Lock Casino - heads up

[Krasa]

Oh, God....

 

[hitobito2005]

This is all indicative of more than a processor problem. No communication is rogue.

Agreed.

If it was just a processor problem they should be providing regular updates to those who are still owed money, as well as (honest) timescales.

As it happens i've always had to initiate contact over this matter and the last I heard from them was over 3 weeks ago. Elka hasn't even logged into this forum since 2nd August. This is what she told me on the 1st:

You will definitely receive your funds but unfortunately it is slow coming. I am checking in daily with payments and I will personally try and expidite yours. You are on the top of the remaining list we have.

 

[Nifty29]

Apart from not paying winners, another ugly element of this situation is that they have obviously been stringing Bryan and Max along as well - obviously in an attempt to buy more time to fill their accounts with more deposits.

It seems very clear now that Lock are completely untrustworthy.

Everyone here knows that I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I must admit that I am re-evaluating the whole Pulver situation in a different light. I mean, who is to say that Lock werent having financial difficulties earlier than it was uncovered here at CM? Was the whole 'investigation' of Pulver just an excuse to delay payment of a very large win, knowing that they couldnt cover it? We were told it was because 'all of Pulvers funds were held by a processor who ran off into the night'....I wasnt 100% convinced about that explanation at the time (but I accepted it as they had assured Bryan) and I am far less convinced about it now. Lock also said they couldnt verify his identity....well Im sorry but it doesnt take weeks and weeks to confirm his ID. In the end a PI was sent to his address and it was all cleared up - well IMO this should have been done far earlier. Initially I thought it was incompetence, but again I am looking at it in a different light.

I may well be completely off track, but something doesnt smell right about all of this.

At the end of the day, I believe that CM should look at the facts here as they stand - players arent being paid, they arent being contacted, and the casino continues to trade as if nothing is wrong (exposing even more players to more of the same).

All I know that if someone posted here that "Virtual Casino wont pay me and they wont answer my emails" then most people would be saying "Yeah well thats what happens when you deal with a Rogue etc etc".

There is no difference between what Lock are doing now and what other Rogue's have done to countless players in the past.

IMO it is time for Lock to descend to The Pit.

 

[maxd]

Was the whole 'investigation' of Pulver just an excuse to delay payment of a very large win ....

No, there was more than sufficient evidence to justify the investigation into that case. We have third-party corroboration of that, some of it pre-dating the Lock issue.

Elka hasn't even logged into this forum since 2nd August.

Maybe so, but PeteLock the Affiliate Manager was on site this past Friday (the 20th). Elka is part of top management at Lock so if they've got issues they're dealing with she may be otherwise occupied.

No communication is rogue.

Please look at the Rogue section again. Casinos are listed there because "these casinos are guilty of gross customer negligence bordering on the criminal." Obviously opinions will differ but delayed communications is a long way from "gross customer negligence". There are a number of highly respected casino groups that take their time in responding as a matter of course. Sure it's annoying and even a PITA sometimes but it's generally not a Rogue-able offense.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't buy it. Liqquid_Fusion was told on the 1st of August:-

You will definitely receive your funds but unfortunately it is slow coming. I am checking in daily with payments and I will personally try and expidite yours. You are on the top of the remaining list we have.

This HAS to be complete bullshit. No way has a SOLVENT casino not been processing ANY payment on their "list" since August 1st. They have been unable to put together $2000 between the 1st and yesterday to pay a UK player by eWallet.

Lock are being rather evasive about all of this, breaking timescale promises one after the other, and often ignoring players. It is NOT just top management that have "too much on their plate" to quickly respond to queries. What about normal CS, whose SOLE FUNCTION is to deal with players. THEY should be replying to emails, even if such reply is to tell the player there are further delays.

If players are still depositing, and subsequently get "burned", they will blame portals that even appeared to downplay the problems.

The big problem with RTG casinos is that they are not regulated properly, and can simply disappear without leaving any redress for players.

With problems this severe, Lock should NOT be currently accepting new players, and probably should NOT even be letting existing players (who are probably aware of the delays) continue depositing.


I see NO "non-severe" reason why liqquid_fusion has waited so many MONTHS for a trifling $2000 payment. Even the Virtual casinos pay faster when constantly badgered (1 month to 2 months). It is even MORE worrying that this HIGH PROFILE case has been allowed to blight their reputation, rather than them quickly expediting this $2000 payment just so that Liquuid_fusion can at least post "Lock have finally paid me".

 

[Nifty29]

No, there was more than sufficient evidence to justify the investigation into that case. We have third-party corroboration of that, some of it pre-dating the Lock issue.

OK - fair enough....but can you at least see how it might cause one to re-think some past events given that Lock has failed to live up to any of it's promises to unpaid players? As I said, you know Im not a conspiracy man but when Lock arent being forthcoming and honest with yourself and Bryan in regards to payments then it calls into question everything else they have told you, and us, previously.

It surely must be more than a concern that they havent been able to raise suffucient funds to this point to cover payments owed. Lock also continues to function and presumably pay new winners (or they would be out of business completely) ahead of those they already owe, and that must be a kick in the goolies for those aggrieved players.

 

[elscrabinda]

Out of interest, how many people have been told they're at #1 in the payout queue?

