So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

SO yes yes we all know whats happening, and depending on the wording in the bill could be a great thing IE....Just CC's, or the very worst any and all banking transactions. But as another poster brought up there is one little known way of getting money online.........phone cards. How in the heck would you stop a phone card? Also as we know most fish never make a withdrawl, but if you do I would imagine it would become a "get your check in 5 days or less" type of thing.

I think poker sites would come up with an out, before the DOJ even finalized enforcement.

Just my 2 cents

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

The problem isn't that we couldn't play poker.

The problem is that random donks are not going to do this in order to play. So the game won't be as profitable, and we won't make any/as much money.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

I am amazed that there are still people who think that this online poker ban would be no big deal.

It's not only banking tranasctions that would be affected. The law would allow the government to require all internet service providers to block access to online poker sites. Even if it didn't, no online poker site would allow Americans to play there if this bill becomes law, because their execs wouldn't want to be indicted and sent to prison in the United States, like the online sportsbook execs who were recently indicted.

If this bill becomes law, online poker will cease to exist in the United States, whether you want to believe it or not.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Banks dont screw around with legislation. This will be enforced with vigor. They are not going to let people fund netteller or other accounts. Not to mention ISP's will block the poker sites.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Banks dont screw around with legislation. This will be enforced with vigor. They are not going to let people fund netteller or other accounts. Not to mention ISP's will block the poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

blocking neteller?? so you'll be able to fund thru paypal or some other middleman/other neteller. This i believe is more to make it tougher for people to place wagers/minor to gambel.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this bill becomes law, online poker will cease to exist in the United States, whether you want to believe it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really believe WPEX is going to ban US players for fear of being arrested? Hell no. I doubt that they will be the only ones. Will=way. Money=will.

I also believe that many fish will continue to play, new fish will continue to come in. We all made it through the same process of wondering how legit this whole thing is, and slowly but surely the new work arounds will be tested and pass, the word will spread, poker will survive. A huge setback for sure, but I think it will survive in the US. Maybe misplaced optimism, but I don't see why anyone motivated to play wouldn't jump a couple hoops again, they have once already, before they fell in love with the game (or the action...these guys come back for sure).

My 2.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Ok the people who replied to this post say junk about neteller......reread what I said good lord its like you didn't even read anything. How can a bank stop you from buying a phone card?....they can't....how could they stop you from buying say a gift card.......they can't etc. etc. etc. Party Poker already has numerous strange alternatices too funding your account. Oh and the dummy talking about banning ISP's........that bill is already dead and stalled get with the news and then comment.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Indeed this is very scary. At the same time there are SO many Americans playing its hard to imagine internet poker just vanishing in the U.S. Although I am worried, luckily i have a fiance who is from Costa Rica and we will move their if i cant play in the U.S.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and the dummy talking about banning ISP's........that bill is already dead and stalled get with the news and then comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, the one calling others names is the real idiot. LOL

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

in all honesty, I dont see ISPs ever banning poker sites. That would be inviting insane amounts of trouble. to censor the internet would only piss a certain sub-culture off. I dont think we have to worry about that ever.


Also, from what I understand, that part of the bill did get left behind in favor of getting the Leach Bill attached to the DOD authorization.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

If your ISP blocks access to a site, you need to run through a proxy. This will enable to visit any website you please without your ISP knowing...and its perfectly legal. Will the fish do this? Probably not, but will the ISP thing stop any of us from playing? Nope. There may be other issues, but this one is irrelevant.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Banks dont screw around with legislation. This will be enforced with vigor. They are not going to let people fund netteller or other accounts. Not to mention ISP's will block the poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banks aren't going to be defining the "grey areas" of what is gambling and what is not. They do what they have to and that's that.

If a financial institution starts placing unneeded restrictions on where your money can't go, there are tens of thousands of other places to take your business.

Bank competition is very cut-throat nowadays and deposits are getting harder and harder to get. There is no way they risk losing customers needlessly.

If the government says no neteller, that's a different story, but I just don't see that happening, truth be told.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a proposed law I don't think the government would label Neteller a gambling site, at best it would be a very loose interpretation. That being said, neither would banks.

I am saying they aren't going to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off blocking everything that "could be" a gaming transaction.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a proposed law I don't think the government would label Neteller a gambling site, at best it would be a very loose interpretation. That being said, neither would banks.

I am saying they aren't going to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off blocking everything that "could be" a gaming transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing any of this. You're just pulling it out of your rear-end. LOL

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a proposed law I don't think the government would label Neteller a gambling site, at best it would be a very loose interpretation. That being said, neither would banks.

