| Posted by: VolFan64 at October 9, 2006, 11:09 am | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | Quasimodo63 wrote: I bet that this law will have no effect whatsoever on people's ability to play poker online. The only effect, although a big one, is that the publicly owned companies like Party have barred Americans.
???
You said there would be no affect and then you give one. I, for one, liked playing at the Crypto sites and Party.
Maybe this will all blow over soon and the sites will let USA back in. With my accounts being closed, maybe I'll qualify for new sign-up bonuses again.
VolFan64 | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bedofnails at October 9, 2006, 10:25 am | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | pikachu wrote: bedofnails wrote: pikachu wrote: Quasimodo63 wrote: Even though the U.S. is turning into the Evil Empire lately, I don' t see them singling out institutions that they believe are primarily gambling sites.
I agree, I don't think banks want to be in the business of determining/banning sites that are primarily doing financial transactions with gambling sites, especially where the UIGE only prohibits transactions with gambling sites. But we'll see when the banking regulations are promulgated.
Most credit unions already do this. They are "flagging" transactions all the time; sometimes resulting in a phone call to confirm the transaction or charge.
Why wouldn't a bank want to be in the business of acknowledging certain transactions to be illegal?
Transactions with financial transaction providers such as Neteller are not illegal under the UIGE. Under the UIGE, U.S. banks and credit cards only need to block gambling sites, ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: pikachu at October 9, 2006, 1:11 am | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | bedofnails wrote: pikachu wrote: Quasimodo63 wrote: Even though the U.S. is turning into the Evil Empire lately, I don' t see them singling out institutions that they believe are primarily gambling sites.
I agree, I don't think banks want to be in the business of determining/banning sites that are primarily doing financial transactions with gambling sites, especially where the UIGE only prohibits transactions with gambling sites. But we'll see when the banking regulations are promulgated.
Most credit unions already do this. They are "flagging" transactions all the time; sometimes resulting in a phone call to confirm the transaction or charge.
Why wouldn't a bank want to be in the business of acknowledging certain transactions to be illegal?
Transactions with financial transaction providers such as Neteller are not illegal under the UIGE. Under the UIGE, U.S. banks and credit cards only need to block gambling sites, which are easily recogn... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bedofnails at October 8, 2006, 7:46 pm | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | pikachu wrote: Quasimodo63 wrote: Even though the U.S. is turning into the Evil Empire lately, I don' t see them singling out institutions that they believe are primarily gambling sites.
I agree, I don't think banks want to be in the business of determining/banning sites that are primarily doing financial transactions with gambling sites, especially where the UIGE only prohibits transactions with gambling sites. But we'll see when the banking regulations are promulgated.
Most credit unions already do this. They are "flagging" transactions all the time; sometimes resulting in a phone call to confirm the transaction or charge.
Why wouldn't a bank want to be in the business of acknowledging certain transactions to be illegal?
_________________
fadedsignal | | Static Link |
| Posted by: pikachu at October 8, 2006, 6:12 pm | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | Quasimodo63 wrote: Even though the U.S. is turning into the Evil Empire lately, I don' t see them singling out institutions that they believe are primarily gambling sites.
I agree, I don't think banks want to be in the business of determining/banning sites that are primarily doing financial transactions with gambling sites, especially where the UIGE only prohibits transactions with gambling sites. But we'll see when the banking regulations are promulgated. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Quasimodo63 at October 8, 2006, 4:01 am | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | | Even though the U.S. is turning into the Evil Empire lately, I don' t see them singling out institutions that they believe are primarily gambling sites. I bet that this law will have no effect whatsoever on people's ability to play poker online. The only effect, although a big one, is that the publicly owned companies like Party have barred Americans. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: BigPoppa at October 7, 2006, 9:36 pm | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | It would be almost impossible to block transactions to any financial institution that transferred to gambling sites, since almost all banks and credit card companies outside the US do so.
They could, however, decide to arbitrarily single out institutions that they deem to be primarily in the gambling transfer business and block those.
_________________
"I want those motherfuckin' snakes off this motherfuckin' plane!" | | Static Link |
| Posted by: pikachu at October 7, 2006, 8:02 pm | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | It looks like Neteller will take the position that it is a financial transaction provider following the laws of its jurisdiction with regard to money transfers and that it is up to the transferor and transferee to determine whether they are following the law when making monetary transfers. The big question is whether the proposed banking regulations will block only gambling sites or include financial transaction providers that transfer money to gambling sites, such as Neteller. The UIGE only requires the blocking of gambling sites.
As for smaller privately owned sites, those are the ones that will remain open to players from the US once the bill is signed because they will risk taking the transactions and "gambling" that the DOJ won't come after them for arrest (and their owners probably will never set foot in the US). Most of the sites that have banned Americans are larger, publicly traded sites. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: IceboxCharlie at October 7, 2006, 6:57 pm | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | The good news is that Neteller is back up 10 on the market and in just the past few days Morgan Stanley and some other big companies bought a nice % of stock in them. I think that bodes well for Neteller, but whether they will continue to transfer money for us is another question.
_________________
Just for the record jumping my ass is -EV and the WR is a quadzillion and the HA is 99.9% | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bedofnails at October 7, 2006, 11:42 am | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | About a $60 million dollar shortfall in liquidity. Further hindered by depreciated and value loss of capital assets.
Advice, if you have money in Party - get it OUT NOW!
_________________
fadedsignal | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Grafter at October 7, 2006, 11:36 am | | Topic: Party over. Watch out for the hangover. Forum: Bonus Whores | http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116018480631785723-E7nqJqKei44PIzfxJ_qCG7gnerk_20061106.html?mod=mktw
The conventional wisdom seems to be to avoid the small sites at present, but the link is to a very long article that suggests among other things that Party doesn't have enough money to refund everyone if we all try to cashout at once, say next week for example.
Scary thought.
| | Static Link |
|