Printable View
Apparently somebody on 2+2 found a massive one and while Lock claims its now fixed. The user claims hes going to decompile and share his results with the world to prove Lock is hackable and unsecureQuote:
Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...overed-587226/
I play mostly on cake, but also play a little on Hero. All recreational and mostly low stake mtts.
Cake has a twist that bothers me a great deal, and I often wondered why they instituted it. Players can change their screen name at will once a week. This makes it impossible to pick out suspicious trends. Though I'm a profitable player at the levels I play, I would never consider playing serious money on either one of these sites because of 1), the uncertainty of getting cashouts, and 2) their dubious security practices. And not only do I worry about these, I also have to worry about the DOJ too. It's only a matter of time when I will be a big loser--one way or another--by cheaters or by the gov't.
I might be wrong, but I seem to recall some security flaw in the Cake network a couple of years ago to the point where they lost a shit load of players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitting Out
well i contacted subjectpoker's NoahSD about merge but saw afterwards that he's no longer running the site or even doing that type of work for free anymore.....i had already sent the email anyways, but still I havent heard back from him.
anybody know of someone who is interested in doing these types of data analysis etc with a good reputation? nothing to lose by looking more closely at some hard data.....and i mean ive seen sites and data where people have looked at huge samples of hands for inconsistencies in the RNG/shuffle, but this was always done for the big sites like stars and FTP...i'd love to see some data like that for merge too, just for shits and giggles.
Lock Poker welcome Tim West!
Dateline: March 18th, 2012 AP Wire Services, France
Lock Poker indicated today that they have gone ahead with the Tim West signing and that West is now a confirmed LockPRO ELITE professional.
West, also known as Tmay420, was the focal point of an infamous 2p2 marketplace scandal which seems to have finally blown over, and to Lock Poker's great relief.
Eric Lynch, the Poker Room Manager at Lock and better known online as Rizen, made the announcement today from Lock Castle Headquaters in Frauduleuse, France.
We want to welcome Timmy West to the Lock team. It is clear that Timmy shares a special view of the poker community that coincides well with the Lock philosophy of ignoring important issues for as long as possible. Timmy has even expressed an interest in the business side of Lock, and this has gotten us all very excited since we admire Timmy's unique and innovative ways of luring investors.
Lynch took a moment to answer some of our pressing questions...
Can you comment more on what business roles West might have at Lock in addition to his ELITE pro status?
Well we're still kicking that one around. Of course, there's always the attracting investors thing. Whenever you're running a poker site where player funds are not being held in segregated accounts, then constantly finding investors--so we can keep the ship afloat and all get paid--is always a huge problem... I mean, look what happened to all of those geniuses at effn full tilt!
And any other possibilities for West?
Well yeah, there have also been some suggestions that Timmy could fill an integral role in the revamping of Lock's customer service department. While we sincerely cherish our player base here at Lock, I have to admit that our email support hasn't always been of the highest quality. To be sure, our canned email responses--to players with deposit and cashout issues--need to be entirely rewritten. Timmy has offered to author the rewrites on our behalf and it looks like we'll be taking him up on this since he has shown strong communication skills and an admirable sensitivity to the online poker community.
But hasn't Shane always headed Lock's customer service?
Well yeah Shane has, and he's been an enormous asset to us in that department. But sometimes you need to broaden your horizons, and Shane has recently been showing a keen interest in the software side of Lock. He's been taking night courses in QuickBASIC for about a month now and he'll be joining the development team in a couple of weeks. We've recently been having some minor security issues with plain-text passwords and we're confident that Shane will get to the bottom of it and figure out some sort of software patch.
But what about all the Tmay420 naysayers?
Look, I'm not going to hide from the fact that Lock has had its share of setbacks recently, what with MicroBob and the gang thinking that the casino bonus was for real money, where actually it was only ever meant to be a play money bonus, and then of course there was also that whole bluff-magazine-portuguese-chip-dumping-fiasco thing.
