Lock Casino - heads up

[maxd]

I have not received any information from Lock about a payment plan.

As I said above, it's my understanding that they are planning to contact you and provide details. If they haven't by Monday then let me know because obviously I will have misunderstood their intentions.

 

[maphesto]

Payment Plan? What the heck is that about? Lock is listed as "None" under "Withdrawal Limitations" on the Accredited List here https://www.casinomeister.com/accredited-casinos/

Processor problems or not...why can't they just mail you a hard copy check to deposit at your bank for the entire amount?

I'm not liking the sound of this....

Still trying to light fires eh Rob? You know as well as anyone that (a) this player's payout is an exceptional circumstance and (b) the Casinomeister pages are not updated instantaneously. The telepathy edit feature doesn't work so well.

@Max:

I really think that you were too quick with your attack at RobWin here.

I didn't read the thread until now but I had written the same as Rob about the payment plan probably.

As I see it, and many other players see it, the list of accredited casinos works as a huge market place with info useful for us.
Obviusly Lock could not keep the promise about "no limitations" but this is not CM:s fault.
But you immidiately looked at it as yet another CM complaint.

Just as we "ordinary" members are adviced to ignore some posts or posters I advice you to ignore or at least wait a few minutes before you answer some posters.
RobWins post was not bad against Casinomeister or the accredited list.

 

[butterflyboogie]

Talk to Casinomeister or Max

Many of you may remember the case I had with a very late verification process with Lock Casino after my big win.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/pulver-vs-lock-casino.37869/

It has now been two monts since, and all I have received is $1500 (out of $19600). There have been many promises about wire transfers and Moneybookers transfers but so few results. The whole process has gotten me stressed up and fed up. I have been more than understanding and polite for months.

But here is the thing. Emily at payments suggested that I should transfer my balance (what is left after "wiretransfers" and "Mb tranfers" that are virtually in limbo have been taken out) to their pokerclient. Play some hands, and request a withdrawal from there. "As there are not the same processing issues in that chanel". I initally thought that sounded like a good idea, until I did a google search on the Merge poker network. And read on the 2+2 forum and other places that they are notorious for very late withdrawals and other problems.

What should I do? Should I just wait it out and hope that I some day will get paid, or should I transfer the money to the poker client?

Something is definately not right with this! I personally would turn this over to Max and Brian and let them try and get is straightened out for you. You won all that money and still after months don't have it???? That is definately not a good sign at all!! I always loved Lock at the beginning and then I couldn't win at anything. Rather than to start complaining I just simply backed off from there. I'm not saying I will never return, but I certainly won't until you are paid, and this processor thing is straightened out. Please keep us all posted on this situation. I wish you the best and hope you get your money soon!

 

[Pulver]

Something is definately not right with this! I personally would turn this over to Max and Brian and let them try and get is straightened out for you. You won all that money and still after months don't have it???? That is definately not a good sign at all!! I always loved Lock at the beginning and then I couldn't win at anything. Rather than to start complaining I just simply backed off from there. I'm not saying I will never return, but I certainly won't until you are paid, and this processor thing is straightened out. Please keep us all posted on this situation. I wish you the best and hope you get your money soon!

I did PAB, when the first thread was made, and the PAB is still open, but it has not resulted in me getting paid.

 

[kakata]

rather than "lock" ....its "lack" of funds....

 

[takethemoney]

rather than "lock" ....its "lack" of funds....

LOL...yes, Lack Casino.

 

[maxd]

I did PAB, when the first thread was made, and the PAB is still open, but it has not resulted in me getting paid.

I think you know full well that we're still working on this for you, and that you have received partial payment. Obviously that's not ideal but it's a far cry from nothing happening.

@Max: I really think that you were too quick with your attack at RobWin here.

The trouble is that Rob has been taking cheap pot-shots at Casinomeister on and off for a few months now, some of it really biting and damaging stuff. Often it's outright falsehoods that he knows full well are not based on even a shred of truth. It's basically vandalism and clearly intended to damage CM. It's unacceptable, at least in my eyes.

