[twoblacknines]

[ QUOTE ]
From an earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a catch, but not an onerous one. And, more importantly, not a legal one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the legality of ads has not been in dispute, this sounds quite bad. So out of thin air, let me pull some speculation.

Minimum deposit with a timelimit on complete withdrawal. Allow players to only withdraw what they have won until timelimit is met; after that, no restrictions. In the meantime, site uses the players' money to invest in short-term, low-to-mediocre-risk bonds. Assets just need to be in easily liquidated form, so withdraws and expenses can be met.

Wouldn't that be effectively banking?

The only catch here is that the money deposited to such a site would be involved in a simple zero-sum game. Money just moves between players, and limited withdrawals ensure that the investment capital remains big enough. So, as long as the profit from investments is enough for all operational costs, they could cover for all the money in players' accounts.

This is pure speculation, remember. I have no idea how the site would actually cover its costs. But - since the ads were supposedly not the only source of income, this might be the most straightforward approach.

And I shiver at the thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this post got skipped over, and it makes the best sense out of everything I have read so far.