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

[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