Lock Poker giving up, returning to the scene as "Superwins"?

[Steve-O]

What's it take to get you fired up? This is serious shit. I always thought YOU were the boy in PNB. Can you blame me or Druff or anyone else?

You still gotta give PNB a big 'ol "you guys are crooks". Cause they are. You still haven't done that.

Senator McCarthy: witness is excused

It definitely takes a lot more than a failing online poker room to get me fired up.

No, just a content writer, not the "Boy" in the site. And I can blame Druff a little because we've already been over this before and even if he has forgotten he could have reached out to me and simply asked what my affiliation is. Whether you like me or not, I'm a very forthright person and I have nothing to hide. I will answer any legitimate question and even do the Internet unthinkable, which is occasionally admit when I was wrong.

I've already said what I have to say about PNB and its owner --he is a good person who is making a very bad decision.

If you don't think I've gone far enough that's your prerogative. I've washed my hands of the site in question (and will do the same at any other) and all references I make to Lock Poker are negative and warning in nature for at least a year or so.

[Dan Druff]

I apologize for saying that Steve owns Pokernewsboy, as I forgot the whole thread where Gerry was outed as the actual owner.

However, I do feel that Steve could be doing more to disassociate himself from both Pokernewsboy and Pokerforums.org, if Gerry doesn't immediately take all of this Lock/Superwins stuff down.

Steve, Gerry is your friend, right?

You can't force your friend to take the Lock stuff down, and I can understand that you can't make him remove your previous content on both sites, especially if he paid you for it.

However, you can ask him, as a friend, something like this:

"Gerry, since you are not willing to stop directing new players to Lock and Superwins, I don't feel comfortable having my name associated with these two sites. Can you please change all mentions of my name to simply 'Steve R'? Thanks."

I'm sure he would do this for you, if he were a true friend.

And then you could walk away from both sites, knowing you did all you could to stop Gerry from shilling for Lock, and can exit with both your name and conscience clear.

It is simply not acceptable or reasonable for Gerry to be giving them "one more chance" at this point. That's simply greed talking. If Gerry was on the outside and didn't have a financial incentive to keep those affiliate links up, he would come to the same conclusion about them that everyone else has.

Unless you are completely ignorant to the Lock situation at this point (which Gerry isn't), directing new players there is equivalent to being a willing accomplice to fraud. It is disgusting to think about anyone aware of Lock's situation still attempting to direct their readers there. It's a completely selfish and criminal disregard for other people's money.

[Steve-O]

I apologize for saying that Steve owns Pokernewsboy, as I forgot the whole thread where Gerry was outed as the actual owner.

However, I do feel that Steve could be doing more to disassociate himself from both Pokernewsboy and Pokerforums.org, if Gerry doesn't immediately take all of this Lock/Superwins stuff down.

Steve, Gerry is your friend, right?

You can't force your friend to take the Lock stuff down, and I can understand that you can't make him remove your previous content on both sites, especially if he paid you for it.

However, you can ask him, as a friend, something like this:

"Gerry, since you are not willing to stop directing new players to Lock and Superwins, I don't feel comfortable having my name associated with these two sites. Can you please change all mentions of my name to simply 'Steve R'? Thanks."

I'm sure he would do this for you, if he were a true friend.

And then you could walk away from both sites, knowing you did all you could to stop Gerry from shilling for Lock, and can exit with both your name and conscience clear.

It is simply not acceptable or reasonable for Gerry to be giving them "one more chance" at this point. That's simply greed talking. If Gerry was on the outside and didn't have a financial incentive to keep those affiliate links up, he would come to the same conclusion about them that everyone else has.

Unless you are completely ignorant to the Lock situation at this point (which Gerry isn't), directing new players there is equivalent to being a willing accomplice to fraud. It is disgusting to think about anyone aware of Lock's situation still attempting to direct their readers there. It's a completely selfish and criminal disregard for other people's money.

Appreciate the apology.

He is currently on vacation and I've already contacted him. We have plans to talk tomorrow. I agree that the time for "a little more time" has passed, I'm not arguing that point or that he is making a serious mistake by advertising lock or superwin.

[Dan Druff]

He is doing worse than just advertising them.

As already pointed out by Haley (and by me on radio last night, as well), he gave 10/10 to Lock Poker in his "review" (lol) and 9/10 to Superwins (also lol).