Now where Timmy is concerned, I went back and read that entire marketplace thread of his, which really pissed me off 'cause it was so effn long that I missed out on 3 whole plo sessions! Anyways, it's clear to me that Timmy handled the incident as gracefully as anyone could expect of him, and that this Purplegrape guy is an idiot for not wanting that 0.5% freeroll deal which Timmy so generously offered in lieu of a lousy 18k! I mean give me an effn break!!!
Anything else you'd like to add?
Actually, yes! Enough is enough already! These endless sneak-attack accusations by 2p2 forum posters is giving me a rash! Yeah we've made our share of unforgivable mistakes at Lock, but now we're working very hard to get ourselves the hella over it! And that goes for our player base too! Get the hella over it!, and let's go make some freakin money! Most of the complaints you see on the Lock forum are from a small handlful of degenerate poker addicts anyways! And most of them are just bitter Americans who can't play on Pokerstars anymore and have to settle for crappy sites like betonline and effn cake!!!
Well wouldn't you have to include Lock in all that?
:baddecision
:lol
Who wrote that above? I assume it's from 2+2?
Yeah Noah shut down Subject Poker but as I understand DiamondFlush one of his admins/whatever is now running Diamondflushpoker in the same general purpose and idea behind SP so you might try contacting her regarding these issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by ktx49
Typical arrogance from Lock Poker. Considering the issues regarding Tim West why wouldnt the guy just want the cash and be done with it then an ongoing arrangement which could easily have gone south at a moments notice. Rather an arrogant attitude from Lock but not surprising. For me Ill keep my business on Hero (till I can get my Canadian Citizenship taken care of as a dual-citizen and can establish something where I can play through Canada back on PS and what not) for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BUBBLES
I just made a XXXX.XX withdrawal on Overbet....man, shit takes a while. Been 2 weeks and still haven't had the shit approved.
However, it seems that looking at the thread on 2+2, 2 months is a good buffer zone for cashouts.
Sign O' the Times.
I've been grinding DoN's on merge to build a bankroll and I'm very certain that there are a number of bots playing in those. I was going to contact merge about the accounts that I have marked as potential bots but I really don't have any proof other then the very odd things they do. I have a list of things I notice from these players that highly suggests that they are bots but I doubt merge would do anything about it(they probably don't mind a bot playing 10k DoN's with barely a 1% roi).
Post their names & notes here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roush97
I used to play DoN's on Cake as well, but I have long since quit playing them. I too have witnessed what I perceived to be bizarre play. As an example, I've seen a player call 2 allin's with Q3s preflop when none of the 3 were short stacked. Whether mathematically correct or not, I think a live player would be hard pressed to make a call like this. Since this was not an isolated case, after awhile your suspicions grow. Not only that, but the possibility of collusion cannot be dismissed either. DoN's seem to be the best place for it. By allowing the Cake players to change their screen names regularly only encourages it as well. Too many red flags for me to play these any longer. I continue to play the other games, but for fun not fortune.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roush97
Qbear1224, 78prozwa78,shibby12. There are some more those are a few I came across today. I'm not exactly that sure on 78prozwa78 since it seems like it's almost 2 different people playing on that account. He goes from playing basically a all-in or fold type of game into more of lag. Here are a few example of hands that I just grabbed out of HEM real fast
***** Hand History for Game 5199416614 ***** (Merge)
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Monday, March 26, 01:22:22 ET 2012
Table 2 NL Holdem Double Up *10 Handed (51993049) (Real Money)
Seat 7 is the button
Seat 1: billycats ( $1470.00 USD )
Seat 2: joemarcoux ( $1390.00 USD )
Seat 3: mrporter0 ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 4: NOTILOT1 ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 5: vikafika ( $1565.00 USD )
Seat 6: jimob1 ( $1575.00 USD )
Seat 7: 78prozwa78 ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 8: Shibby12 ( $1450.00 USD )
Seat 9: fLu0cSk3yRoSu ( $1550.00 USD )
Seat 10: IGRIND ( $1500.00 USD )
Shibby12 posts small blind [$25.00 USD].