 

[hitobito2005]

STOP PRESS: Just had a PM from Elka saying i'll be sent some kind of payment (partial or otherwise, a full payment would be $2000) in the next 7 business days so that gives them until 1st September.

The dealine for my last promised payment expired almost a month ago and nothing materialised.

If this one fails they should definately 100% be thrown in the rogue pit, tbh i'm shocked that they are not already. Their practise cannot be defended. I've not been paid for 3 months and they are still accepting deposits and their site tells nothing of their problems. They should be closed until all payments are settled.

 

[takethemoney]

No, there was more than sufficient evidence to justify the investigation into that case. We have third-party corroboration of that, some of it pre-dating the Lock issue.



Maybe so, but PeteLock the Affiliate Manager was on site this past Friday (the 20th). Elka is part of top management at Lock so if they've got issues they're dealing with she may be otherwise occupied.



Please look at the Rogue section again. Casinos are listed there because "these casinos are guilty of gross customer negligence bordering on the criminal." Obviously opinions will differ but delayed communications is a long way from "gross customer negligence". There are a number of highly respected casino groups that take their time in responding as a matter of course. Sure it's annoying and even a PITA sometimes but it's generally not a Rogue-able offense.

Max, please stop it and call it what it is! I don't know if these guys are friends of yours or what, but please look at their behavior overall and be real here. It's obvious to me and the rest of the membership here that you are being lighter with them than you would with others, had they done the same things. I understand they "were" a good casino for a time. Nobody wants egg on their face and nobody wants to be told "I told you so". Call it what it is and lets move on.

 

[slotjunkie]

It is VERY sad and unfair to the good casinos that Lock is able to get away with this behavior and still be considered an "ok" casino with CM!!!

They should definitely be and should of been rogued! If/when they prove they are ready to operate as an accredited casino then they can be removed and re-accredited, PERIOD!!!!

 

[all4greed]

STOP PRESS: Just had a PM from Elka saying i'll be sent some kind of payment (partial or otherwise, a full payment would be $2000) in the next 7 business days so that gives them until 1st September.

How unprofessional can you get? They can't tell you exactly what it will be? Will it be $1 or the whole amount? Are you supposed to contact a psychic for the answer?

Outrageously horrible communication.

 

[takethemoney]

How unprofessional can you get? They can't tell you exactly what it will be? Will it be $1 or the whole amount? Are you supposed to contact a psychic for the answer?

Outrageously horrible communication.

They'd better not get another pass for this.

 

[hitobito2005]

How unprofessional can you get? They can't tell you exactly what it will be? Will it be $1 or the whole amount? Are you supposed to contact a psychic for the answer?

Outrageously horrible communication.

All I was told was "there will be some form of payment sent to you over the next 7 business days. It might be a partial payment but something will be sent."

I'm not holding my breath.

Please look at the Rogue section again. Casinos are listed there because "these casinos are guilty of gross customer negligence bordering on the criminal." Obviously opinions will differ but delayed communications is a long way from "gross customer negligence". There are a number of highly respected casino groups that take their time in responding as a matter of course. Sure it's annoying and even a PITA sometimes but it's generally not a Rogue-able offense.

They are taking delayed communication to the extreme. Weeks have passed without communication. Even if they're so extremely busy they could formulate a round-robin email to all their patient customers to apologise again and tell them exactly what is happening.

Anyway, there are more serious reasons to rogue them:

• Promising a timescale for payment and then not paying me within the time stated and ignoring emails asking what is happening
• No payment for 3 months but website still up and running, taking deposits, appearing business as usual
• I've never been in dispute with the casino, am a UK player depositing/withdrawing with Neteller and have never claimed a bonus and am only withdrawing $2000 which is not much in the grand scheme of things

 

[maxd]

Max, please stop it and call it what it is!

I was and will point out false statements or accusations made against us and/or them. It baffles me how that somehow translates into the carte blanche which some people insist on accusing me of.

If you bothered to read what I said recently you'd see that I said nothing whatever about the delayed payments which are, obviously, regrettable and worrisome, as I have stated before.

It is possible to correct false statements and be concerned about their ability to pay their customers. These are not mutually exclusive issues.

 

[jelsmith]

They just need to be rogued period.

 

[Krasa]

They are withholding my winnings since March (!!).
I would like deep investigations, but they aren't happening. I won 2500 on blackjack there. I was told by CS I'll be payed, on several occasions, then by casino rep here (Elka) after she took a look, that I'll be payed, and nothing. Then they've then gradually stopped answering me.

On one and only one occasion they slipped and emailed me something that might be of use. The reason is I'm accused of dupe accounts and "proof" is Moneybookers. I sometimes use my cards online and sometimes Moneybookers, and at Lock I used MB. My MB is a reffered e-wallet account - and that is supposed to be the evidence. I think they're having financial difficulties and that's why they try this.
I would like investigations to be as deep as possible. I have nothing to hide. If I'd thought reffered MB would be a problem, I would've used one of my cards.

I am still fighting, waiting for them to respond to CDS. They aren't responding to them at the moment. And reading this all I think I know why.

 

[diamondale]

Not good at all

They are withholding my winnings since March (!!).
I would like deep investigations, but they aren't happening. I won 2500 on blackjack there. I was told by CS I'll be payed, on several occasions, then by casino rep here (Elka) after she took a look, that I'll be payed, and nothing. Then they've then gradually stopped answering me.