[haleylh]

As promised, I went on full blast:

http://www.flushdraw.net/news/shamef...perwins-poker/

Today's word is ... "unconscionable".

[Deal]

As promised, I went on full blast:

http://www.flushdraw.net/news/shamef...perwins-poker/

Today's word is ... "unconscionable".

Yes you did. Grammar blast and all.

[Hockey Guy]

I do post some content on PokerForums.org to this day -- I generally overlook the Lock stuff on PokerForums.org because he is open about being the affiliate manager there AND more importantly, he doesn't delete anti-lock posts in the forum, hotshot, hockeyguy and other shared posters can attest to this.

I will answer to this since my screen name is mentioned.

I've basically stopped posting at PFO since last October(?) when Gerry made a thread pushing Lock & I went back to the original thread(the one Gerry linked to from this site) & asked for an update of the situation knowing full well nothing had changed 5 months later. He avoided the thread & didn't answer. I've told others privately when I have been asked why I stopped frequenting the site & feel good about my decision. I just can't in good conscience bring content to a site where the owner is pushing Lock.

You can say he doesn't delete threads critical of Lock, which may be true, but if he won't respond & answer questions in them, he might as well. Really, I don't see the difference.

I really like you Steve & think you are a very good poker writer & would be an asset for any forum/poker site to have you contributing to, but PFO is done. It will never recover from Gerry's Lock association & now this. I don't care how much you like him, take my advice, don't go down with him because you don't deserve that.

Peace
Hockey Guy

[Capitao]

pretty disgusting. It will be a great day for the poker world when Jen Larson is in jail.

[IHasTehNutz]

I find it a little ironic that the articles I've read on the whole "Superwins" thing thus far have all seem to be missing much of the point of the issue here. While they refer to my reports on 2+2 (some without even linking back to the thread), they haven't really done much more than point out some vague, under-scrutinized highlights, and go about their business as if their vague generalities are facts.

I have (unfortunately) had first hand interaction with Shane Bridges, and my work on the Lock Pending Cashout Report gives me a unique perspective. But aside from that, I make it a point to reference facts and expound upon them. Most seem to be writing about how this is Lock simply adding a skin or developing a network of sorts. Really? This is nothing but a cash grab. A futile attempt to bring in more deposits and extend the life of their Ponzi scheme as long as possible.

I wrote about this at the beginning of the year. Not sure if I can link to it or not, but basically, I said Lock would find a way to continue its existence despite most "industry types" and media suggesting they were a stone's throw from death. I've done extensive work on Lock Poker since May of last year, and though I should probably have written more published articles on Lock (my actual job keeps me pretty busy - it's all I can do to keep the LPCR up to date with 358+ players on it now), I feel - just my opinion on the subject, mind you - that the overall media has done a pretty lousy job reporting on this whole thing. And referencing - that should be the first and easiest principle of reporting.

I dunno - I'm just frustrated at this point and after seeing a tweet regarding this thread, felt the need to sign up here and just get a few things off my chest.

Let’s put it this way, we are well past second and third notices here, if Lock Poker were a tenant they would likely find their belongings out on the street corner considering the wait times on payments that are being reported by 2+2 users.

The bold section here is usually what serves as a reference to the material as I mentioned above. I saw this back when it was written, and I remember feeling a bit shafted that the implication was apparently that a group of players simply created that spreadsheet they did link out of thin air (they linked to the document itself, not the thread). I don't care that much about personal credit - sure, a mention would be nice. But there doesn't seem to be much by way of thoroughness in a lot of what I see out there.

[haleylh]

I find it a little ironic that the articles I've read on the whole "Superwins" thing thus far have all seem to be missing much of the point of the issue here. While they refer to my reports on 2+2 (some without even linking back to the thread), they haven't really done much more than point out some vague, under-scrutinized highlights, and go about their business as if their vague generalities are facts.

I have (unfortunately) had first hand interaction with Shane Bridges, and my work on the Lock Pending Cashout Report gives me a unique perspective. But aside from that, I make it a point to reference facts and expound upon them. Most seem to be writing about how this is Lock simply adding a skin or developing a network of sorts. Really? This is nothing but a cash grab. A futile attempt to bring in more deposits and extend the life of their Ponzi scheme as long as possible.