fLu0cSk3yRoSu posts big blind [$50.00 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to billycats [ *Ah 6d ]
IGRIND folds
billycats folds
joemarcoux folds
mrporter0 folds
NOTILOT1 folds
vikafika folds
jimob1 folds
78prozwa78 raises [$1500.00 USD]
Shibby12 folds
fLu0cSk3yRoSu calls [$1450.00 USD]
78prozwa78 shows [Td, Ts ]
fLu0cSk3yRoSu shows [Ks, 6s ]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 9h, Jh, 5c ]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 3h ]
** Dealing River ** [ Qd ]
78prozwa78 wins $3025.00 USD from main pot
***** Hand History for Game 506880518 ***** (Merge)
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Wednesday, March 07, 07:35:18 ET 2012
Table 3 NL Holdem Double Up 10 Handed (50687155) (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Seat 1: mazurfin ( $2880.00 USD )
Seat 2: NamsaynFoo ( $1570.00 USD )
Seat 4: bmattos1 ( $1510.00 USD )
Seat 5: delgriffith52 ( $1430.00 USD )
Seat 6: boatr111 ( $1480.00 USD )
Seat 7: billycats ( $1490.00 USD )
Seat 8: Mpoker1 ( $1470.00 USD )
Seat 9: 78prozwa78 ( $1720.00 USD )
Seat 10: alsfalcon1 ( $1450.00 USD )
delgriffith52 posts small blind [$10.00 USD].
boatr111 posts big blind [$20.00 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to billycats [ Th 4c ]
billycats folds
Mpoker1 folds
78prozwa78 raises [$70.00 USD]
alsfalcon1 raises [$120.00 USD]
mazurfin folds
NamsaynFoo folds
bmattos1 folds
delgriffith52 calls [$110.00 USD]
boatr111 folds
78prozwa78 raises [$1650.00 USD]
alsfalcon1 calls [$1330.00 USD]
delgriffith52 folds
78prozwa78 shows [Ad, Ah ]
alsfalcon1 shows [Ts, Td ]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 7h, 6h, 7s ]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Qc ]
** Dealing River ** [ Jh ]
78prozwa78 wins $270.00 USD
78prozwa78 wins $3040.00 USD from main pot
***** Hand History for Game 5032726813 ***** (Merge)
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Friday, March 02, 06:42:06 ET 2012
Table 2 NL Holdem Double Up 10 Handed (50326723) (Real Money)
Seat 9 is the button
Seat 1: 78prozwa78 ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 2: king159 ( $1751.00 USD )
Seat 3: wizowizoo ( $1470.00 USD )
Seat 4: billycats ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 5: tsubakiA ( $1550.00 USD )
Seat 6: antpal53 ( $1330.00 USD )
Seat 7: hidasri123 ( $1405.00 USD )
Seat 8: slowroller1984 ( $1751.00 USD )
Seat 9: kagedjewel ( $1103.00 USD )
Seat 10: cristi0409 ( $1640.00 USD )
cristi0409 posts small blind [$25.00 USD].
78prozwa78 posts big blind [$50.00 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to billycats [ 5s 6s ]
king159 folds
wizowizoo folds
billycats folds
tsubakiA folds
antpal53 folds
hidasri123 folds
slowroller1984 raises [$166.00 USD]
kagedjewel folds
cristi0409 folds
78prozwa78 raises [$1450.00 USD]
slowroller1984 calls [$1334.00 USD]
78prozwa78 shows [Ac, Ah ]
slowroller1984 shows [As, Qc ]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 9h, Kd, Jd ]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Ks ]
** Dealing River ** [ 8h ]
78prozwa78 wins $3025.00 USD from main pot
***** Hand History for Game 5199416615 ***** (Merge)
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Monday, March 26, 01:23:00 ET 2012
Table 2 NL Holdem Double Up 10 Handed (51993049) (Real Money)
Seat 8 is the button
Seat 1: billycats ( $1470.00 USD )
Seat 2: joemarcoux ( $1390.00 USD )
Seat 3: mrporter0 ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 4: NOTILOT1 ( $1500.00 USD )
Seat 5: vikafika ( $1565.00 USD )
Seat 6: jimob1 ( $1575.00 USD )
Seat 7: 78prozwa78 ( $3025.00 USD )
Seat 8: Shibby12 ( $1425.00 USD )
Seat 9: fLu0cSk3yRoSu ( $50.00 USD )
Seat 10: IGRIND ( $1500.00 USD )
fLu0cSk3yRoSu posts small blind [$25.00 USD].