On one and only one occasion they slipped and emailed me something that might be of use. The reason is I'm accused of dupe accounts and "proof" is Moneybookers. I sometimes use my cards online and sometimes Moneybookers, and at Lock I used MB. My MB is a reffered e-wallet account - and that is supposed to be the evidence. I think they're having financial difficulties and that's why they try this.
I would like investigations to be as deep as possible. I have nothing to hide. If I'd thought reffered MB would be a problem, I would've used one of my cards.

I am still fighting, waiting for them to respond to CDS. They aren't responding to them at the moment. And reading this all I think I know why.

I think there closing up shop and trying to get as much money as they can to get out and recover what they lost thats why your not getting any funds they need to recover theres first.To them we are just an atm and we are suckers that keep depositing.I stopped 3 months ago after this mess.They were reputable but they need to be rogued before they end up screwing us all.And people need to stop depositing there period we need to send a boycott to all forums online.

 

[takethemoney]

I was and will point out false statements or accusations made against us and/or them. It baffles me how that somehow translates into the carte blanche which some people insist on accusing me of.

If you bothered to read what I said recently you'd see that I said nothing whatever about the delayed payments which are, obviously, regrettable and worrisome, as I have stated before.

It is possible to correct false statements and be concerned about their ability to pay their customers. These are not mutually exclusive issues.

Sorry Max. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, but IMO and most of the other's around here, they are exhibiting rogue traits. Maybe we should start a poll and if the majority see them as rogue, then they get listed as such.
Not much sense in belaboring the inevitable. They are still not communicating and they are still not paying players who are owed money. When they communicate they don't do what they say they will do. How much clearer than that does it get?

 

[hitobito2005]

Max, can you please take a look at the bullet points in my post further up the page and explain why Lock not considered rogue taking these points into account?

 

[Krasa]

I think there closing up shop and trying to get as much money as they can to get out and recover what they lost thats why your not getting any funds they need to recover theres first.To them we are just an atm and we are suckers that keep depositing.I stopped 3 months ago after this mess.They were reputable but they need to be rogued before they end up screwing us all.And people need to stop depositing there period we need to send a boycott to all forums online.

Oh yeah I also forgot I routinely withdraw from MB to my bank account and vice versa. In my name. I guess my bank must be some weirdos for accepting me and believing I am me!
I just forgot about that earlier. I hope CDS will do a deep investigation like Bryan mentioned earlier, with all the computer data, ip data etc.

I agree with you, I think they're having problems, for sure. I hope they'll pull through (and that I'll finally get my money! ).

 

[smittytime]

Obviously there is some close relationship here between Lock and this site. Or so it would appear anyways. From my dealing with the PaB against lock it was pretty much a "take Lock's word for it" fiasco. I am ignorant as to how all this works but my assumption is that Lock pays you for a certain amount of time to be accredited or listed and there is still time owed on this? Forgive me if I am being too close of a looker at this but it reeks of injustice.
It cannot seem to be explained logically that they are NOT in the rogue pit. They are not playing players. They are seizing winnings (i.e. ME and others on this site have been kicked out with all winnings and deposits confiscated). They are unresponsive. They are doing nothing that deserves good mention. So how is it that they are STILL not rogued? It would appear to be that Max and/or Bryan are just not able to do it.
This is not a scathing, angry message. I am just trying to be logical and guess what the possible reason for the differential in treatment for this casino is. They should be burned at the stake. They are thieves and they have stolen from me and many others apparently. It looks very much like they plan on continuing that pattern.

 

[4 of a kind]

I hope CDS will do a deep investigation like Bryan mentioned earlier, with all the computer data, ip data etc.

You have no chance if your counting on CDS.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/jackpot-capitol-and-grande-vegas-issues.39606/

 

[maxd]

From my dealing with the PaB against lock it was pretty much a "take Lock's word for it" fiasco.

Untrue. In your PAB case we asked for and Lock provided us with their supporting evidence. As it happened there was substantial data connecting you to a large group of duplicate accounts. This evidence spanned some number of months and was significant enough that we supported Lock's decision against you.

You were told at the time what the situation was regarding the duplicate accounts and the evidence against you. For you to misrepresent that now as 'taking their word for it' is a gross distortion of the truth.

In fact the only defense you offered during the case was that you could prove your identity. That wasn't the point during the PAB, nor was it what got you into trouble with Lock in the first place. The point was that you were connected strongly connected to multiple accounts and, as you were told, the onus was on you to explain this to Lock.

I am ignorant as to how all this works but my assumption is that Lock pays you for a certain amount of time to be accredited or listed and there is still time owed on this?

Unfortunately your assumptions are quite wrong and your statement false, derived I assume from a groundless rumour started over a year ago. As has been said over and over here, no one pays to be Accredited. 'Time' is not bought. No money changes hands in order for a casino to be Accredited nor when they are de-listed. Many casinos wish it was as simple as that and some players assume it to be so but that does not mean there is a shred of truth to it, which there isn't.

Finally, your statement that there is 'obviously' a close connection between Lock and Casinomeister is also false, based I'm sure on my habit of defending Lock when false statements are made against them. That's my habit, for better or worse, not Casinomeister policy.

I believe if you look at what Bryan has said and done regarding Lock you will see that no such 'special relationship' pattern exists. As I'm sure you are aware Bryan is Casinomeister and sets all Casinomeister policies.

