Newest Lock Poker scam: Big withdrawals canceled, support unresponsive

[Steve-O]

He was one of the most heavily raked players in poker for a while, so I'm sure he had affiliate deals, I don't think he was with Cake in any official capacity though and he joined lock soon after Black Friday, which I believe was before Cake's cashout issues really hit, but I can't be sure of that

Yeah, well regardless the part that upsets the poker community is someone who still promotes Lock right now during this time. People have some trust in Pros whether it's because they respect their game or whatever it might be that anyone who comes to the site now during this crisis because of a Lock Pro who go them on board then it's considered shady among the poker community.

I've read some bigger Skrill cashouts have been received today so that is a start but Lock has a LONG way to go.

agree 100%. I have no issue with the pros staying with Lock, but they should not be actively promoting the site until it turns around

[Dan Druff]

Yeah, well regardless the part that upsets the poker community is someone who still promotes Lock right now during this time. People have some trust in Pros whether it's because they respect their game or whatever it might be that anyone who comes to the site now during this crisis because of a Lock Pro who go them on board then it's considered shady among the poker community.

I've read some bigger Skrill cashouts have been received today so that is a start but Lock has a LONG way to go.

My problem with Lock finally sending out some money via Skrill is that it feels like the dead cat bounce. They pay a bit to try to trick players into thinking that they are solvent and eventually it still comes crashing down. Normally I wouldn't put a poker site on even pulling that kind of stunt but with all of the lies and bullshit that have come from Lock they are capable of doing anything.

That's exactly what happened. And these cashouts wouldn't be occurring at all if there wasn't so much controversy right now, shining a light on their insolvency.

[haleylh]

Some good reading:

http://www.pokerforums.org/online-po...oker-what.html

[Steve-O]

Some good reading:

http://www.pokerforums.org/online-po...oker-what.html

You do know that a good chunk of PFA already frequents PFO right? Same thing I've said across both sites, or in response to the $.38 Lock article on 4Flush. Objectivity goes both ways

[Deal]

Isn`t pfo just an affiliate shill site with no other content?

[Steve-O]

Isn`t pfo just an affiliate shill site with no other content?

Something like that I guess

It was a once active forum during the boom, but by the time G9OLT purchased it last summer there were 2 active members and only one of them spoke english, so we've at least doubled the number of english-speaking posters anyway

[Belly Buster]

When I first saw "G9OLT" it immediately struck me as gay UK-style (vanity) registration plate. If this is his car, he's hardly balling out of control, a 2006 Diesel renault convertible



Maybe he doubles as a hairdresser?

[BeerAndPoker]

Take it for whatever you want being from G911 but here is the latest interview about Crock Poker:

http://gambling911.com/poker/gamblin...ew-051213.html

[BeerAndPoker]

Jennifer Larson interview Part 2 is up from 911 (take it for what it is).

http://gambling911.com/poker/intervi...ii-051313.html

[BUBBLES]

The owners of Cardschat have helped some if their members with payment problems. I know this is just a drop in the bucket, but atleast some people are getting paid.
http://www.cardschat.com/f6/why-does...ck-223304-new/

[haleylh]

Speaking of Lock, I just happened to be going through those UB database files and others that were left open to the public by some Israeli black-hat spammer a while back. I noticed today that one of those files was called "Lock_Pete". I'd forgotten about that. Lock wasn't above buying names and addresses in such a manner, it appears.

[Dan Druff]

Here are my responses to all of Jennifer Larson's BS answers in the Gambling 911 interview:

G911: Why not offer proof of solvency if Lock Poker is so financially sound? Why you do not have a 3rd party verify that player funds are segregated and safe?

Larson: The DOJ has shown repeatedly that it can and will seize players' funds and hold these for months - if not years - absent any valid legal basis to do so.

This situation makes it impossible for Lock to provide any independent, third party verification of the segregation and amount of player funds. We have spoken to a number of companies that provide such audit services, however, they are unable to state that if pressured by the US Government they will not disclose the details of the Lock accounts they audit. They have been frank and acknowledge that they want to be able to conduct business with US companies and admit that the threat of being "black listed" by the DOJ, even if informally, cannot justify their taking on Lock as a client. No other online gaming site has or can publicly open its "books".

Nobody ever demanded that the audit firm had to be US-based. It just has to be one that is trusted and respected. I believe there are even a few in Cyprus (you know, the place that Lock has never banked).

She is completely full of shit that she can't find a single respected audit service that would be able to keep both full confidentiality and wouldn't fear "blacklisting" of any sort by the US. (What does that even mean? How can the DOJ tell US companies which auditing firms they can do business with?)

So Jennifer really expects us to believe that not a single audit firm could handle the job? Riiiight.

G911: Let’s clarify the player-to-player transfer issue. Many people have posted emails from Lock support stating that NO FUNDS FROM PLAYER TRANSFERS, OR WINNINGS DERIVED FROM TRANSFERS can be cashed out. We have since had Lock come out to try and clear up this issue but can you personally clarify the Lock Poker p2p transfer policy?