IGRIND posts big blind [$50.00 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to billycats [ Ah 3h ]
billycats folds
joemarcoux folds
mrporter0 folds
NOTILOT1 folds
vikafika folds
jimob1 folds
78prozwa78 raises [$3025.00 USD]
Shibby12 folds
fLu0cSk3yRoSu calls [$25.00 USD]
IGRIND folds
78prozwa78 shows [Kd, Qh ]
fLu0cSk3yRoSu shows [Qs, 9s ]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 4h, Qd, Ad ]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Tc ]
** Dealing River ** [ 8h ]
78prozwa78 wins $2975.00 USD
78prozwa78 wins $150.00 USD from main pot
I know that those really aren't much but I really don't have time to go threw thousands of HH looking for everything suspicious. Also these guys show very little profit in these games.
78prozwa78-10,599 games -3% ROI-$170 profit
qbear1224-10,898 games-1% ROI-$97 profit
Shibby12-2,987 games-2% ROI-$130
They also never chat and I never seen any of them ever time bank or time out even though they are playing 8-16 tables. I also ran across another person who chip dumbs at high level SNG's but I couldn't really look into it anymore
http://i40.tinypic.com/xaxuah.png
Again nothing here is proof but it's enough for me to have my doubts. I would go deeper into this but I don't have the time right now but I think I covered most of it.
guy took 1st for 80k sunday on Merge in the $500 MTT
Was also his first play of any kind on merge. Coincidence or not?
One would like to think it was a coincidence, but that's some serious money. I hope their "security" takes a close look at the result. It sure should raise their eyebrows (if they're legit.)Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
his sn is caseyatthebat, obv just jumps right in , fresh acc and crushes a $500 mtt for 81k
http://www.pokertableratings.com/mer.../CaseyAtTheBat
you guys keep mentioning merge security, like it exists....i really have to tell you guys they have ZERO security in place, and i mean ZERO. the only things they have in place are to prevent fraud against the network, basically things that affect their bottomline.
im telling you guys, there is something seriously wrong with merge network. i really want you guys to help me get to the bottom of this, its so annoying when I bring this up and everyone just dismisses it as rigtard....i dont think the sites rigged, I think the site is compromised in the worst type of ways.
why are there so many accounts on merge that win a few tens of thousands of dollars then instantly disappear?? you can only cashout like 2.5k at a time, so i find it very hard to believe these people are just letting tens of thousands of dollars sit on a site they are CRUSHING at the highest stakes for 200%+ ROI etc.
With so many skins it's kind of hard to assume this was his first rodeo. I can't recall the name 100% but I recall a similar screenname to that (something along the same lines of Caseyatthebat, same theme anyway) finished pretty high in a couple other Poker Maximus tournaments --he may have switched sites recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
In all honesty, this is what you're going to get with any online poker site right now. The regulatory bodies are a joke and with US sites having to pay huge fees to process US transactions the customer service and security are going to suffer. I used to argue that I look at online poker cheating like the rake--it's a fee I have to pay to play-- but even with this "charge" the games were still beatable. In the current poker climate the player-on-player crime seems rampant, and I don't think the online sites have any chance of deterring it or slowing it down without a major investment that most sites simply can't afford.Quote:
you guys keep mentioning merge security, like it exists....i really have to tell you guys they have ZERO security in place, and i mean ZERO. the only things they have in place are to prevent fraud against the network, basically things that affect their bottomline.
im telling you guys, there is something seriously wrong with merge network. i really want you guys to help me get to the bottom of this, its so annoying when I bring this up and everyone just dismisses it as rigtard....i dont think the sites rigged, I think the site is compromised in the worst type of ways.
Unfortunately, until the whole thing is torn down and legitimately regulated this seems like something online players will simply have to get used to
check this out. i play mostly MTT and MTT sngs look at my preflop all in results for hands that went to showdown where i was the significant favorite......