Max, can you please take a look at the bullet points in my post further up the page and explain why Lock not considered rogue taking these points into account?

I don't know the details of your issue nor have I heard Lock's side of the story. It would be irresponsible of me to make such a serious statement without a proper investigation into the case. If your troubles with Lock dated back to when they were Accredited then you are welcome to file a PAB and I will happily process your case.

 

[mattsgame]

you bring me to a question.

Untrue. In your PAB case we asked for and Lock provided us with their supporting evidence. As it happened there was substantial data connecting you to a large group of duplicate accounts. This evidence spanned some number of months and was significant enough that we supported Lock's decision against you.

You were told at the time what the situation was regarding the duplicate accounts and the evidence against you. For you to misrepresent that now as 'taking their word for it' is a gross distortion of the truth.

In fact the only defense you offered during the case was that you could prove your identity. That wasn't the point during the PAB, nor was it what got you into trouble with Lock in the first place. The point was that you were connected strongly connected to multiple accounts and, as you were told, the onus was on you to explain this to Lock.

This brings me to a question I have been pondering for a little while.

This is not against lock , player or Caisnomeister its a general question thats been bugging me.

I don't know how the pab process works inside and out.

But my question is, If a player can try to con/scam a casino whats to say a casino cannot con/scam a player?

A casino has all our personal information, our logs our i.p addresses they can say hey he/she opened up 5 different accounts but is not actually the case. i am not sure what is needed from the casino side to prove one has had different accounts but I'm sure it would not be hard at all for a casino to BS and say he used this i.p to sign up joe blogs, sam smith etc when in fact they have not.

This is just something I have been thinking about of late. I'm sure im way off track but food for thought.

Anyways sorry for the off topic.

Matt

 

[maxd]

This brings me to a question I have been pondering for a little while.... If a player can try to con/scam a casino whats to say a casino cannot con/scam a player?

Good question Matt. The short answer is that in the short term it's always possible. Much harder to pull off over a longer stretch.

In a one-off case there isn't much to stop a casino from falsifying records and presenting that to us. If they really wanted to cheat the process they could because the whole PAB system is based on trust and honour. But this it true of anyone: your grocery store clerk could scam you, or your pharmacist, your mailman, your wife or husband. Just because someone could scam you doesn't mean they are or will. There usually needs to be evidence to start making accusations.

The question we always ask is "does this make sense?" If a casino says a player who won $1M is an alien and the Terms ban winnings for aliens then we'd want a hell of a lot of supporting material because obviously it would be to the casino's great advantage to keep the $1M. If the player's winning were $15 on the other hand there's a lot less (obvious) incentive for the casino to bother.

Also we look at the casino's track record: Have there been a string of dodgy cases? Have we been satisfied with how previous cases were supported and documented? Is there a pattern to what the casino is doing? Are there unusual similarities between previous cases? Does the casino's case make sense? Are their conclusions reasonable and supported by the evidence?

If you're getting the impression that it's often a matter of judgment then you're getting the right picture. Is that less than perfect? Absolutely, but we're not a court nor the secret police. We're two guys doing the best we can. Reality is an unavoidable limitation on what we can and cannot do.

So, the bottom line is that a casino certainly could scam us on a case or two, maybe even three. But eventually we'd look deeper and harder into the cases and we'd probably sniff them out. We've busted casinos this way before and likely will again.

 

[mattsgame]

Thank you

Good question Matt. The short answer is that in the short term it's always possible. Much harder to pull off over a longer stretch.

In a one-off case there isn't much to stop a casino from falsifying records and presenting that to us. Obviously anyone can cheat the process the whole PAB system is based on trust and honour. But this it true of anyone: your grocery store clerk could scam you, or your pharmacist, your mailman, your wife or husband. Just because someone could scam you doesn't mean they are or will. There usually needs to be evidence to start making accusations.

The question we always ask is "does this make sense?" If a casino says a player who won $1M is an alien and the Terms ban winnings for aliens then we'd want a hell of a lot of supporting material because obviously it would be to the casino's great advantage to keep the $1M. If the player's winning were $15 on the other hand there's a lot less (obvious) incentive for the casino to bother.

Also we look at the casino's track record: Have there been a string of dodgy cases? Have we been satisfied with how previous cases were supported and documented? Is there a pattern to what the casino is doing? Are there unusual similarities between previous cases? Does the casino's case make sense? Are their conclusions reasonable and supported by the evidence?

If you're getting the impression that it's often a matter of judgment then you're getting the right picture. Is that less than perfect? Absolutely, but we're not a court nor the secret police. We're two guys doing the best we can. Reality is an unavoidable limitation on what we can and cannot do.

So, the bottom line is that a casino certainly could scam us on a case or two, maybe even three. But eventually we'd look deeper and harder into the cases and we'd probably sniff them out. We've busted casinos this way before and likely will again.

Excellent response, Thanks maxd that sums it up well. I along with 99% of the people here have faith in the pab system & appretiate what this site does for players

I guess my question was a little bit of the paranoid player coming out

Thanks again

Matt

 

[slotjunkie]

Untrue. In your PAB case we asked for and Lock provided us with their supporting evidence. As it happened there was substantial data connecting you to a large group of duplicate accounts. This evidence spanned some number of months and was significant enough that we supported Lock's decision against you.