If I've jumped the gun on this specific instance then my bad, but the problem is real, it's there and it's on-going. Just look at the contempt and destructiveness in his response if you are looking for his true feelings. Whatever innocence he could claim in this specific case is pretty insignificant when you look at the bigger picture. IMO.

FWIW, these are just my thoughts on the subject, not official Casinomeister policy.

 

[chuchu59]

I can clearly feel a couple of posters trying to damage this forum's reputation through cheap pot-shots. Personally, I have no doubts on that.

Nevertheless, partial payment of $1.5K out of nearly $20K after more than a month is akin to what rogue casinos do and if there are more players experiencing delays in payment with no other reason other than the ole 'processor problem' these are signs of cashflow problems whether we like it or not.

 

[4 of a kind]

Nevertheless, partial payment of $1.5K out of nearly $20K after more than a month is akin to what rogue casinos do and if there are more players experiencing delays in payment with no other reason other than the ole 'processor problem' these are signs of cashflow problems whether we like it or not.

With no regulatory agency in place with online gaming, CM is one of the only sites that might have some persuasive pull.

This site (cm) based on Pulver's factual complaint should immediately have put Lock on the rocks until proven otherwise.

Why does an accredited casino here always get the innocent till proven guilty leverage.

Lock should be charged with rogue behavior till proven otherwise. And if their being given the benefit of the doubt resulting from internal financial problems, we should also be made aware of this instead of buying them time to recover. If their financially unstable now, it's only a matter of time till they go out with with even more players money.

Keep in mind that most online casinos can pack up and close the doors anytime they want running with players money, simply because they can with no consequences.

For a known guard-dog site I find attacking posters opinions rather then taking action is repulsive.

 

[4 of a kind]

Obviously that's not ideal but it's a far cry from nothing happening.

So how could they not be ideal, yet, presently be accredited?

 

[TOC]

Hmmm.

Good luck to the OP!

 

[takethemoney]

So how could they not be ideal, yet, presently be accredited?

There are several accredited casinos that shouldn't be. When these casinos remain accredited the program becomes a joke.

 

[TOC]

There are several accredited casinos that shouldn't be. When these casinos remain accredited the program becomes a joke.

And what's your website URL if you can do better?

 

[Pulver]

Max: Sorry for sounding rude, but I am in San Diego, I have gotten a cold from the F''ing airconditoner and I am fed up with having to fight for my money even on my vacation.

$1500 out of $19600 is 13% payment. Lock claims by their own T&C that they pay out $3000 a week. I would say 13% payment in nearly two months is pretty close to "nothing happening". Nevertheless, I am gratefull that you are on the case for me, it is just very stressfull having this amount of money "in limbo" for such a long time.

I have been pationed for weeks and weeks, I have said thank you to Lock's promises to send me wiretransfers and Moneybookers transfers, but when all I have received is $1500, even the most stoic person get worned down. I hope you understand.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

RobWins post was not bad against Casinomeister or the accredited list.

Agreed

 

[slotjunkie]

Max: Sorry for sounding rude, but I am in San Diego, I have gotten a cold from the F''ing airconditoner and I am fed up with having to fight for my money even on my vacation.

$1500 out of $19600 is 13% payment. Lock claims by their own T&C that they pay out $3000 a week. I would say 13% payment in nearly two months is pretty close to "nothing happening". Nevertheless, I am gratefull that you are on the case for me, it is just very stressfull having this amount of money "in limbo" for such a long time.

I have been pationed for weeks and weeks, I have said thank you to Lock's promises to send me wiretransfers and Moneybookers transfers, but when all I have received is $1500, even the most stoic person get worned down. I hope you understand.