I stopped reading afteri saw that they dont keep players deposits segregated at lock poker
BCP guy told me their funds are segregated and I believe Carbons are as well. I think most merge skins are but lock recently went on their ownQuote:
Originally Posted by ajfsports
I like the stylesheet for this forum.
Anyway, I don't pretend to have any info that anyone else doesn't have, but I recently decided to pull my money off Carbon. This was in part because I've long felt that it's irresponsible as a consumer to give business to a site "regulated" by the KGC. I overlooked this when I first put money on there, because... well, I didn't see any other option and I wanted to play OLP. In retrospect, I think it was a bad decision. My plan now is to maybe give the casinos a try and hope that we see some kind of regulated ipoker in the US before too long.
When I get to a final table I sharkscope everyone, a bunch of times its been their 1st game under that screen name. I never thought about it any deeper, but was odd that I ran into so many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
It's not really shadiness but I'm calling shenanigans because in my small 30 game 6 max sng sample size so far, I have not started with the button yet.
There are so many skins there that it seems probable that some mtt pro's would set up new nicknames either as a superstitious 'change your luck' sort of thing or to fly under the radar of other regs. Who know's, that name could be bigdogpkt5s in a thinly veiled disguise.
Assuming no exaggeration that would happen 4 times in every 1000 sets of 30 sng's. Certainly rare but it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by shortbuspoker
Is there any proof of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniacBCP guy told me their funds are segregated and I believe Carbons are as well. I think most merge skins are but lock recently went on their ownQuote:
Originally Posted by ajfsports
I don't believe any of them are segregated until I see that an independent third party has verified this and continues to monitor the situation.
This might just be the thing to say nowadays after the Full Tilt debacle.
LOL @ Lock being on their own. Yet one more reason not to play there.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIs there any proof of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
I don't believe any of them are segregated until I see that an independent third party has verified this and continues to monitor the situation.
This might just be the thing to say nowadays after the Full Tilt debacle.
If their licensing body (the LGA) doesn't require this, why would a site ever do this? It's just bad policy from a business standpoint. I don't mind some leveraging by the sites, and could come up with some very good reasons for them doing so. To think that these sites are segragating 100% of player funds is wishful thinking... I still doubt PokerStars did this, Like Druff said on radio, and I have maintained since Black Friday, it was likely a case of Isai Scheiberg personally being able to cover every deposit on file.
Regardless, if the DOJ shuts them down it will be in conjunction with a massive funds seizure, which theoretically would be the supposed segragated funds on their way back to the players, causing a shortfall.
Steve i agree with your assumption that PS was able to cover the deposits without maintaing 100 percent segregation and knew that it just made good business sense to pay all of the US players if it had ANY hopes of continuing to be a player in the rest of the world.
My concern with a site like LOCK in particular is that i believe they make no bones about it that their funds arent segregated (could swear i read that in this thread or the scotty tilt thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIs there any proof of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
I don't believe any of them are segregated until I see that an independent third party has verified this and continues to monitor the situation.
This might just be the thing to say nowadays after the Full Tilt debacle.
LOL @ Lock being on their own. Yet one more reason not to play there.
Actually its one more reason to play there rather than all the other skins. Since they've had their own cashier, checks come to your door in 10 days instead of 1-3 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIs there any proof of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
I don't believe any of them are segregated until I see that an independent third party has verified this and continues to monitor the situation.
This might just be the thing to say nowadays after the Full Tilt debacle.
LOL @ Lock being on their own. Yet one more reason not to play there.
Maybe you can get their CEO to set up a "TeamViewer" experience for you and everyone else. Why stop there. I always assumed that FaceBook guy was up to no good. Let's "Teamview" him too.