I am saying they aren't going to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off blocking everything that "could be" a gaming transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing any of this. You're just pulling it out of your rear-end. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really see a list like coming out for online gambling?

OFAC list

Although necessary, the additional costs to uphold this are enormous! I just can't see a gambling version at this point in time.

There will be some very very negative effects for consumers (I am talking even about non-gambling consumers) if this happens.

I am not pulling this out of my rear end, but rather banking compliance publications.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

You'll have to excuse leaven owl, he doesn't live in this little land we like to call reality. He believes that any and every transaction is going to be examined by magical elves who work for free during the night, and everything is magically done by morning......needless to say all of these arguements are mute as it doesn't address my original question. How would a bank stop you from buying a phone card? If they can't stop you then they can't stop poker since at PP you can already use phone cards to fund your account. I'm sure it wouldn't take much more than a week for other sites to follow suit if this was the only way.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

You are 100% correct, the methods of funding and payees is an ever changing thing. Transactions come over with very limited information with non-gambling payees and codes that don't clearly spell out "GAMBLING". For example take these gaming transactions:

MCG Shop Electronic Stores
MXPay Uncoded
Norestom Direct Marketing Catalog

I am not sure if anyone thinks that this would be very easy, but it sure as hell isn't.

You start blocking what you think you should and you have very pissed off customers who need money for various things, sometimes for emergencies. Not many banks have call centers open at 3:00AM [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And actually debit/credit cards are the easiest thing to monitor. Checks have much deeper issues to cut through.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Keep dreaming. LOL

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep dreaming. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for another well-informed, substantive post.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep dreaming. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide more information. I am unsure where your beef is?

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

This thread is asinine. All of you.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

So your theory is that the banks will ignore the law because it is too complicated for them to keep up with? Wow.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So your theory is that the banks will ignore the law because it is too complicated for them to keep up with? Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means "be unable to enforce" rather than "ignore".

Importing absinthe into the US is unambiguously illegal, yet you can order some online today and have it delivered to your home next week.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Banking system is not structured to deal with this, to attempt to enforce this law would require alot of guess work!

Further the number of banks are shrinking week by week due to various burdens they are unable to overcome, some regulatory, some technology based, and some economic.

There is a significant amount of banks getting their asses handed to them by the government regulators for not tracking terrorists to a high enough standard. They have been unable to even perform this and are struggling to keep their head above water with just that.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Banking system is not currently structured to deal with this. Further the number of banks are shrinking week by week due to various burdens they are unable to overcome, some regulatory, some technology based, and some economic.

There is a significant amount of banks getting their asses handed to them by the government regulators for not tracking terrorists to a high enough standard. They have been unable to even perform this and are struggling to keep their head above water with just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why the banks are opposed to this bill, but I can assure you that they will comply with it if it becomes law. It is ridiculous for you to suggest that they won't.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banking system is not currently structured to deal with this. Further the number of banks are shrinking week by week due to various burdens they are unable to overcome, some regulatory, some technology based, and some economic.

There is a significant amount of banks getting their asses handed to them by the government regulators for not tracking terrorists to a high enough standard. They have been unable to even perform this and are struggling to keep their head above water with just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why the banks are opposed to this bill, but I can assure you that they will comply with it if it becomes law. It is ridiculous for you to suggest that they won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will do their best to comply. IMO, (I have banking operations experience) they won't be able to stop the flow of money to the offshore sites. Certainly, they'll slow it but they won't be able to stop it.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

There are perfectly legal ways around the financial blocks even if banks can successfully and completely shutdown transfers to sites/neteller and, for that matter, there are ways around the ISP blocks. There are two issues here though:

1. The sites might not take business from US customers. I THINK that the bigger sites would probably ignore this/find a way to get by, but the distinct possibility remains, as Lawman would tell you, that the sites won't accept American business at all.

2. If anything passes and there is even a perception that online poker is illegal, the fish population will decrease severely. Providing that its still possible for us to play, the games will not be as profitable. This is the major issue in my view.

Cliffnotes - ANY anti gambling legislation passing = very, very bad

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

I agree with you completely. I just wanted to point out that Lawman is overstating the banks capabilities. I seriously doubt that online gambling will cease to exist in the United States. There's just too much money involved for everybody to just walk away from it.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are perfectly legal ways around the financial blocks even if banks can successfully and completely shutdown transfers to sites/neteller and, for that matter, there are ways around the ISP blocks. There are two issues here though:

1. The sites might not take business from US customers. I THINK that the bigger sites would probably ignore this/find a way to get by, but the distinct possibility remains, as Lawman would tell you, that the sites won't accept American business at all.