You were told at the time what the situation was regarding the duplicate accounts and the evidence against you. For you to misrepresent that now as 'taking their word for it' is a gross distortion of the truth.

In fact the only defense you offered during the case was that you could prove your identity. That wasn't the point during the PAB, nor was it what got you into trouble with Lock in the first place. The point was that you were connected strongly connected to multiple accounts and, as you were told, the onus was on you to explain this to Lock.



Unfortunately your assumptions are quite wrong and your statement false, derived I assume from a groundless rumour started over a year ago. As has been said over and over here, no one pays to be Accredited. 'Time' is not bought. No money changes hands in order for a casino to be Accredited nor when they are de-listed. Many casinos wish it was as simple as that and some players assume it to be so but that does mean there is a shred of truth to it, which there is not.

Finally, your statement that there is 'obviously' a close connection between Lock and Casinomeister is also false, based I'm sure on my habit of defending Lock when false statements are made against them. That's my habit, for better or worse, not Casinomeister policy.

I believe if you look at what Bryan has said and done regarding Lock you will see that no such 'special relationship' pattern exists. As I'm sure you are aware Bryan is Casinomeister and sets all Casinomeister policies.



I don't know the details of your issue nor have I heard Lock's side of the story. It would be irresponsible of me to make such a serious statement without a proper investigation into the case. If your troubles with Lock dated back to when they were Accredited then you are welcome to file a PAB and I will happily process your case.

If you can easily come to their defense for the false accusations being said about them, than surely you should be able to as easily come to a decision of ROGUING for all the truths being said about them, which clearly are not accusations!!!!

 

[maxd]

If you can easily come to their defense for the false accusations being said about them, than surely you should be able to as easily come to a decision of ROGUING for all the truths being said about them, which clearly are not accusations!!!!

First of all I don't automatically believe that everything said about them is true. I'm sure there are some genuine cases in the grievances posted here and some that are less than genuine. From the PABs I've seen regarding Lock it's pretty clear to me that they are struggling but trying to do their best under the circumstances. That just my opinion, obviously the mileage of others will vary considerably.

That said the current lynch mob attitude regarding Lock is no grounds for Rogueing. There's a similar attitude about a few other (usually respected) casinos but that doesn't make them crooks or Rogues. IMO players are in a black mood these days and are saying a lot of things, some if it is legit stuff and some of it is just hateful ranting.

Finally I don't Rogue casinos, Bryan does. The strongest public statement I can make is a Casinomeister Warning which Bryan has already taken care of. If and when he believes that the evidence supports further action I'm sure he'll do what needs to be done. To be specific a Rogue listing is Bryan's decision, I'm typically not part of that process.

 

[Krasa]

Untrue. In your PAB case we asked for and Lock provided us with their supporting evidence. As it happened there was substantial data connecting you to a large group of duplicate accounts. This evidence spanned some number of months and was significant enough that we supported Lock's decision against you.

Well, in my case there can be no supporting evidence other than what I mentioned earlier, the fact that my MB was reffered to me (and they promote their reffer a friend program themselves!) and then I joined up that e-wallet.. and then later on chose that over my card to deposit to Lock, and my refferal played there, too..

That's the extent of "evidence" and apparently it was enough because they're in $$ trouble..

You have no chance if your counting on CDS.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/jackpot-capitol-and-grande-vegas-issues.39606/

There is always a chance.. I read Bryan saying they can (and do bother to) do deep investigations, with comp IDs, IPs, and I don't exactly remember what else, so that's why I'm hoping they'll manage...
If you know of any alternatives, I would definitely like to hear them, too!

From the PABs I've seen regarding Lock it's pretty clear to me that they are struggling but trying to do their best under the circumstances.

That's exactly it!

 

[maxd]

Well, in my case there can be no supporting evidence ....

No, in your case you were locked out for having multiple accounts, as you well know because I told you so in my last email to you. If there had been no evidence there would have been no such conclusion to the case.

 

[Krasa]

No, in your case you were locked out for having multiple accounts, as you well know because I told you so in my last email to you. If there had been no evidence there would have been no such conclusion to the case.

?
That's my point - there can be no evidence of multiple accounts because I do not have them. Just like I don't have a dozen linked ewallet accounts.
That's also why I've always been desiring further investigations of any kind (and told them about that dozen of times), which never happened and which I hope CDS will do.

The only thing they're trying to push as "evidence" (which I assume I only found out by accident, because they weren't replying at that point to my emails but one slipped) is a - reffered e-wallet. And possibly big blackjack bets. So then it's about - whether that is now grounds for denying me my winnings or not.

 

[hitobito2005]

I don't know the details of your issue nor have I heard Lock's side of the story. It would be irresponsible of me to make such a serious statement without a proper investigation into the case. If your troubles with Lock dated back to when they were Accredited then you are welcome to file a PAB and I will happily process your case.

Cheers, i've submitted a PAB for my case now.

 

[maxd]

The only thing they're trying to push as "evidence" ....

As it happens that is not true, there is supporting evidence unrelated to e-wallets.

Repeating "there is no evidence" does not change the fact that there is.

 

[takethemoney]

First of all I don't automatically believe that everything said about them is true. I'm sure there are some genuine cases in the grievances posted here and some that are less than genuine. From the PABs I've seen regarding Lock it's pretty clear to me that they are struggling but trying to do their best under the circumstances. That just my opinion, obviously the mileage of others will vary considerably.

