[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't need a perfect storm. All we need is a semi-effective enforcement effort. The regs that come out of the UIGEA don't need to catch every single gaming transaction. All they need to do is catch the transactions coming from the largest eWallet and debit card providers. That's a relatively easy task as we've recently seen with Neteller.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are inappropriately applying the example of neteller to all future e-wallets/funding mechanisms. All records turned over and all funds seized were totally the result of voluntary compliance to requests not forced by court order, which neteller did because they are a publicly held company. The neteller pre-IPO wouldn't be rolling over like this.



[ QUOTE ]
These boards are literally screaming with people complaining about not being able to get money onto or off of sites. Millions have been seized by the DOJ and hundreds of millions more are trapped in the Neteller system with not even a clue as to when those funds will be released. Am I one of those people saying that people will never see their money again? No. I am saying that the experience is going to leave a bad taste in people's mouths though. A bad taste that is already causing people to reconsider whether or not they want to expose themselves to this level of risk for something they view a hobby or entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sure it will leave a bad taste in the mouths of recreational players that used neteller. But keep in mind as well that much of the poker boom was driven by teen to college age males who are among the most tech savvy and risk seeking and thus the most likely to be willing to jump through more extensive technical hoops. Where they go their dads will too if dad doesn't have a problem with their sons playing.


[ QUOTE ]
And that's not be speculating. That's backed up by cold hard numbers. From PokerSiteScout Stars and FTP have both seen 20% peak player declines.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very true and to be expected, but very likely a short term phenomena as sites shift to alternate funding systems.


[ QUOTE ]
You keep saying things like the government won't be effective in cutting off all avenues but they don't need to cut off all avenues. Just like tax evasion laws don't need to catch every tax cheat. You've framed your argument into a very binary assertion because it's the only way your optimism is even justified.

As someone else pointed out, the weatherman doesn't need to be 100% correct to be effective. But you're trying to frame the debate so that to disagree with you I have to take the position that the weatherman is 100% correct.

[/ QUOTE ]



And you are oversimplifying the funding issue as you have done in the past, despite analyzing it in detail.

1) You never rebutted vinyard's arguments in the other thread started by gaboontroll regarding the extreme difficulty of impacting the SWIFT system (i.e. requires proof/probable cause of funding of terrorism in order to breach privacy on a large scale in order to get sufficient documentation to block an entity from sending/recieving funds), and furthermore haven't shown that the regs will be so onerous as to block all ACH/EFT transactions, especially for small banks. Naturally hyper voluntary compliance by the largest concerns like BOA is a bigger worry, but one still dependant on the technical means to do so which the smaller banks lack and for whom the IUGEA noted exceptions could be made.

2) Credit card transactions are still being successfull for many cards and sites despite the credit card companies having pre-legislation implemented policies to try to prevent same. A constantly revolving series of subsidiary shell corporations which process such transactions one step removed from the actual sites defeats a mostly static and slowly updated blacklist.


Regarding your saying that I am unfairly casting your overall views as binary when they're not is off base. You are precisely casting your views as same because you are glass empty, i.e binary state 0. Whereas myself and others are semi-full and which scale fluctuates. Sure there can be a qualitatively worse state 6 months from now just as there is for now compared to 6 months ago. And we aren't saying different. We're just saying the meter, even for Joe Fish, isn't going to be on dead empty, or even close to it. And again all we have to do is wait a period of months and not years to see.

One thing is for sure which is that funding will determine the issue of whether the sites in question will still be around for us. They are apparently willing to take some measure of legal risk and now know to avoid setting foot in the US so as to minimize same (like Jay Cohen's buddies do - still in Antigue raking in the dough after he got out of prison), as long as there will be sufficient reward to offset that risk.


My bottom line for this discussion is that predictions and even plans for this short term a period are mostly not necessary, again given the caveat I made earlier, as we will know in a period of months what will be what.