UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Network
 

I know you are all worried about the eWallet situation. What will happen with Neteller? Will ePassporte last? Can MyWebATM be trusted and will it last? What will be with Youteller? On and on. This is of course all valid, but of much more concern are the ACH/EFT networks. As you know these networks are used by all the eWallets to move your money to and from the pokersites. These networks are closely controlled and monitored. Very little gets by them. And to be cut off from these networks is death to any eWallet. Furthermore, despite what you may have heard, it is actually extremely easy to monitor and block transactions to and from poker, or any gambling site. With the huge amount of money transactions done by any eWallet serving the pokersites that wallet sticks out like a sore thumb to the monitors and can easily be blocked from doing any financial transactions to and from the sites. There is no way for the eWallets to avoid this. So the real questions here are: 1.) how long can any eWallet last now that we are in this new post UIGEA environment? ; 2.) How much risk are you willing to take moving your cash in and out of every new eWallet that springs up? ; 3.)How much worse will it get when the UIGEA really kicks in this June?

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Network
 

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is of course all valid, but of much more concern are the ACH/EFT networks. As you know these networks are used by all the eWallets to move your money to and from the pokersites.

[/ QUOTE ]
While this may or may not currently be trie it certainly doesn't have to be the case.
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, despite what you may have heard, it is actually extremely easy to monitor and block transactions to and from poker, or any gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy or hard is debateable. Inordinately expensive is not. Small banks cannptcomfortably absorb these costs and even ahuge bank would have to reassess keeping free checking if they were forced to proactivey monitor every transaction.

[ QUOTE ]
With the huge amount of money transactions done by any eWallet serving the pokersites that wallet sticks out like a sore thumb to the monitors and can easily be blocked from doing any financial transactions to and from the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are probably an order or magnitude or two off both in how many overall financial transactions and how few poker related transactions go on daily. Presuming that the volume of poker transactions would be enough to throw a flag is at best specious and at worst wholly ignorant.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]

While this may or may not currently be trie it certainly doesn't have to be the case.


[/ QUOTE ]

It does if you know anything about banking. Unless you use cash payments and/or physical checks any electronic transfer of money from a US bank to anywhere else will run over these networks.

[ QUOTE ]

Easy or hard is debateable. Inordinately expensive is not. Small banks cannptcomfortably absorb these costs and even ahuge bank would have to reassess keeping free checking if they were forced to proactivey monitor every transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that every bank in the US shut out Neteller in one afternoon, yeah? It's because they froze the ACH/EFT networks. Every small bank doesn't need to monitor every transaction. Small bank issues a EFT request over the ACH network and the ACH network says "Nope. Those dudes are gaming related. Transfer declined, little bank."

[ QUOTE ]

I think you are probably an order or magnitude or two off both in how many overall financial transactions and how few poker related transactions go on daily. Presuming that the volume of poker transactions would be enough to throw a flag is at best specious and at worst wholly ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because banks don't practice risk management, right? They would never have anything in place to measure unusual activity. Do you think you have to be doing billions of dollars to throw a red flag? I'm glad you don't handle risk management for my bank. :-)

Lots of small transactions can set a risk management system on alert too.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

As long as we can get paper checks we can get paid. There is never going to be a way for banks to stop paper checks as long as a 3rd party check processor is willing to write them.

Whether or not the quality of games holds up is a totally different story.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

For a while, banks wouldn't cash Bodog checks. And Stars' main check processor pulled out on them.

I don't know much about the industry, so let me ask: why can't banks simply start blocking 3rd party check processors that are known to do business with internet gambling sites?

An accurate post : Worry about the ACH/EFT reliance by ewallets
 

Gaboon hasa valid point. This is precisely what happened to Click2Pay with respect to their US business. (I am not saying Click2Pay is insolvent or that they will not pay everyone, just that it put an operational crimp in their m.o.)

There is a "new" third party EFT/ewallet popping up weekly, but consider what happens to your money or a site's ability to pay if it is tied to a fourth party ACH provider.