Actually, it is only about 8%!!! You also have to remember the folks at LOCK are their friends, maybe they don't want to ruffle any feathers! Just my thoughts that I am entitled to! I hope they do the right thing by you!
In my mind what it boils down to is they don't have the money to pay you! There is no other logical explanation for you not having your money! Well other than them just being straight out ROGUE! Good Luck!!!

 

[maphesto]

Actually, it is only about 8%!!!

Exactly!

But a norwegian guy on vacation can easily mix the numbers up...

Good luck Pulver! Both on your vacation and your journey with Lock.

 

[kakata]

...the main problem now is...
if they (lock) get a place in the rogue list ( as they should IMO)...
they will have no more motivation left to pay Pulver..
.so we are not doing him a GREAT favor

 

[4 of a kind]

...the main problem now is...
if they (lock) get a place in the rogue list ( as they should IMO)...
they will have no more motivation left to pay Pulver..
.so we are not doing him a GREAT favor

If lock don't do right with the pressure from CM, he was screwed anyhow.

 

[Pulver]

LoL, I don't know how I got it to be 13%...A number of double captain&coke's have to take their blame I guess.

 

[winbig]

it's a sad day when an intermediary has to step in to get a player their money....

for a relatively small win, considering that the amount of money owed should only be pocket change for most casinos.

not like vegas, that's for sure....where they have to have enough cash on hand to cover any and all chips in play.

 

[maphesto]

I might be wrong here, but then correct me.

All my thoughts are based on the fact that Lock Casino probably can't pay Pulver his money right away and instead are trying to use a payment plan. If all this is a misunderstanding you can obviously ignore this post.

My thoughts are like this:

I don't think that Lock have the qualities that make them fit in on the rogue list... Yet!

A new casino, as Lock, can have good intentions but just don't have the money to back all promises up.
They definately had the intention to have NO weekly/monthly withdrawal limitations. We know that.

I belong to them who think that the bigger software types are fair and then the casinos always have the house edge of around 5% in the end.
BUT they can be extremely unlucky and have too many winners before they come over the first hill. You can call it naive as well.

A new casino have a lot of new customers who use welcome bonuses etc. at the same time as they don't have many regular customers.
The first year seems to be VERY hard to get through.
For example, we have several recent examples of serious casinos who throwed in the towel before one year passed : Nedplay, Grande Vegas, Goldvegas and Buzzluck.
All of these started with quick withdrawals and good support.

How to treat Lock now?

I don't have the full knowledge or insight but I sure have thoughts about it.
To make sure that the accredited list of casinos stay in shape they should be removed from there.

The list is to valuable to be set at risk for this. The other casinos on the list who infact have weekly withdrawal limitations or NO limitations can be damaged with the behaviour of Lock.
If Lock can stay on the list without actions, how will then the serious casinos with withdrawal limitations feel?

I have also seen how other casinos have been removed from the list and I miss them there.
I hope that everything is a misunderstanding and Pulver gets his money next week.

And for the record, I appreciate the accredited list and I use it a lot. Just wanted to add that to avoid confusions...

 

[4 of a kind]

I might be wrong here, but then correct me.

A new casino, as Lock, can have good intentions but just don't have the money to back all promises up.
They definately had the intention to have NO weekly/monthly withdrawal limitations. We know that.


BUT they can be extremely unlucky and have too many winners before they come over the first hill. You can call it naive as well.

A new casino have a lot of new customers who use welcome bonuses etc. at the same time as they don't have many regular customers.
The first year seems to be VERY hard to get through.
For example, we have several recent examples of serious casinos who throwed in the towel before one year passed : Nedplay, Grande Vegas, Goldvegas and Buzzluck.
All of these started with quick withdrawals and good support.

Maphesto,

My comments are also based on what only appears to be obvious, regardless even when and if Pulver gets paid.

You make some very fair points, but I think you also have to look at the other side of the coin.

If in fact they don’t have the money to back up all promises, sorry to say but this puts them in the Mickey Mouse theme park. If this were the first year of online gaming that might hold some water, but online casinos have been around over a decade already. Any launch of a new online casino in today’s throat cutting market should have been well advised. This would include being well aware of handing out bonuses to cover newbie’s and the chances of being unlucky early.