Larson: Through a detailed investigation over the past few weeks the Lock security team uncovered a large group of persons that were abusing the P2P transfer policy and creating a large network of mule accounts to move and withdraw funds without any play at all taking place.

Lock has introduced a new cash-out policy for transferred funds which requires a player to accumulate at least 15% in GGR on the funds received via P2P transfer before these funds are cashed out. Put simply, for every $100 of transferred funds to be withdrawn, $15 of rake or fees will need to be accumulated beforehand.

The policy change was put in place explicitly to put an end to money laundering via Lock's player transfers. Players withdrawing winnings are not affected. It is important to note that many sites have similar policies regarding cashing out P2P transferred funds or do not allow such transfers at all.

She does not explain why it took three weeks to decide upon and/or communicate this policy, all while this very issue was rapidly eroding the trust of the userbase.

She provides no evidence of this "abuse".

The story has since changed from "affiliate accounts" perpetrating the abuse to "a large network of mule accounts", presumably so they could justify why innocent, non-affiliate players were blamed. (Otherwise, the obvious question would be, "Why suspend normal accounts if only affiliates had the priority cashouts that allowed this 'abuse'?")

Still, the "mule accounts" story falls flat, because this would be incredibly easy to detect and thwart. If certain people really created a large number of fake accounts that were on the system simply to receive transfers with withdraw, Lock could quickly and easily thwart this tactic with an industry-standard playthrough policy.

Now, that's what they claim they ended up doing, but they cannot explain why this simple change took three weeks, while players jumped ship in droves, nor can they explain why so many of the canceled cashouts were those by high-volume players, who would in no way resemble "mules". In reality, this is just a complete BS story to cover the truth: Simply put, Lock didn't have the money to pay anyone for 6 weeks.

G911: What is the reason for the slow withdrawal times?

Larson: There are a number of reasons for slow withdrawals. As explained above, we uncovered a money laundering ring that created a network of mule accounts that were buying and cashing out players' bankrolls with no play. This caused a massive increase in withdrawals causing legitimate players' cash outs to be delayed. The other main reason is that Lock is one of the largest poker sites that continues to serve players in most States in the US. This means that all Lock payments processors must be discreet. Lock has a number of processors it can use to flow funds to players but are all subject to limits. So while Lock has all the players' funds to pay out it is limited in the ability to do so by the constraints of the system and the threat of the seizing of player funds. The E-comm team works constantly to find new, reputable payment processors to provide secure, fast options to our players. Our number one priority right now is reducing payout times over the next few weeks.

This is garbage. Lock could easily create two different bank accounts -- one for player funds belonging to US players, and one for player funds belonging to non-US players. They could keep clear and accurate records showing that the non-US account is only used to conduct financial transactions with non-US players.

Besides, this whole story doesn't make sense. Even if they are using third-party processors for non-US payments (which doesn't seem to be true, as they own their own payment processor, JDB Services), these processors would not be limited at all because they don't need to fly under the radar. That is, processing non-US payments is NOT illegal, so a processor doesn't have to worry about being caught by anyone. The only reason US payments are slow is because processors have to severely limit volume in order to avoid attracting attention. Non-US processors don't have any radar to fly under, and any processor that strictly works in the non-US market would never be busted by the US DOJ, as the DOJ always collects evidence of processing payments for Americans before seizing any accounts or making any arrests.

G911: Does Lock Poker own the Revolution Network?

Larson: No. There has been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the ownership of Revolution Network. In the spring of 2012 Lock entered into negotiations to purchase selected assets from the Network. One of the conditions of the purchase was the rebranding of the Network and this step took place. Ultimately the proposed purchase was not completed and Lock never became the owner of the network. A Company completely independent of Lock made the purchase. The Network team does work very closely with Lock based on Lock being the largest room. We therefore have an impact on the overall direction and weigh in on the big decisions.

They purchased a minority share of the Cake Network, but intentionally misled everyone (until now) that they owned Revolution, so as to make themselves seem bigger and more trustworthy.

The lie about this was definitely intentional.

This article, detailing Lock's purchase of Revolution, was dated May 7, 2012: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/0...oker-12601.htm

Guess what date Lock bought their minority share of Cake? May 7, 2012.

Coincidence?

G911: There was some degree of controversy surrounding a recent event that took place in Porto, Portugal. It was the second Lock Poker company retreat and posting forum observers were quick to point out some of the more extravagant aspects of this trip such as accommodations in a historic palace and transportation offered by a fleet of limos, all the while payment delays continued. Tell us what really happened in Portugal. What was the reason for the trip and do customer deposits pay for such trips?

The Lock Gaming Group, which owns and operates the Lockpoker.eu and Lockcasino.eu sites, recently completed a 3 day retreat in Portugal. This was not publicized in advance or during the event in order to protect the privacy of the attendees which included Lock staff, consultants, members of the Lock Pro team and suppliers. This event was a combination of business meetings, strategy sessions and social gatherings. The Lock Retreats are annual and included in our budgets and paid for out of the company profits.

LOL @ "in our budgets" and "out of the company profits".