I like the OP's post because it strips down to the underlying money flow, a topic largely ignored.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]
For a while, banks wouldn't cash Bodog checks. And Stars' main check processor pulled out on them.

I don't know much about the industry, so let me ask: why can't banks simply start blocking 3rd party check processors that are known to do business with internet gambling sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 1)they likely won't be required to, 2)it'd take them too many resources, and 3)nobody is paying that much attention to *withdrawals*, it's the deposits that the legislation focuses on (and ewallets, of course, get screwed by this.)

Also, stopped clocks being right twice a day etc., gaboon is probably right that no ewallet is particularly long for this world if it deals with sportsbooks/poker's a gray area. But that doesn't really matter, because ewallets are a distant second for convenience to things like the WSEX debit card and others the sites are working on.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

The poker sites really need to just hook up everyone with an ATM that deposits and debits from their player account.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]

3)nobody is paying that much attention to *withdrawals*, it's the deposits that the legislation focuses on (and ewallets, of course, get screwed by this.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Is it feasible to have withraw only ewallets? If they are targetting deposits, and are not concerned with withdraws, why couldn't a company only allow outgoing transfers from sites?

I know the market is smaller, but this service is needed. I think the sites need to be pursuing a safe conduit for withdraws. The way they are doing it now, allowing deposits then withdraws, and only allowing withdraw through a conduit after a deposit has been made through that conduit, is killing the liklihood of ever having a stable withdraw medium. I can live with not being able to move money between sites easily, but I cannot live without being able to get my money with any certainty.

Also, the sites would do well to work together to form some mechanism of transfering money between sites. They should be able to do this, though it would require working together in an intelligent way to enefit their customers, so that pretty much dooms the idea.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

3)nobody is paying that much attention to *withdrawals*, it's the deposits that the legislation focuses on (and ewallets, of course, get screwed by this.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Is it feasible to have withraw only ewallets? If they are targetting deposits, and are not concerned with withdraws, why couldn't a company only allow outgoing transfers from sites?

I know the market is smaller, but this service is needed. I think the sites need to be pursuing a safe conduit for withdraws. The way they are doing it now, allowing deposits then withdraws, and only allowing withdraw through a conduit after a deposit has been made through that conduit, is killing the liklihood of ever having a stable withdraw medium. I can live with not being able to move money between sites easily, but I cannot live without being able to get my money with any certainty.

Also, the sites would do well to work together to form some mechanism of transfering money between sites. They should be able to do this, though it would require working together in an intelligent way to enefit their customers, so that pretty much dooms the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely agree with this post. I hope that the major poker sites still accepting US players are working on something like this system.

How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

"Also, the sites would do well to work together to form some mechanism of transfering money between sites."

A long time ago, Barry Shulman explained at length not only

Why that would be a good idea, but also why CardPlayer should be the stake-holder.

Think his legal expert will sprinkle holy water on that idea now ?

JP, you seem to like the legal advice CardPlayer posts, why not approach them and see what they say ....

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

You guys all do realize it's already over, right? Anyone facilitating deposits from the US at this point is in violation of numerous laws, and will be going to jail where the only funds being transfered will go to Bubba when he loans them out.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that every bank in the US shut out Neteller in one afternoon, yeah?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? Is my sarcasm detector dead?

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

It seems to me that there is a lot of putting the cart before the horse talk about ewallets. I mean worrying about withdraw options and ect. Our horse is the recreational player. The guy that just plays to have fun and blow off steam. I believe that the biggest concern we face is having a readily available instant or impulse type of method of making deposits. I think most of us are patient enough to wait for checks or other methods of withdrawl. The rec players or fish are not so patient. If they have to think about it or have to wait, they will most likely go do something else with their time and money.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
You guys all do realize it's already over, right? Anyone facilitating deposits from the US at this point is in violation of numerous laws, and will be going to jail where the only funds being transfered will go to Bubba when he loans them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this should be loads of fun to watch! Saw some posts in the Zoo about people using major bank debit cards at PokerStars. So, it should be interesting to see major bank owners do the perp walk any day now.