That said the current lynch mob attitude regarding Lock is no grounds for Rogueing. There's a similar attitude about a few other (usually respected) casinos but that doesn't make them crooks or Rogues. IMO players are in a black mood these days and are saying a lot of things, some if it is legit stuff and some of it is just hateful ranting.

Finally I don't Rogue casinos, Bryan does. The strongest public statement I can make is a Casinomeister Warning which Bryan has already taken care of. If and when he believes that the evidence supports further action I'm sure he'll do what needs to be done. To be specific a Rogue listing is Bryan's decision, I'm typically not part of that process.

The last time Bryan gave input in this thread it was to say that Lock had not communicated with him in over 1 week. There have been no further updates from him. Whether Lock goes in the rogue pit or not, there has been enough information here that myself and most people who read these boards will not deposit there anyway. Who would knowing that if they won they probably won't get paid in a timely manner, if at all. It's kind of like the diseased small town prostitute. Nobody's going near it.

Unbelievable, Max! ? People see right through the crap that this casino is. It has nothing to do with lynch mobs, black moods or hatefulness. But, yeah, throw this casino's lack of performance right back on the membership......
It would sure help if you would try being a bit more respectful of the membership and stop insulting our intelligence. Call a spade a spade here!
If you want to ban me for having a difference of opinion, then so be it.

 

[maxd]

It would sure help if you would try being a bit more respectful of the membership and stop insulting our intelligence.

Sorry you feel that way, no disrespect nor insult intended.

On the other hand I deal with all kinds of player issues, all of them from members here, and a goodly percentage of them are scams and fraud. Given that, I think my reluctance to take everything posted here as gospel is perfectly understandable and reasonable. If you take offense at that I'm sorry to say that you are inventing offense where none was given.

Please notice that most of what I've posted here of late is corrections to false claims or statements made against Casinomeister, me and/or Lock. Again, there is no call to take offense at that, unless of course you were one of those posting such falsehoods. In that case, tough toodles.

If you want to ban me for having a difference of opinion, then so be it.

I think you have me mistaken for someone else somewhere else.

 

[maphesto]

On the other hand I deal with all kinds of player issues, all of them from members here, and a goodly percentage of them are scams and fraud. Given that I think my reluctance to take everything posted here as gospel is perfectly understandable and reasonable.

I am not sure here, but it might be a reason behind the fact that ALL player issues are from members here!

Spoiler

In order to submit claims via Casinomeister's "Pitch a Bitch", one must be a member of Casinomeister's forum. Couldn't resist, Max!

DERAIL/OT:

Max, how many PAB:s are submitted by new members and how many are submitted by "active" members?

END OF DERAIL

 

[slotjunkie]

First of all I don't automatically believe that everything said about them is true. I'm sure there are some genuine cases in the grievances posted here and some that are less than genuine. From the PABs I've seen regarding Lock it's pretty clear to me that they are struggling but trying to do their best under the circumstances. That just my opinion, obviously the mileage of others will vary considerably.

That said the current lynch mob attitude regarding Lock is no grounds for Rogueing. There's a similar attitude about a few other (usually respected) casinos but that doesn't make them crooks or Rogues. IMO players are in a black mood these days and are saying a lot of things, some if it is legit stuff and some of it is just hateful ranting.

Finally I don't Rogue casinos, Bryan does. The strongest public statement I can make is a Casinomeister Warning which Bryan has already taken care of. If and when he believes that the evidence supports further action I'm sure he'll do what needs to be done. To be specific a Rogue listing is Bryan's decision, I'm typically not part of that process.

Struggling and Their best...
*Ignored emails, *Non-payments, *Closed accounts (on what I believe are false pretenses, due to the fact that they can't pay, so they start making sh*t up when a player wins), *Failure to deliver on promised measly partial payments * Non-communication/explanation of why the promised payments weren't made
Struggling and Their best are a huge down play of the situation and I am sure an insult to the ones having to deal with this mess!

I would hate to see their worst! It's all BAD!

 

[maphesto]

I might be the only one who thinks like this but isn't these questions about putting Lock under Rogue a bit like beating a dead horse?

They are already in the Rogue Pit under "not recommended" and aren't all sane players avoiding those casinos listed there?

I still think they are rogue, but their worst trip is already done. I don't know if any casino so quickly has gone from accredited to "not recommended" as Lock has.

Anyone knows? Max?

 

[slotjunkie]

Sorry you feel that way, no disrespect nor insult intended.

On the other hand I deal with all kinds of player issues, all of them from members here, and a godly percentage of them are scams and fraud. Given that, I think my reluctance to take everything posted here as gospel is perfectly understandable and reasonable. If you take offense at that I'm sorry to say that you are inventing offense where none was given.

Please notice that most of what I've posted here of late is corrections to false claims or statements made against Casinomeister, me and/or Lock. Again, there is no call to take offense at that, unless of course you were one of those posting such falsehoods. In that case, tough toodles.



I think you have me mistaken for someone else somewhere else.

Can't be much more scamming and frauding then Lock Casino is doing itself...Still taking deposits w/o any concerns but soon as one wins then the casino scamming begins. No mention of the deep financial problems they are having
They should be CLOSED for deposits until further notice Where is their INTEGRITY!