I wrote about this at the beginning of the year. Not sure if I can link to it or not, but basically, I said Lock would find a way to continue its existence despite most "industry types" and media suggesting they were a stone's throw from death. I've done extensive work on Lock Poker since May of last year, and though I should probably have written more published articles on Lock (my actual job keeps me pretty busy - it's all I can do to keep the LPCR up to date with 358+ players on it now), I feel - just my opinion on the subject, mind you - that the overall media has done a pretty lousy job reporting on this whole thing. And referencing - that should be the first and easiest principle of reporting.

I dunno - I'm just frustrated at this point and after seeing a tweet regarding this thread, felt the need to sign up here and just get a few things off my chest.

Let’s put it this way, we are well past second and third notices here, if Lock Poker were a tenant they would likely find their belongings out on the street corner considering the wait times on payments that are being reported by 2+2 users.

The bold section here is usually what serves as a reference to the material as I mentioned above. I saw this back when it was written, and I remember feeling a bit shafted that the implication was apparently that a group of players simply created that spreadsheet they did link out of thin air (they linked to the document itself, not the thread). I don't care that much about personal credit - sure, a mention would be nice. But there doesn't seem to be much by way of thoroughness in a lot of what I see out there.

Re: Linking, I think I have done it in my pieces where your very good work has been mentioned, despite the fact that pasting in any 2+2 link usually makes me throw up a little bit in my throat. And I'm pretty sure I've taken Lock to task for largely the correct reasons.

[IHasTehNutz]

Re: Linking, I think I have done it in my pieces where your very good work has been mentioned, despite the fact that pasting in any 2+2 link usually makes me throw up a little bit in my throat. And I'm pretty sure I've taken Lock to task for largely the correct reasons.

I just mentioned you in a similar post on 2+2 for sourcing the thread - it's appreciated. When others don't, the amount of information contained in those updates doesn't really get out there much beyond 2+2.

[Prodigal son]

I apologize for saying that Steve owns Pokernewsboy, as I forgot the whole thread where Gerry was outed as the actual owner.

However, I do feel that Steve could be doing more to disassociate himself from both Pokernewsboy and Pokerforums.org, if Gerry doesn't immediately take all of this Lock/Superwins stuff down.

Steve, Gerry is your friend, right?

You can't force your friend to take the Lock stuff down, and I can understand that you can't make him remove your previous content on both sites, especially if he paid you for it.

However, you can ask him, as a friend, something like this:

"Gerry, since you are not willing to stop directing new players to Lock and Superwins, I don't feel comfortable having my name associated with these two sites. Can you please change all mentions of my name to simply 'Steve R'? Thanks."

I'm sure he would do this for you, if he were a true friend.

And then you could walk away from both sites, knowing you did all you could to stop Gerry from shilling for Lock, and can exit with both your name and conscience clear.

It is simply not acceptable or reasonable for Gerry to be giving them "one more chance" at this point. That's simply greed talking. If Gerry was on the outside and didn't have a financial incentive to keep those affiliate links up, he would come to the same conclusion about them that everyone else has.

Unless you are completely ignorant to the Lock situation at this point (which Gerry isn't), directing new players there is equivalent to being a willing accomplice to fraud. It is disgusting to think about anyone aware of Lock's situation still attempting to direct their readers there. It's a completely selfish and criminal disregard for other people's money.

Appreciate the apology.

He is currently on vacation and I've already contacted him. We have plans to talk tomorrow. I agree that the time for "a little more time" has passed, I'm not arguing that point or that he is making a serious mistake by advertising lock or superwin.

Wonder how Steve-O's chat with his buddy Gerry went. Steve-O has an opportunity to make a solid contribution to the poker community.

Waiting & listening.

[Steve-O]

Appreciate the apology.

He is currently on vacation and I've already contacted him. We have plans to talk tomorrow. I agree that the time for "a little more time" has passed, I'm not arguing that point or that he is making a serious mistake by advertising lock or superwin.

Wonder how Steve-O's chat with his buddy Gerry went. Steve-O has an opportunity to make a solid contribution to the poker community.

Waiting & listening.

I did speak with Gerry yesterday, and it was somewhat productive, not the final outcome I was hoping for but a good first step was taken. I won't divulge most of what was discussed as I was asked not to (so don't even ask), but the general gist is:

• I made it clear where I stand and what my opinion on his being associated with Lock Poker is
• Gerry has agreed to scrub every reference of Lock Poker from pokerforums.org (if you do find one please let me know and I will pass it on to be erased). And I believe he will be taking down advertising on PokerNewsBoy.com as well, but it was a long chat and I'm not sure this was 100% -- I do not see any Lock crap on PFO anymore

There is far more to the chat, and while I don't agree with his ultimate decision, it is his decision and he gave me his reasons and understands the consequences.

