Brainstorming: Ways Around the Internet Ban

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, this is a shot in the dark, but could it be a loophole that we are NOT really transfering money to a gambling site? I don't put my money into partypoker from my bank. I put it into neteller. Then neteller (A Canadian company [right?]) puts it into partypoker. I'm probobly WAY off, but it's a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neteller better start to rethink its business strategy and fee structures.

1. They need to immediately encourge non gambling business to use their processing services. Right now they would hard to emplain they do non gambling transactions. If I was neteller, on Monday I would announce fee free Ebay transactions for the next two months, then have a fee structure that is 33-50% discounted against Paypal's. To keep their gambling business in operation, they need to have a non gambling portfolio and use it as a loss leader.

2. They need to encourage debit card use and eliminate the transaction fees they charge to load cards. They easily could recover this fee income as they would receive a portion of the merchant fees. Even if they loose this small income stream if their players can not transfer back to US accounts they will not be a processing service in the long run.

US Banks will not take the enforcement angle lightly. Right now it be easy to block companies like neteller if they do not diversify their business model very quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent post

[MS Sunshine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bro is this thread meant to be serious? If yes, you need to do some reading.

jrbick

[/ QUOTE ]

See rule #2

[/ QUOTE ]

rule #2) No criticism allowed of posts – it might prevent somebody with a good idea from posting.

This is my new signature line.

MS Sunshine

[Nepa]

What if pokerstars started taking bets on Horseracing? Would this exclude them from the ban?

I'm pretty sure western union would still work but the fee are pretty high.

What if pokerstars encourged players to fund other players accounts through player to player transfers. ie. respected player sets up a site or means to recieve money from players that want to re-load. After respected player receives money he transfer it to the player wanting the re-load.

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
Neteller better start to rethink its business strategy and fee structures.

1. They need to immediately encourge non gambling business to use their processing services. Right now they would hard to emplain they do non gambling transactions. If I was neteller, on Monday I would announce fee free Ebay transactions for the next two months, then have a fee structure that is 33-50% discounted against Paypal's. To keep their gambling business in operation, they need to have a non gambling portfolio and use it as a loss leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if they start accepting non-gambling transactions also. That doesn't change or negate the fact they DO accept gambling transactions. I understand what you're saying about having an explanation, but it still doesn't explain the gambling-related part of their business (or make it any more legal in the US).

Ebay owns Paypal, so they aren't going to allow Neteller to come in and undercut their own rates. Ebay wants nothing to do with anything gambling related.

[onthebutton]

I posted this in legislation, but I'd be interested to hear the thoughts here also:


I play mainly for fun, but I'm as worried about this as anyone.

But, is there a simple, business-based solution for this problem? The way I see it, the problem as it stands now for gamers is that the two easiest ways of putting funds into an online account are credit cards and 3rd parties, like Netteller and Firepay. Since the majority of Firepay and Netteller's business is to do just this--put money into online accounts, they're a very easy target for US officials to stop transactions to, due to the high probability of those transactions being for gambling purposes.

However, what if a major company/bank overseas that is much more diversified stepped into this role? For instance, one of the large UK banks was to serve as a 3rd party. Since the transaction to a more diversified 3rd party could be for any number of reasons, wouldn't it be very hard for the US to limit transactions to this company?

It seems to me (if my thinking is correct) that there's an enormous potential for profit here for a 3rd party such as this that's willing to step in. Fact is, there's just too much money at stake here for everyone involved not to find a way around this. Is there a major hole in my idea, or am I missing something?

[MicroBob]

No, I don't think you're missing anything and I'm guessing a bank or two will step up to the plate for something like this.

The bank that does this though will be intentionally breaking U.S. law by allowing citizens to bank online via them though.
And any American with an account at that bank could come under scrutiny perhaps. Especially when it goes all the way to, "You have an account at Jim's Bank of France. And that bank is known as a funnel for online-poker sites. Which we all know is a scheme to fund terrorists."


If banks really want to mess with U.S. anti-terrorism stuff then that's up to them to analyze the profit.
It's not like the U.S. can go running to the other country and shut them down.
But it is something that I suspect many banks would be more interested in shying away from.

[Our House]

Here's a thought

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this yet in this (or any other) forum.

[MicroBob]

this has been mentioned several times.

It's still a way to fund a poker-room. It is not a loop-hole and it would not work.

[Our House]

Not if you're only funding the horse room. Then the poker room funding would be done overseas and out of US jurisdiction.

[MicroBob]

this would make the horse-room the same as neteller. It's a vehicle into a poker-room account.
So it would be disallowed.


I'm also not sure if the horse-betting exceptions are for U.S. licensed sites only...but this would also be an obstacle if true.


2+2'ers in the 3 or 4 other threads where this was thought of are smarter about this stuff than I am.
The general consensus is that a place that funds a poker-room would be illegal.
It doesn't matter if they happened to be doing something that is okay like horse-racing.


I could fund my gift-certificate account at some store in Europe and buy some widgets and gadgets and auto-parts there. And then use all the left-over money I have there to buy into PartyPoker.
But just because I bought a bunch of okay items at a legit online-store in Europe does NOT mean it's okay for them to fund an online-poker account for me.

I believe this example of using a 'legitimate' business to fund an online-poker account is relevant.
If it is funding an online-poker account for you then it is no longer allowed no matter what other transactions it allows that are perfectly legal.



However, the actual ability to enforce such companies that wanted to do something like this is definitely debateable.
But whether it's actually a loop-hole or not isn't really debateable as best I can figure this stuff out.