Oh and by the way, I am not hateful or mad or in any type of funky mood. It just is what it is!

 

[maxd]

I am not sure here, but it might be a reason behind the fact that ALL player issues are from members here!

Quite so, my point was that I see a lot of stuff from Casinomeister members, new and old, and not all of it is worthy of respect. By extrapolation, not all members here deserve respect. Of course I'm thinking of the spammers, fraudsters, scammers, etc. I'm sure it's obvious but the ability to fill in the registration form does not guarantee anyone's virtue.

Max, how many PAB:s are submitted by new members and how many are submitted by "active" members?

Rough guess, 75% are from transient members: they come, drop a PAB, disappear for a while or forever.

I don't know if any casino so quickly has gone from accredited to "not recommended" as Lock has. ... Max?

Lock was TBF/Accred for about 6 months, give or take. I believe there have been some that only lasted a few weeks, though I'd have to dig around for the details.

 

[slotjunkie]

I might be the only one who thinks like this but isn't these questions about putting Lock under Rogue a bit like beating a dead horse?

They are already in the Rogue Pit under "not recommended" and aren't all sane players avoiding those casinos listed there?

I still think they are rogue, but their worst trip is already done. I don't know if any casino so quickly has gone from accredited to "not recommended" as Lock has.

Anyone knows? Max?

I do believe their is a difference or they wouldn't have two separate categories for the bad casinos!

My example of how I would equate them meaning:
Rogue= you will die (Definite)
Not recommended= you might die(questionable/a chance)

Probably not the best way to explain, but that is all that came to me at the time!

 

[maxd]

Struggling and Their best are a huge down play of the situation and I am sure an insult to the ones having to deal with this mess!

Need I remind you that (a) I am not defending Lock's late payments and (b) I have said time and time again that it is unfortunate, unbecoming and regrettable. To behave as if I have said otherwise is unfair and untrue.

Also note that I am still working on player issues to get them paid so I know full well that the situation is serious and damaging. We've made this clear to them and are doing what we can to see things through to a satisfactory conclusion.

However none of this makes them Rogues, it makes them "Not Recommended" which is exactly what they are.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It is clear that Lock do not have the means to pay their debts when they fall due, yet they CONTINUE TO TAKE DEPOSITS. Presumably, if players win from these new deposits, they too will find Lock unable to pay what is due.

It looks like Lock are RELYING on further deposits in order to settle outstanding payments.

Promises have to be broken when there are fewer deposits than expected, and upon which their promises were based.

Fewer deposits are the result of the warnings, and their continued inability to meet payments, even when promised.

IF they are SOLELY relying on future deposits to pay off these players that have waited weeks, if not months, disaster is inevitable, just as with a Ponzi scheme.

Unless Lock can secure additional funding, there is a high risk that they will fold, leaving players unpaid.

In the various discussions, has there been mention of further funding becoming available that could turn the situation around before the weight of bad PR and continued inability to meet payment promises brings them down for good?

No SANE player would deposit there, so the likes of Pulver and Liquuid_fusion are relying on the future deposits of the INSANE player in order to get paid.

Having said this, moving them into full rogue status should make no difference, since SANE players would not be playing there anyway, and the INSANE would carry on depositing even if they WERE moved into the main pit.

This situation would probably get LESS publicity if they HAD been dumped into the pit earlier, so players are probably MORE aware of the situation because of this debate.

 

[all4greed]

No SANE player would deposit there, so the likes of Pulver and Liquuid_fusion are relying on the future deposits of the INSANE player in order to get paid.

Having said this, moving them into full rogue status should make no difference, since SANE players would not be playing there anyway, and the INSANE would carry on depositing even if they WERE moved into the main pit.

This situation would probably get LESS publicity if they HAD been dumped into the pit earlier, so players are probably MORE aware of the situation because of this debate.

I wouldn't lump everyone playing there as insane since not every player reads casino forum websites or has personal knowledge of what is going on. That would be more in the naive category.

If Lock has no current way to pay current depositors and are stating they will pay in a certain time frame if that depositor wins, then Lock is operating fraudulently.

 

[smittytime]

Untrue. In your PAB case we asked for and Lock provided us with their supporting evidence. As it happened there was substantial data connecting you to a large group of duplicate accounts. This evidence spanned some number of months and was significant enough that we supported Lock's decision against you.

Yes TRUE. YOU are one of the worst representers of history that I have encountered. That is such a misrepresentation. You asked me for nothing, you took Locks supporting evidence (top secret I suppose?) and accepted it. Case closed.

You were told at the time what the situation was regarding the duplicate accounts and the evidence against you. For you to misrepresent that now as 'taking their word for it' is a gross distortion of the truth.

No. Misleading and distorted again Max. I was told "what the situation was"? uhhh.......NO. I was told that you believed Lock casino. You believed that I had multiple accounts. YOU NEVER GAVE ME ANY OF THE "EVIDENCE" AGAINST ME, NOR DID YOU ASK FOR ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY!!! You took their word for it without any counter information from me or any attempt to find the truth. Who is misrepresenting? You are.

In fact the only defense you offered during the case was that you could prove your identity. That wasn't the point during the PAB, nor was it what got you into trouble with Lock in the first place. The point was that you were connected strongly connected to multiple accounts and, as you were told, the onus was on you to explain this to Lock.