Better make sure my mutual funds don't hold Wamu, BofA, etc. stock!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, it should be interesting to see major bank owners do the perp walk any day now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the regulations aren't drawn up and delivered to financial institutions yet, your statement is insane.

Please stick to posting facts.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a while, banks wouldn't cash Bodog checks. And Stars' main check processor pulled out on them.

I don't know much about the industry, so let me ask: why can't banks simply start blocking 3rd party check processors that are known to do business with internet gambling sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 1)they likely won't be required to, 2)it'd take them too many resources, and 3)nobody is paying that much attention to *withdrawals*, it's the deposits that the legislation focuses on (and ewallets, of course, get screwed by this.)

[/ QUOTE ]
adanthar, i hope you're right, and i've heard others say make these points as well. but...

1) even if they aren't required to, do we know they won't? banks already voluntarily stopped processing neteller EFTs, for instance. maybe some banks go out of their way to stop gambling transactions to protect themselves legally?

2) i don't see how the process couldn't be easily automated. the bank scans the code at the bottom of a check -- they do this anyway right? -- sees that it is from a blacklisted check processor and rejects the transaction. again, i don't know much about this industry, but surely most of the work during check processing is already automated? and they must already have a process in place to guard against counterfeit/bad checks, yes?

3) why then are neteller withdrawals blocked? why were bodog's checks not honored? why does click2pay no longer let americans make EFT withdrawals? why do electronic withdrawals from poker sites no longer work? it looks to me like people *are* paying attention to withdrawals, not just deposits.

also, how do we know if these 3rd parties who currently issue checks for poker sites won't pull out (like chexx)?

i want to remain optimistic, but recent events have soured my outlook. incidentally, the UIGEA is looking like it's going to be a remarkably effective law -- much more effective than an outright ban on internet gambling (like in washington state).

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

Sam,

1)some banks, ie BoA, undoubtedly will do this without being legally required to. No big deal, I have plenty of banks to pick from.

2)check *processors* should basically never be blacklisted, because nobody out there is/was solely cutting checks for gambling sites (not even Chexx). You also don't need check processors to cut a check - it just takes longer to do it yourself. Also, if sites send money as random people via WU, they can cut checks as random people as well.

3)there's no doubt that ewallets of all types that do business with gambling sites/US customers are in trouble long term. they're simply not in trouble because of withdrawals, but rather because the EFT clearing house wants nothing to do with gambling transactions (as they shouldn't given this climate).

in the medium term, EFT's will no longer be an issue.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

Couple of points:

1. UIGEA only deals with funding of "unlawful gambling" sites, not withdrawals from.

2. Poker is still a grey area at worst.

Yes, this has turned into a pain in the ass for now.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, it should be interesting to see major bank owners do the perp walk any day now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the regulations aren't drawn up and delivered to financial institutions yet, your statement is insane.

Please stick to posting facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

My statement was intended to be an obvious mockery of the post I directly quoted above what I wrote. I added the "smirk" emoticon (this one: [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] )to help most readers.

The poster whom I quoted wrote "Anyone facilitating deposits from the US at this point is in violation of numerous laws, and will be going to jail"

I added that I'd seen major bank CCs used to "facilitate a deposit from the US." So I drew the intentionally farcical conclusion that, based on the OPs statement, we'd see major bank CEOs doing the "perp walk."

Of course, maybe you're 9th-level-sarcasming me and I'm the one not getting it.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

The reason online poker will eventually be destroyed is because of people like those in this thread. Instead of fighting for your rights you're sucking each other off because there's still one or two methods left.

Re: UIGEA Fallout! Don\'t Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Net
 

[ QUOTE ]
The poker sites really need to just hook up everyone with an ATM that deposits and debits from their player account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this even a possibility?

Fnord, can you expound on your post concerning the market for withdrawl only ETFs?

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"....

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
You guys all do realize it's already over, right? Anyone facilitating deposits from the US at this point is in violation of numerous laws, and will be going to jail where the only funds being transfered will go to Bubba when he loans them out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. It's not over for me. I just deposited yesterday with my debit card.

