Lock Poker Splits $1/2 Games and Above

Read on a few sites... the gist of it is:

All poker tables starting at $1/2 and higher at Lock Poker have been moved off from the rest of the network player pool.

Not quite sure what this means for Lock, grinders, etc. I'm not sure if we have many NLHE cash game players at 200nl+ at CC but it'd be interesting to discuss the potential fallout from this news.

When is this supposed to take effect? I still see tables open above that limit . . .

Is it just Lock Poker or is it the Revolution Network?

another sign that Lock is in trouble

Have never played on Lock and have never trusted Lock, i hope it all ends well for the players.
Bovada hands down is the best site for US players, quick cashouts and good customer service.

I don't even understand the move??? So are you saying someone on Lock at 200nl can only play with other Lock players but not a player on say juicy stakes? If so it sounds like a rake grab to me. Most likely the other skins wanted an equal share of rake from those games without bringing many players to the table.

maybe lock doesn't want to pay other revolution skins

dont like lock personally, had bad experiences with their site

WVHillbilly said:

I don't even understand the move??? So are you saying someone on Lock at 200nl can only play with other Lock players but not a player on say Juicy stakes? If so it sounds like a rake grab to me. Most likely the other skins wanted an equal share of rake from those games without bringing many players to the table.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you can only play with Lock players.

The other explanation is that they are having troubles when it comes to reconciling with other skins on payments for network play. Pulling the highest level cash games involves the most money changing hands. Also, maybe they have had a lot of people moving to the high stakes games to dump off chips to intertops, which has the fastest payouts. This may mesh with the rumors of troubles of skins paying out each other.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a precaution I would get all funds off of Lock and other Revolution Skins. Too many things happening. Too many technical troubles without explanation (site crashing when running 100 free seat tournys). Lock history of shady happenings. No explanations period.

WVHillbilly said:

I don't even understand the move??? So are you saying someone on Lock at 200nl can only play with other Lock players but not a player on say Juicy stakes? If so it sounds like a rake grab to me. Most likely the other skins wanted an equal share of rake from those games without bringing many players to the table.

Click to expand...

this ^^

Lock has the biggest pool of players at 200+ and doesn't feel like it's being compensated equally. This is the same reason they left the merge network (rumored to have been apaz) a while back

xdeuceswild81xx said:

this ^^

Lock has the biggest pool of players at 200+ and doesn't feel like it's being compensated equally. This is the same reason they left the merge network (rumored to have been apaz) a while back

Click to expand...

Sounds good, but skins do not 'share' rake in this fashion. That is why indiidual skins can go down while a network is still in good shape. Individual skins get their own rake plus a % goes to the network in the vast majority of network deals

WEC said:

Sounds good, but skins do not 'share' rake in this fashion. That is why indiidual skins can go down while a network is still in good shape. Individual skins get their own rake plus a % goes to the network in the vast majority of network deals

Click to expand...

I thought that wasn't true of Revolution? I was browsing around on 2+2, but didn't bother going through the 50 pg+ thread tbh. I vaguely remember reading something from LockShane saying that they felt the grinders the other networks brought to the mid-stakes games weren't good for the overall ecology of the poker system etc. It could of been a totally different thread, but yeah. Either way, I could possibly understand it if Lock felt that they had enough players higher then 200nl+. Also, reading through what lots of 200+ regs on Lock are talking about and they could easily run games, it's just regs don't want to sit with 2 other regs. The bumhunting/game selection aspect is like 100% holding back tables from forming

Note, besides 1/2NL, the Lock Only players will include "low-liquidity fixed limit games"

xdeuceswild81xx said:

I vaguely remember reading something from LockShane saying that they felt the grinders the other networks brought to the mid-stakes games weren't good for the overall ecology of the poker system etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, he spewed this BS concerning the split of games. At least it comes across as complete hogwash to me. I mean, why would Lock implement this without a word to its players until the players themselves discovered it. Pretty suspicious to me.

Lock Poker Separates High Stakes Tables from Rest of Revolution

Lock Poker in Trouble as Ring-Fencing & Liquidity Concerns Arise

Should Players Be Worried?