That's the point I'm always trying to make; we have no idea about any of these sites. Not a one. I don't know if Lock segragates or doesn't (my assumption would be they don't, but I also assume no poker site does) but this is a bogeyman arguement of sorts since Black Friday; completely based on the notion that PokerStars DOES/DID segragate player funds, repaid players, and this is therefore the "correct" way to do things. #1 we don't really know they do segragate funds (it could just be semantics and Isai Scheinberg's bank account can cover all deposits) and who's to say the DOJ will allow repayment the next time or not go after these accounts????Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfsports
The truth is we have no idea what they are doing with our funds, and no idea if segragation was the reason Stars repaid or not. An inquiry to ANY online poker room pre-Black Friday about your funds recevied the same message: "your funds are safe and secure at xxxx yada, yada, yada". We take all of these sites on their word.
We have track-records to compare, and PokerStars seems to getting a AAA rating based on repaying US players and this supposed account segragation, but NOBODY knows how or why PokerStars repaid and FT didn't, it's all specualtion about what might have happened. Why would PokerStars segragate 100% when they are not required to by the LGA? Can someone authenticate that this segragated account exists and that is solely used for keeping player balances?
Every business levarages funds, and to think online poker sites are doing something bad by levaraging funds is silly in my opinion. Now, if a site is levaraged the way FT was --$6 million in hand with $300 million on deposit-- than there is a serious problem, but this falls on the regualtors; and I'm sorry to report this but the regualtors SUCK. It's a case of the inmates running the asylum. These supposed regulators cannot control the online poker rooms they license and we've seen it time and time again. I wouldn't be surprised if the regulatory bodies were simply subsidaries of the online poker rooms, but even if they are "separate" they rely on the online poker rooms far more than the online poker rooms rely on them.
Everyone seems to be drawing conclusions by what happened and not looking at the causes of what happened or whether or not the policies will work in the future. PokerStars may have simply had a few hundred million laying around and figured "we still have 75% of our player base and will now have a 75% market-share instead of the 50% we had before this --not to mention we don't have to deal with the US clusterfuck anymore-- so cut the check."
If you want to play online poker you are taking risk, just like you are taking a risk selling something on Craig's List or driving into a seedy neighborhood for whatever reason. Some sites seem to have more inherent risk than others, but its really anyone's guess as to which site will be the next to fuck players.
I agree with most of this, except the part about poker sites leveraging funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OThat's the point I'm always trying to make; we have no idea about any of these sites. Not a one. I don't know if Lock segragates or doesn't (my assumption would be they don't, but I also assume no poker site does) but this is a bogeyman arguement of sorts since Black Friday; completely based on the notion that PokerStars DOES/DID segragate player funds, repaid players, and this is therefore the "correct" way to do things. #1 we don't really know they do segragate funds (it could just be semantics and Isai Scheinberg's bank account can cover all deposits) and who's to say the DOJ will allow repayment the next time or not go after these accounts????Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfsports
The truth is we have no idea what they are doing with our funds, and no idea if segragation was the reason Stars repaid or not. An inquiry to ANY online poker room pre-Black Friday about your funds recevied the same message: "your funds are safe and secure at xxxx yada, yada, yada". We take all of these sites on their word.
We have track-records to compare, and PokerStars seems to getting a AAA rating based on repaying US players and this supposed account segragation, but NOBODY knows how or why PokerStars repaid and FT didn't, it's all specualtion about what might have happened. Why would PokerStars segragate 100% when they are not required to by the LGA? Can someone authenticate that this segragated account exists and that is solely used for keeping player balances?
Every business levarages funds, and to think online poker sites are doing something bad by levaraging funds is silly in my opinion. Now, if a site is levaraged the way FT was --$6 million in hand with $300 million on deposit-- than there is a serious problem, but this falls on the regualtors; and I'm sorry to report this but the regualtors SUCK. It's a case of the inmates running the asylum. These supposed regulators cannot control the online poker rooms they license and we've seen it time and time again. I wouldn't be surprised if the regulatory bodies were simply subsidaries of the online poker rooms, but even if they are "separate" they rely on the online poker rooms far more than the online poker rooms rely on them.
Everyone seems to be drawing conclusions by what happened and not looking at the causes of what happened or whether or not the policies will work in the future. PokerStars may have simply had a few hundred million laying around and figured "we still have 75% of our player base and will now have a 75% market-share instead of the 50% we had before this --not to mention we don't have to deal with the US clusterfuck anymore-- so cut the check."