....and I contacted you and I contacted Lock explaining that I was willing to do anything, including going on webcam to show any proof that they wanted. YOU simply gave me the silly task of proving my innocence while finding me guilty. That is like a witch trial. I ask 'how do I do this' and nobody has an answer. I STILL want to know how to prove that I don't have multiple accounts. I DONT!!! and I would like to prove it. How Max? Instead of giving little snide remarks or inuendos how about coming up with a real idea. "The onus is on you to prove it"
.... well then you are a pedophile. Oh, you say your not? Well the onus is on you to prove it. Go ahead. Prove that your not a pedophile....
That is just stupid. I am telling you and lock that I don't have multiple accounts. I will give you my IP/Mac/ documents and anything else you want. My docs were APPROVED in February and I had gotten a payment previously and made deposits previously. Finally I get a big win and NOOOOOW I am a fraudster. Thats bunk and so is your lack of reasoning.

Finally, your statement that there is 'obviously' a close connection between Lock and Casinomeister is also false, based I'm sure on my habit of defending Lock when false statements are made against them. That's my habit, for better or worse, not Casinomeister policy.

You are definitely defending Lock. Very extremely so actually. You are defending them over what YOU & THEY say are false statements. Do you have proof? Likely not based on my experience with you. The onus is on YOU to prove that these statements are false.
Can't you see the point here? Can't you feel the betrayal and anger? You are defending this casino and we see right through it.

Also, I am not the only one. There have been several members getting booted. Read this thread again.
The testimony's in these threads ALONE gives me enough of the "proof" that you ask for max.

 

[maxd]

You asked me for nothing, you took Locks supporting evidence (top secret I suppose?) and accepted it.

If the evidence provided by the casino is conclusive and actionable what exactly is it I am supposed to ask you for? Nothing, because that's not how the process works. And there is nothing in the PAB process that should have given you any reason to believe otherwise.

Nor were you ever given any reason to believe that the evidence against you would be shared with you, again because that's not how the process works. FWIW the hard-core fraudsters are often the ones who push the hardest for this info, it's how they learn where they screwed up so they don't repeat their mistakes.

As to your promises to move heaven and earth to prove you are who you say you are I remind you that that is not and was never the issue, as previously stated (here):

In fact the only defense you offered during the case was that you could prove your identity. That wasn't the point during the PAB, nor was it what got you into trouble with Lock in the first place. The point was that you were connected strongly connected to multiple accounts and, as you were told, the onus was on you to explain this to Lock.

As to your personal insults and groundless accusations I'll keep my opinions to myself.

 

[all4greed]

PAB FAQ

Q: I'd like to see all of the communications that pass between Casinomeister and the casino. How do I do that?

A: You don't. The negotiation process is conducted privately between Casinomeister and the casino people. Often security and/or risk assessment issues are involved and that information is not available to anyone outside the Casinomeister-casino loop. The privacy of the process is a large part of what makes the process work. We'll let you know as soon as we have something for you.

Wow. I didn't know that.

So basically if the casino makes up some BS, you decide whether it's true or not but the player never knows the alleged facts behind the accusations?

 

[winbig]

from a bystander's point of view:

If a person doesn't know what the evidence is that's being used against them, how can they defend against it?

And on the other hand, how would Max, or anyone else know, if Lock (or any other casino) is feeding them a line of BS, as well as 'doctored' evidence?

 

[Tengil]

It is clear that Lock do not have the means to pay their debts when they fall due, yet they CONTINUE TO TAKE DEPOSITS. Presumably, if players win from these new deposits, they too will find Lock unable to pay what is due.

It looks like Lock are RELYING on further deposits in order to settle outstanding payments.

Promises have to be broken when there are fewer deposits than expected, and upon which their promises were based.

Fewer deposits are the result of the warnings, and their continued inability to meet payments, even when promised.

IF they are SOLELY relying on future deposits to pay off these players that have waited weeks, if not months, disaster is inevitable, just as with a Ponzi scheme.

Unless Lock can secure additional funding, there is a high risk that they will fold, leaving players unpaid.

In the various discussions, has there been mention of further funding becoming available that could turn the situation around before the weight of bad PR and continued inability to meet payment promises brings them down for good?

No SANE player would deposit there, so the likes of Pulver and Liquuid_fusion are relying on the future deposits of the INSANE player in order to get paid.

Having said this, moving them into full rogue status should make no difference, since SANE players would not be playing there anyway, and the INSANE would carry on depositing even if they WERE moved into the main pit.

This situation would probably get LESS publicity if they HAD been dumped into the pit earlier, so players are probably MORE aware of the situation because of this debate.

Similar to a Ponzi scheme as you said.

They should have done what Buzzluck did when things didnt go as expected. Pay the players and close the casino. Thats the way it should be done.

Its clear that they arent going to invest anything more in the casino. Serioulsy the amounts owed have been so ridiculously low its clear that they only try to squeeze out as much as possible from the brand.

Plus superaids to everyone who still promotes them.

 

[slotjunkie]

from a bystander's point of view:

If a person doesn't know what the evidence is that's being used against them, how can they defend against it?

And on the other hand, how would Max, or anyone else know, if Lock (or any other casino) is feeding them a line of BS, as well as 'doctored' evidence?

What difference does it make if they(CM) are not willing to look at the evidence of the player! Such BS!!!!!!!