2. If anything passes and there is even a perception that online poker is illegal, the fish population will decrease severely. Providing that its still possible for us to play, the games will not be as profitable. This is the major issue in my view.

Cliffnotes - ANY anti gambling legislation passing = very, very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, Dude. Just some comments,

1)I doubt they'd shut out US customers if there are workarounds due to the money involved. Sites get a few billion a year from the US? They'll look for a workaround and get the word out, billions beats possible jail time for CEO's almost every time.

2) I agree the fish pop wil decrease somewhat but...
a)some good players will also quit due to fear of the US gov.
b)Some fish won't care. They enjoy poker or they think they're winners.
c)DLing music and movies is also illegal and individual DLers have been sued for DLing. Hasn't been stopped.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed this is very scary. At the same time there are SO many Americans playing its hard to imagine internet poker just vanishing in the U.S. Although I am worried, luckily i have a fiance who is from Costa Rica and we will move their if i cant play in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine the issue isnt that if you really want to you cant play online poker anywhere in the US, where theres a will theres a way and the grinders will still probably be there, thing is the games will die because the shark/fish ratio will be way off and it will just become unprofitable. That was my understanding of the situation anyways, I dont know what the new language of the current threat is though.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are perfectly legal ways around the financial blocks even if banks can successfully and completely shutdown transfers to sites/neteller and, for that matter, there are ways around the ISP blocks. There are two issues here though:

1. The sites might not take business from US customers. I THINK that the bigger sites would probably ignore this/find a way to get by, but the distinct possibility remains, as Lawman would tell you, that the sites won't accept American business at all.

2. If anything passes and there is even a perception that online poker is illegal, the fish population will decrease severely. Providing that its still possible for us to play, the games will not be as profitable. This is the major issue in my view.

Cliffnotes - ANY anti gambling legislation passing = very, very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, Dude. Just some comments,

1)I doubt they'd shut out US customers if there are workarounds due to the money involved. Sites get a few billion a year from the US? They'll look for a workaround and get the word out, billions beats possible jail time for CEO's almost every time.

2) I agree the fish pop wil decrease somewhat but...
a)some good players will also quit due to fear of the US gov.
b)Some fish won't care. They enjoy poker or they think they're winners.
c)DLing music and movies is also illegal and individual DLers have been sued for DLing. Hasn't been stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

d) Not all fish are American. Still plenty of fishies out there to catch for those of us in the US with access to proxy servers and bank accounts we opened in the Turks and Caicos the last time we visited our in-laws' family in Nassau. :-P

This proposed "ban" will not stop me from playing, for those reasons. The games will become a bit less profitable, but there are still going to be plenty of bad European/Asian/Australian players out there for the good players to feast on. Eventually, the poker sites will figure out a way around any legislation Congress might pass, and I plan on ignoring it in any event. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

--Scott

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Please everyone note that Lawman007 is up to his old tricks again. He is a domesayer that has never offered anything other than reactionary foolishness. It almost seems as if he'd like the ban to go though soo he could say I told you so to everyone.

For anyone who is interested in the best analysis of the current situation, I suggest you refer to posts from Mr K and NatethaGreat and ignore the speculative garbage (either end of the spectrum) that occupies most of these legislation strings.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He is a domesayer

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that anything like a doomsayer, Einstein? LOL

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't that we couldn't play poker.



[/ QUOTE ]


Uhhh actually this is a problem.

There will always be fish. Europeans, asians, canadians, hard core americans.

Remember, a fish is the weakest player on the table. So at a table full of big name pros like phil ivey etc, you become the fish.

Who says online poker isnt going to remain profitable for me and others? You cant make that judgement, so please just stick to answering the question that was asked.

"the fish will be gone", ive heard 10000000001 times, and its getting really old.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

No the fish won't be gone, but I'd rather someone else be the fish and not me...get the idea?

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No the fish won't be gone, but I'd rather someone else be the fish and not me...get the idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL nh, sir

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

If player base decreases how would poker sites get players to sign up and play more, bonuses and higher rakeback. These sites make a ton and can still give back alot more then they do and still be rich.

Re: So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?
 

Can someone change Lawman's title to "Biggest troll on 2+2"?