Does that mean my friendly local banker is on his way to the big house? I don't think so.

You're clueless.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if the solution is peeing my pants every time a new payment processor announces that they're going to enter the market . . . yes, count me in as part of the problem. If you count running a website that has heavily promoted acitivism on this topic and has worked with the PPA to get the word out as part of the solution then count me in that camp.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys all do realize it's already over, right? Anyone facilitating deposits from the US at this point is in violation of numerous laws, and will be going to jail where the only funds being transfered will go to Bubba when he loans them out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. It's not over for me. I just deposited yesterday with my debit card.

Does that mean my friendly local banker is on his way to the big house? I don't think so.

You're clueless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that that option will go away once the regs are passed. Debit cards are not on the ACH/EFT network so each issuing bank has its own rules. Once the UIGEA is formalized I think you can expect for banks that currently allow deposits via debit cards to shut that off too.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
You do know that that option will go away once the regs are passed.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I do not know that, and neither do you. But you are certainly free to make predictions. I'll wait for the facts. We are a long way from the those regs being implemented, and we have no idea what they will say. If they put too much burden on the banks, they will never happen in 270 days.

[ QUOTE ]
Once the UIGEA is formalized I think you can expect for banks that currently allow deposits via debit cards to shut that off too.

[/ QUOTE ]
We'll see. But for now, my response to SplawnDarts is still valid. It isn't "already over", and my local banker is in no danger of having a little visit with "Bubba".

Just typical [censored] from people who like to stir the crap.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do know that that option will go away once the regs are passed.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I do not know that, and neither do you. But you are certainly free to make predictions. I'll wait for the facts. We are a long way from the those regs being implemented, and we have no idea what they will say. If they put too much burden on the banks, they will never happen in 270 days.


[/ QUOTE ]

How much burden would it be for your bank to do exactly what banks currently do? Some debit cards work. Some debit cards don't. The reason for that is the issuing bank can set whatever rules it wants. Many never wanted anything to do with online gaming. Mostly because people like Visa were getting sued to recover gambling losses claiming that Visa should have never authorized an illegal transaction. Your bank chose not to do that. Maybe they've not had any bad experiences. But turning it off is not a burden. They simply do what many other banks have already done.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

Well, you can't seem to grasp the original point of my post, which was simply to say that it isn't "already over". But, whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
How much burden would it be for your bank to do exactly what banks currently do?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, and neither do you. Again, speculatation. I know my bank is a very small, rural, midwest bank. They have neither the time, nor extra resources to comply with yet another system of mandates by bank regulators. They will join other small banks in making their voices heard regarding any undue burden. That's my "speculation".

[ QUOTE ]
But turning it off is not a burden. They simply do what many other banks have already done.

[/ QUOTE ]
And what is your background, that you can make this universal assertion?

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you can't seem to grasp the original point of my post, which was simply to say that it isn't "already over". But, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You win for being technically correct. Yeah you! But the reality is that while it's not "already" over it is very likely over in the near future (6 - 8 months). You're merely getting into a pissing contest on whether the Titanic was sunk when it hit the iceberg or when the last piece of it slipped below the waters.

Yes, the hard core players will set up proxy servers and fly to Panama to make cash deposits but the fish who used to make this game so profitable will not go to these lengths.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is your background, that you can make this universal assertion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've designed and run payment systems. In fact I architected the payment system for a company that was formerly the third largest eCommerce site in the world. Hundreds of millions in transactions a year. I've worked with Visa, MasterCard, banks, ACH/EFT networks, etc. I've had to design interfaces into their protocols and APIs and know what they can and can't do and/or how easy or difficult it is for them to do something.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

Three points:

1. There are a small, finite number of poker sites and payment transfer methods. Tracking, prohibiting and/or taking action against them will not be a problem for the DOJ, US Treasury Department or international financial networks if they choose to do so. They have lots of resources.