Uh huh.

If there was a public information blackout on the trip in order to "protect the privacy" of the trip at the time, why did Jennifer order people to keep silent about it for weeks after it was over?



I'll do part 2 tomorrow.

[Steve-O]

but they cannot explain why this simple change took three weeks, while players jumped ship in droves,

What has to amaze everyone (Druff, Jen Larson, everyone) is that their traffic has been steady through the whole thing --since early April. The huge exodus occurred just before this and was seemingly over the slow cashout times. The current fiasco seems to have had little to no effect on their player base. I would have thought they would hemorrhage players during this, and most certainly once they allegedly solved their cashout issues and players realized they could withdraw...

[chinamaniac]

but they cannot explain why this simple change took three weeks, while players jumped ship in droves,

What has to amaze everyone (Druff, Jen Larson, everyone) is that their traffic has been steady through the whole thing --since early April. The huge exodus occurred just before this and was seemingly over the slow cashout times. The current fiasco seems to have had little to no effect on their player base. I would have thought they would hemorrhage players during this, and most certainly once they allegedly solved their cashout issues and players realized they could withdraw...

The reason it has stayed steady is because noone could get any money off. Zero withdraws were being processed

[Hockey Guy]

What has to amaze everyone (Druff, Jen Larson, everyone) is that their traffic has been steady through the whole thing --since early April. The huge exodus occurred just before this and was seemingly over the slow cashout times. The current fiasco seems to have had little to no effect on their player base. I would have thought they would hemorrhage players during this, and most certainly once they allegedly solved their cashout issues and players realized they could withdraw...

The reason it has stayed steady is because noone could get any money off. Zero withdraws were being processed

I think Steve-O answered his own question. The exodus of players happened in late March early April & this led to the lack of deposits which eventually led to the cashout crunch @ the end of April & into early May. Pretty sure that's not a coincidence.

The only players left are the degens that probably know their money is worthless or the extremely naive who have no idea what's going on & won't until they try to withdraw.

[vookenmeister]

And some players stayed within the network and switched from Lock to intertops.

[BeerAndPoker]

What has to amaze everyone (Druff, Jen Larson, everyone) is that their traffic has been steady through the whole thing --since early April. The huge exodus occurred just before this and was seemingly over the slow cashout times. The current fiasco seems to have had little to no effect on their player base. I would have thought they would hemorrhage players during this, and most certainly once they allegedly solved their cashout issues and players realized they could withdraw...

The reason it has stayed steady is because noone could get any money off. Zero withdraws were being processed

That's a big key. The rationale reasoning would be to initiate a cashout and harass them on the regular until you have your entire account empty then not play on Lock again. This isn't what people will do but instead they will play since they want to do something with the money but if Lock was to jump completely off the planet then that would upset me even more if I won several more grand yet couldn't get the money.

After Black Friday UB was pulling the cashout scheme of $250 a week maximum cashout or whatever low amount it was yet their were people with high five to six plus figures on the site. Why anyone had that much on UB after the scandal unless you just binked a big tournament is beyond me. Some pros still did and now were still playing despite not being able to get the money which is giving the site a freeroll on your money raking you while they can't pay you.

[Steve-O]

What has to amaze everyone (Druff, Jen Larson, everyone) is that their traffic has been steady through the whole thing --since early April. The huge exodus occurred just before this and was seemingly over the slow cashout times. The current fiasco seems to have had little to no effect on their player base. I would have thought they would hemorrhage players during this, and most certainly once they allegedly solved their cashout issues and players realized they could withdraw...

The reason it has stayed steady is because noone could get any money off. Zero withdraws were being processed

My understanding of it is that when you attempt to cashout it would be weeks before you even knew if it went through, at which point you can't play unless you left money to play. Basically, not being able to get a check is not the same as not being allowed to cashout. I know when I cashed out from another online site (just before Black Friday) it took two weeks for it to be approved, and I couldn't play with that money unless I cancelled the withdrawal request.

It's strange to me (and I was completely wrong in saying it would the instant they stated withdrawal times would improve) that traffic hasn't continued to decline, even on a smaller scale. I would have initiated a cashout the moment this stuff broke just to get in the front of the queue

[BeerAndPoker]

Yikes. I would love to hear more on this story.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1637

[chinamaniac]

The reason it has stayed steady is because noone could get any money off. Zero withdraws were being processed

My understanding of it is that when you attempt to cashout it would be weeks before you even knew if it went through, at which point you can't play unless you left money to play. Basically, not being able to get a check is not the same as not being allowed to cashout. I know when I cashed out from another online site (just before Black Friday) it took two weeks for it to be approved, and I couldn't play with that money unless I cancelled the withdrawal request.

It's strange to me (and I was completely wrong in saying it would the instant they stated withdrawal times would improve) that traffic hasn't continued to decline, even on a smaller scale. I would have initiated a cashout the moment this stuff broke just to get in the front of the queue

I think you can only cash out 1 withdraw @ a time too so if someone has one pending and they have leftover cash in their account they prob will play especially if they have no other options