time explaining things after the fact anyway. So sorry, Sanimar, can't help ya. (Odd, I just checked, and that post has now been deleted. But whatever -- I get what he was saying and there's some merit to it, but I still can't comply.)
But I haven't written the whole story yet, and part of that is that I needed to allow at least 24 hours for Ifrah to respond to a formal interview request. He didn't respond, and I didn't expect he would anyway. John sort of forfeited the right for me to need to approach him in a similar manner after that attack-dog stuff last year. He never did have a right of first refusal, if you get what I'm saying.
Now, I also get that your post above is something of a peace offering, and while I don't mind the thought of that, the truth is that it wouldn't matter because of anti-poker forces larger than any of us. It took me maybe three days to stumble across that report, even if I did have the advantage of knowing what to look for. It was just part of my simple searching for new poker news on Google. How long do you think it's going to take for all of Adelson's minions to find the same stuff, dig through it, and find the soft spot?
Not long at all. Better prepare for it. Good chance someone among all those anti-gambling Utahns already sent it in his direction.
You have to remember that all these national reports are very public in reporting the state of Utah's calls to reopen the federal probe into the possible bribery attempts of Reid and Lee, and that points right to the poker stuff. We're not talking Haley's blahblah Poker Blog or any of the small poker sites I write for, we're talking ABC News, FOXNews, the Washington Times and a slew of others. The Utah legislature has already issued a call to the feds to reopen the investigation, and I'm sure you know that. There will be political pressure.
Pappas will most likely become collateral damage when that happens. It doesn't matter a bit that Pappas and Ifrah got their names yanked from that report, and Dave Deitch is only listed as a "consultant". (Not sure if Deitch or Zwillinger is the other gaming attorney referred to in the report, but it really doesn't matter.)
It's all gonna come out. It might take weeks, or months, maybe even another year or two. But you and I, Rich, we can't stop it. Best we can do is cut our losses.
It gives me no personal joy to have to write any of this stuff. On days like this, I can assure you that if I had independent means, I would walk away from poker and never look back. That said, someone has to write the truth about these stories, and I'm one of the people that is currently stuck with it. Maybe I'll win the lottery. If that happens, the poker world would never see me again other than peeking down at a couple of hole cards.
Frankly, I wish I wasn't on the apparent lead within the poker world on this story. It's no fun at all. But it is, right now, my job.
I look into the tea leaves and I can already see that likely scenario where Pappas is forced to resign, and frankly, the sooner he considers doing that, the better off the PPA would be. It doesn't matter what he actually knew or when. He's compromised, and he has been ever since he went to Utah. Utah! Insanity.
I have no doubt Pappas was ordered to go, and he knew it was a tar pit and didn't want to, but he went anyway. People do lots of stupid things for paychecks; it's the way of the modern world. If I were pressed to offer an opinion, I personally think Ifrah is to blame for a ton of the whole Black Friday mess, but apparently Stars thinks he's wearing a Teflon coat. You'd have thought after shelling out $700 million they'd look for alternatives, but no. Elie was already being monitored, and it took a special flavor of greed to ignore that risk.
It's going to be a loss for poker because John is articulate and intelligent and more than a match for the likes of Andy Abboud on an even platform. I don't know if you're up to that task, or what the PPA itself will do when that day comes. But I can see it coming.
Just a reminder to everyone that IHasTehNutz will be on my webcast this evening. The show starts at 8 pm EDT / 5 pm PDT. I'll have Nutz come in around 45 minutes into the program. I'm not sure if I can link the webcast, but it's not hard to find.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineerDefinitely. I'm looking forward to having you on the webcast on Monday. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by IHasTehNutzJust want to say +1 to Mr. Druff for the links and also...
Got the ball rolling on this and hopefully will be a part of a future webcast to continue to spread the word. Also got wind of an extensive article about to be published on this subject. Should be good to see it properly highlighted.
I wonder how much longer will will have to hear about these Lock Poker thieves? It amazes me anyone still plays on the site and that they haven't just given up yet with owing the kind of money they do with less than a hundred
players playing on average during peak hours. Superwins will just be same old Lock.
These damn cheaters aren't going to win.
http://p.fod4.com/upload/aff3567c9ab...ever%20Win.gif
Nutz just told me now that he can't make it this evening. Apparently I don't have "the nutz" for the show.