2. The loudest outcry regarding implementation of new banking restrictions under the UIGEA was from an association of small banks. I don't know if the law was changed in their favor. Probably not; and they were very concerned about the imposition of the new administrative burden they could see coming.

3. Then there are the US ISPs. It is possible that the DOJ could ban Internet access to foreign gaming sites, in which case there would be no way to get there from here irrespective of fund transfer method. I don't think this is likely, but I also don't think it is absolutely precluded as a follow-up action if there are financial "leaks."

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

The DOJ could repeal the first amendment too. Geez is communism here already?

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys all do realize it's already over, right? Anyone facilitating deposits from the US at this point is in violation of numerous laws, and will be going to jail where the only funds being transfered will go to Bubba when he loans them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this should be loads of fun to watch! Saw some posts in the Zoo about people using major bank debit cards at PokerStars. So, it should be interesting to see major bank owners do the perp walk any day now.

Better make sure my mutual funds don't hold Wamu, BofA, etc. stock!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you typed that with your sarcasm font. BofA is the 2nd highest capitalized corporation in the US, with a market cap (presently), of over $234 billion dollars. No perp walk there, for a few transactions slipping through the cracks.

Somehow, I doubt UIGEA is going to affect my investment position in BofA too significantly (though I probably wouldn't want to be sitting on any shares of NeTeller at the moment...)

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the reality is that while it's not "already" over it is very likely over in the near future (6 - 8 months).

[/ QUOTE ]
More speculation. I prefer to wait and see -- and not run around in hysteria before the facts are known. (Like claiming my banker is going to jail for allowing me to use my debit card, geesh)

[ QUOTE ]
I've designed and run payment systems. ... I've worked with Visa, MasterCard, banks, ACH/EFT networks, etc. I've had to design interfaces into their protocols and APIs and know what they can and can't do and/or how easy or difficult it is for them to do something.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent. Then you also know it's not like flipping a switch and shutting down every debit card in the US. People have to do it, people have to monitor it -- on a regular basis. We're not just talking debit cards, but credit cards, bank wires, ACH's, paper checks, Ewallets, Western Union, Moneygrams, and ways no one has even thought of that can be used to move money.

Yes, there will be an undue burden on small banks, and yes they will bitch. It's not so easy as you would have us believe.

But then, you could go into a little more detail, and explain exactly why you believe it will be easy. Tell us what's involved.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

[ QUOTE ]

More speculation. I prefer to wait and see -- and not run around in hysteria before the facts are known. (Like claiming my banker is going to jail for allowing me to use my debit card, geesh)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that some poeple are taking arguments too far but I think what I've proposed is a very rational and logical argument for the most likely outcomes of all of this.

[ QUOTE ]
But then, you could go into a little more detail, and explain exactly why you believe it will be easy. Tell us what's involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

ACH/EFT: Easy to shut off. 80% of all activity goes over a network controled by the US gov. The remaining 20% goes over a small group of networks who are part of the NACHA. NACHA issued the memo that lead to the shutdown of Neteller, Click2Pay, and other payment processors the other week. All they have to do is determine which companies are in the gaming eWallet business. That would be as hard as . . . oh, logging into a poker site and taking a gander at the payment processor page.

Debit/Credit cards: These also travel over a fixed number of networks such. Cirrus and Star are examples. The credit/debit card industry already codes transactions so it's simple for them to cut off this payment method. Some banks were willing to accept gaming risk but once the regs are published those issuing banks will decline all requests to certain industry codes. If payment processors begin publishing bogus industry codes then Visa and MasterCard would act and completely shut them off as a merchant and/or issuer. This has happened with a lot of other industries say where phone sex lines reported bogus industry codes so Visa and MC already have the facilities in place to address this.

Bank wires are very similar to ACH/EFT. Again, all they need is a list of offenders. I don't think the DOJ will have too hard of a time supplying a frequently updated list of offenders.

Ewallets are not a payment method, per se. You have to fund them. You fund them via one of the other payment methods (ACH/EFT, debit cards, etc). An eWallet has no value without a way to get money onto and off of it.