If they found themselves under financed early that’s even the more reason to put them on the rogue list. Who wants to deal with any casino that’s operating off the sweat of their testicles?

This is similar to a poker playing entering a 100/200 no limit game without the proper bankroll. He could win early, BUT.....

Maybe they should send an e-mail to Pulver asking him to wait till they win enough to pay him. I’m sure Pulver not getting paid would understand and give them another year to get on their feet if they need it. We’re talking peanuts here and already it’s a couple of months.

How would they respond if I told them I want to play with a $5,00.00 dollar marker, but if I lose I'll pay you back when I get it?

This is a perfect example of software companies willing to sell their programs to any body that walks through the doors, with the attitude of as long as they get theirs nothing else matters. This is the same attitude that leads to endless rogue operators.

This is also a perfect example of no regulation in place what so ever. Wherever they got their crackerjack popcorn box license, obviously issued it without any background checks, and would include no requirements for being financially sound and having an escarole account in place for these exact situations.

It's nice to have a concerning heart and feelings for all situations in life, but not when it comes to gambling and especially with casinos.

Sorry, but my opinion remains the same, ROGUE rating immediately regardless of Pulvers outcome till confidence is restored enough to recommend players there again.

Whatever reason caused Pulver's results are irrelevant. Pulver deposited in good faith and whatever caused this problem is now their problem and unfortunately became Pulver's problem. Why risk any other players being put in a similar scenario whatever the reason may be?

I do agree with your comments here, "To make sure that the accredited list of casinos stay in shape they should be removed from there."

 

[maphesto]

I just saw that Lock is removed from the accredited list!

If in fact they don’t have the money to back up all promises, sorry to say but this puts them in the Mickey Mouse theme park.

If they found themselves under financed early that’s even the more reason to put them on the rogue list. Who wants to deal with any casino that’s operating off the sweat of their testicles?

I understand your thoughts but I can't agree fully. You are very quick with your conclusions and you have gone one step further already.

1. We don't know how bad their financial situation is. They might have earned 4000$/week net before Pulver won? If they used those money to other investments/advertising instead of building a BIG bankroll to pay huge wins we can't call them a Mickey Mouse casino.

The promise of No weekly/monthly limitations was obviously hard to keep.
But if they work out a payment plan with extra money for Pulver (of course, when he deposited he thought it was No limitations on payments) and they can keep the plan they are back on track.


2. The rogue pit has several categories:

https://www.casinomeister.com/rogue-affiliate-programs/

As I see it, the rogue list is just too much before we know what they are offering Pulver. A warning is better. IMO.

3. If the rogue list grows too much other casinos aren't as afraid of ending up at that place anymore. Lock don't qualify..yet!

Sorry, but my opinion remains the same, ROGUE rating immediately regardless of Pulvers outcome till confidence is restored enough to recommend players there again.

There is a huge difference between pure rogue where it's evil or even worse stupidity involved.
You say that even if they pay him they should be listed as ROGUE?

I can't understand that.

Pulver deposited in good faith and whatever caused this problem is now their problem and unfortunately became Pulver's problem.

Yes!

And that's why they have to pay him more than he won. They couldn't keep the promise and they have to pay for it.
5% interest/month is fair in this case.
This is a huge interest but Pulver isn't a bank.

Why risk any other players being put in a similar scenario whatever the reason may be?

If they instead of No weekly limitations write 2000$/week as payment limitation no other player can be put in similar scenario.

Those who wants to have their money right away simply choose from the accredited list:

https://www.casinomeister.com/accredited-casinos/

 

[Casinomeister]

Hi All,

Lock Casino has been removed from the Accredited Section until the payment processing has been sorted out. In all fairness, they have been transparent about their situation and are doing what they can to set things right. I hope to see them back in full swing in the near future.