In a word, YES. A network owner privatizing the vast majority of their middle and high stakes action sounds like a site in desperate need of revenue. Furthermore, the lack of announcement to players is even more disturbing.

Didn't you just post above that sites don't gain revenue purely from their own site? That all sites on a network put into a pool. If they wouldn't gain more revenue through this, then the quote above is mis-leading/incorrect saying they are in "desperate need of revenue" .

(not going after you personally, just pointing out the flaws in the article )

xdeuceswild81xx said:

Didn't you just post above that sites don't gain revenue purely from their own site? That all sites on a network put into a pool. If they wouldn't gain more revenue through this, then the quote above is mis-leading/incorrect saying they are in "desperate need of revenue" .

(not going after you personally, just pointing out the flaws in the article )

Click to expand...

The 'Network Owner' is Lock Poker. They are saying Lock is trying to increase its own revenue at the expense of the other skins. Lock is trying to say, players at Intertops, Cake, Juicy are beating the hell out of Lock Players and taking all the money to their sites, while the horrible players who populate Lock, need ring-fencing to save them from themselves

This has never been done in this fashion. It has been done when Networks 'ring-fence' lower stakes

I am very glad that i do not play on lock. Lock poker is a very sketchy site. I once tried to deposit money to lock and the transaction was declined. But the money was taken out of my bank account by some clothing store in china. I contacted lock poker via email and they had no acknowledgement of the transaction. Thankfully the money was put back into my account, but needless to say it was a very sketchy situation.

WEC said:

The 'Network Owner' is Lock Poker. They are saying Lock is trying to increase its own revenue at the expense of the other skins. Lock is trying to say, players at Intertops, Cake, Juicy are beating the hell out of Lock Players and taking all the money to their sites, while the horrible players who populate Lock, need ring-fencing to save them from themselves

This has never been done in this fashion. It has been done when Networks 'ring-fence' lower stakes

Click to expand...

Well, if your playing mid-stakes, it seems like all the more reason to move to lock haha :cheers:

At this point, as a US player...your pretty much taking a big risk no matter where you play

xdeuceswild81xx said:

At this point, as a US player...your pretty much taking a big risk no matter where you play

Click to expand...

Yeah, the way it is going. Pretty crappy for US Players getting the shaft from crappy sites.

Bovada looks like the #1 favorite at this point, with WPN Network a fading 2nd (cause of 1999 software). I don't care much for the other options at the moment although a weak 3rd for Carbon

I mean I was on BCP pre-merge break up and it wasn't too bad. Now, the only place to get games going at like 50+ is lock, so I'm kind of stuck there now

Bovada anonymous just seems so lolbad for grinders

Can't wait for legislation! lol

WVHillbilly said:

I don't even understand the move??? So are you saying someone on Lock at 200nl can only play with other Lock players but not a player on say Juicy stakes? If so it sounds like a rake grab to me. Most likely the other skins wanted an equal share of rake from those games without bringing many players to the table.

Click to expand...

Lock money is selling at 60% if you're lucky, mainly because of the fact that it takes months to get just a 2.5k cashout, even if you don't live in the USA. For this reason, almost no winning hsnl players were playing 1/2+ on lock. Lock would advertise to fish, get them to deposit because they don't know that if they do try to cashout it will take months or even a year+ if they have a decent amount on, and then this money was generally flowing to other networks.

Meanwhile there are rumors (that seem pretty right on the money tbh) that Lock is having liquidity problems. If they can even get a few grinders to move their rolls over to Lock to take advantage of the juicy games, there's that much more of an interest-free loan and they can deal with paying out at a later point. We could take the pessimistic route and say that eventually they'll just run, or the optimistic route and say they're simply dealing with short-term liquidity problems and trying to rectify it and become a stable functioning legit poker site in the future, but it's pretty clear that right now they're far from the up and up.

On another note I was drinking with a guy who used to be a lock pro a few weeks ago and he basically said stay the **** away that lock as a company is just shady as ****.

So needless to say I wouldn't play on Lock whether you're an American or from out of the US.