The bold section here is usually what serves as a reference to the material as I mentioned above. I saw this back when it was written, and I remember feeling a bit shafted that the implication was apparently that a group of players simply created that spreadsheet they did link out of thin air (they linked to the document itself, not the thread). I don't care that much about personal credit - sure, a mention would be nice. But there doesn't seem to be much by way of thoroughness in a lot of what I see out there.

Just to clarify, I did link to multiple outside sources in that article, including the spreadsheet, John Mehaffey's monthly report, and the thread here on PFA. The reason I linked to the spreadsheet was twofold:

• The line above is in specific reference to the wait times from 2+2 users and not the 2+2 thread, so the spreadsheet was my resource
• The lock thread on 2+2 is incredibly long and overwhelming, and I felt the spreadsheet would get the point across faster and in a simplified way

I certainly could have mentioned you by screenname, so yes that was an oversight, my apologies

[IHasTehNutz]

The lock thread on 2+2 is incredibly long and overwhelming, and I felt the spreadsheet would get the point across faster and in a simplified way

I certainly could have mentioned you by screenname, so yes that was an oversight, my apologies

Best bet is to link back to the post itself - the updated LPCR report post. That way, you link back to all of the graphics, stats, and spreadsheets without having to link to the whole thread. Username link is appreciated too, but obviously secondary to the update post.

[Deal]

Reading between the lines here. Jen and company plan on ditching Lock completely and defaulting on all financial responsibility to creditors of Lock. Moving forward they will concentrate on Superwin. Gerry will get paid for his Lock work and start pimping Superwin.

[haleylh]

I want to stress that this is my opinion only, but I believe that this Lock / Superwins situation is so egregious and fraudulent that someone needs to keep track of exactly who is still an affiliate for Lock after all that has happened, and who is now signing up to help defraud players via the new Superwins. This is simply not reputable affiliate behavior.

[Dan Druff]

I want to stress that this is my opinion only, but I believe that this Lock / Superwins situation is so egregious and fraudulent that someone needs to keep track of exactly who is still an affiliate for Lock after all that has happened, and who is now signing up to help defraud players via the new Superwins. This is simply not reputable affiliate behavior.

100% agree.

These affiliates should be called out and repeatedly shamed.

Any affiliate still promoting Lock is a willing accomplice in this long-running theft.

[Dan Druff]

Steve, I don't understand the conclusions regarding your conversation with Gerry. I'm not asking for details of the conversation. I understand those are private. However, while you claimed he was taking Lock down from pokerforums.org, what about Superwins? And as you mentioned, he also wasn't clear about his intentions regarding Pokernewsboy.

There is really no "in between" in this situation.

Either you take ALL links/ads for Lock/Superwins down, or you don't. You can't just take down some of the links, but leave others up. You can't just remove Lock and keep Superwins up. That's still indicative of a continued intention to help Lock steal from people.

It's very simple.

• If Gerry believes that Lock is stealing from people, he should take down ALL ads and links to BOTH Lock and Superwins, from ALL sites he runs and controls.

• If Gerry believes that Lock is NOT stealing from people, he shouldn't take down any of his ads or links. Of course, then he would be expected to give rational justification as to why they're not stealing from people, which is clearly impossible at this point.

There is absolutely no middle ground here. You can't just decide to help a thief less than you were before, and declare yourself moral and good. A half-assed solution is simply unacceptable, and appears to be more for show than anything else.

While it is true that you cannot control what Gerry does, I would hope that you'd completely abandon all of his sites (and ask him to take your name off past articles) if he elects to continue advertising Lock or Superwins in any shape or form.

[UseHerName]

Having seen the crashing debacle that is/was Lock, can anyone be surprised? It was run off a kitchen table.

[Deal]

The worst thing Gerry can do is remove the Lock ads but keep the superwins ads / shill articles up. That is admitting that he knows that Lock is a scam and knowingly leading his followers to the replacement scam.

Gerry may be a great guy but he is not coming across as such to someone that only see's his public business behavior.

The best thing he can do is highlight the Lock scam on his sites, expose the relationship to superwins, and warn his followers to steer clear of both.