If you want to play online poker you are taking risk, just like you are taking a risk selling something on Craig's List or driving into a seedy neighborhood for whatever reason. Some sites seem to have more inherent risk than others, but its really anyone's guess as to which site will be the next to fuck players.
There's a difference between leveraging profits and leveraging player deposits.
Player deposits absolutely, positively should NEVER be anywhere that isn't immediately liquid cash. Spending player deposits is equivalent to stealing.
As far as everything else, I agree that there's no proof that Pokerstars actually had segregated accounts, or if Isai Scheinberg just kept enough money liquid to cover a situation like Black Friday. It doesn't really matter, because the bottom line is that they were able to cover it, while the thieves at Full Tilt and UB couldn't.
As far as existing US-facing sites claiming to have segregated accounts, I find that highly doubtful unless it has been verified by a neutral third party (and is continuously verified as time passes).
I'd also be very nervous about Lock now managing their own funds (can someone post a link where this information is given?), because this company has shown the tendency to cheat people without remorse. If Lock has really separated its funds from Merge, count on them to tuck tail and run (with your money) as soon as anything unfortunate goes down.
PokerStars was and remains located and regulated in the Isle of Man. While the IoM is an offshore location, and has been the scene of a degree of shadiness historically, it is also now a major international financial centre. It is also keen to develop other businesses besides finance - one of which is gambling. Consequently, they genuinely have a reputation to protect.
In this they could not be more unlike Alderney, which is a tiny scrap of land (3 square miles, population ca. 2,000 compared with IoM's 85,000) in the English Channel which (last time I looked) does not even benefit from any direct flights or sailings to the British mainland. And long before Black Friday I heard well-qualified people suggest that Alderney is effectively used by Jersey and Guernsey as the jurisdiction of the Channel Islands gaming regulator precisely so that shady business / "light-touch regulation" is possible but there is no impact on the reputation of Jersey or Guernsey (the two biggest offshore financial centres in the world, IIRC) when things go wrong.
Anyway, this is why the IoM has a strict requirement in its gaming regulations that deposits be kept in separate accounts, and Alderney doesn't.
Good summary, and yes, Full Tilt pretty much proved Alderney is a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabber
I'm surprised they even suspended Full Tilt's license, but they probably had to in order to give the appearance that they're a legit regulatory body.
Just announced that merge network has pulled approval from Lock Poker to run the LockOps series coming up
Sorry i cant post link from my phone but im sure that most follow on twitter the relevant folks
Can we still get rakeback on BlackChipPoker? or are we stuck with the vip thing?
I think right now BCP is stuck at the VIP tier.Quote:
Originally Posted by GDog1666
Thanks for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfsports
While I haven't seen verification of this (where was it "announced"?), I will assume for the moment that this is true.
Here are my thoughts:
LockOps is a tournament series specific to Lock Poker. Unlike everything else on Lock, which is linked to the Merge network and can be played through any skin, LockOps was only available to Lock players.
It also apparently had some nice overlays (at least as of right now) and some people were excited about the LockOps series for that reason.
One reason being thrown around for the cancellation is its conflict with the SCOOP on Pokerstars. I am not sure I believe this, because most of Lock's clientele is American, while all of Stars is comprised of non-US players.
I think there could be a few possible reasons for this cancellation:
1) Merge decided it was uncomfortable with a tournament series specific to one skin.
2) Merge was afraid that Lock would pull some shenanigans regarding the overlays, and was especially afraid of this because of the SCOOP conflict. That is, they were afraid that Lock might cancel the whole thing if the overlays were too big, and it would make Merge as a whole look bad, so they decided to preemptively kill the whole thing. This is very possibly the reason, since Lock has acted shady many times in the past, and Merge probably doesn't trust them.
3) Merge had nothing to do with this. Lock cancelled it because of the likely overlays, and blamed it on Merge. Keep in mind that Lock blamed Merge for their cheating of players regarding the Casino Bonus promotion, when in reality it was all Lock's fault.
Here is a short (as of now) 2+2 thread about it:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/61...ckops-1197045/
Please post more information here on the situation as it comes.