Western Union / MoneyGram. WU already doesn't like people using them to fund online gaming accounts and is more diligent about stopping abuse than is MoneyGram which is why most sites offer some sort of bastardized version of MG under a names like CyberCash. This is more difficult to stop and there will always be ways to slip through but once the regs come out MG will likely be forced to start taking a harder look at all of those cash transfers to the same people in Guatamala, Panama, etc.

Paper Checks are probably the most difficult to stop because they don't happen via electronic means. The handling of paper checks is actually quite expense compared to other payment methods for this very reason. The biggest problem though will be convienience factor. Paper checks will need to mailed overseas and then cashed by an overseas bank which could take up to a month (for sending as well as funds to clear) though in most cases it would be several weeks.

So realistically the only option that can't be shut down very easily is paper checks. This is what the banks were lobbying against. They wanted to make sure that they had some wiggle room on paper checks because it would be very expensive (or impossible) for them to come up with a good system to prevent illegal payments to and from online gaming sites.

And that really is the problem. It's become very public that the US gov thinks online gaming is illegal. That scares away many new players. Now you add in this whole process of having to send checks and waiting for weeks for the checks to clear and that will shut out a large number of new and recreational players.

Plus you have to consider that the government already has a lot of things in place to stop money laundering. Using those same tools against online gaming would make some of the above efforts even more effective.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

Excellent analysis. I certainly appreciate you taking the time to explain the detail. While I am still not completely convinced it's as easy as you propose, I will also admit it may be easier than I had originally thought. So, there you go. Time will tell.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to read the proposed regs when they are issued -- and to see the reaction of the banking industry.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

Roundguy,

I guess that's all we can do (wait and see). You can make educated guesses though which is what I've attempted to do. Could I be wrong? Sure. Do I hope that I'm wrong? Hell YES!!! Unfortunately, I have about 80% confidence in my educated guess on this one.

Bill

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

Add one possible approach I haven't seen anywhere but Party Poker. My first deposit there was using a "phone card" method. First, I used my credit card to buy a phone calling card. Fees were high, I think it cost me $106 for a $100 calling card. My credit card company declined the transaction - so I called them and they released it (apparently this is a common 'purchase' for credit card thieves.) Then, Party Poker accepted the phone card as a deposit.

I think it is possible that similar oddball "mixed-use" (i.e. gaming/non-gaming) approaches emerge as a deposit method, then we have to rely on checks for withdrawal -- perhaps eventually foreign checks.

Maybe next they'll take Shell Gas gift cards, OneCall gift cards, online store "purchases." (i.e., buy this book for $120, get $100 in chips at site XYZ) etc. All are surely violations of the UIGEA, but possibly impractical to enforce.

Also -- maybe we'll see an online e-wallet that is only used for transfers between sites, so there are no deposit or withdrawal methods to be shut down. This will ease money movement and would help lots of players out. That way, if someone wants to move their roll from Site XYZ to Site ABC, they can do so quickly along with a fee. Actual deposits and withdrawals would be done directly with the sites.

I agree this is not good for online poker growth, and if so we should (hopefully) see some site consolidation so player volumes are at playable levels. Certainly in the past year, full ring LHE games have meaningfully changed in style as it is at sites that still accept US players.

This will also make these boards "consumer activist" sites, if it hasn't already, where we have to act as watchdogs against fraudulent sites, lost money, etc. If the deposit method migrates to Cashiers Checks sent internationally, the lost deposits alone will be mega-threads and worrisome risk.

Re: How about Cardplayer getting into the processing business ??
 

The problem with those phone cards is that in the US a card is either single purpose or multi-purpose. If the phone card can only be used to purchase phone service then it's considered to be a pre-payment for services. If you can use the phone card to purchase any sort of item (e.g. something other than phone time) then it's considered to be a debit-like card and the US gov has traditionally stated that US banking laws now apply.

So you won't likely see any US company offering these. Overseas companies might but this is not a new idea and the US has been pretty successful in keeping these things to a minimum, at least as far as US residents are concerned.