Not good, Online Gambling bill to be attached to defense bill?-article

[NSchandler]

[ QUOTE ]
Well this is some absurd degree of sickening politics. But does this even matter? The article only mentions prohibiting people from using credit cards to "settle Internet gambling debts". If this is the case, obviously Neteller remains fine and we only lose casual players who were currently able to fund with their credit card before this move. I'm sure the article's summary could just be lacking in details, though.

I always laugh when I hear about "settling Internet gambling debts". Is it even possible to take on any Internet gambling debt? Do the supporters of these prohibition efforts somehow think that players are able to make bets with assets not in their poker/casino accounts at the time of the bet?

It'd be funny if this passed this way and was then discovered to do absolutely nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not positive about this, but I was under the impression that no US credit cards allow you to deposit on gambling sites as it is.

I know when I tried to deposit on poker sites, none of my credit cards would allow it, and I remember somebody on the site here saying something to the effect of what I just said above.

So what would this really change?

Edited to add: I realize what I said sounds a lot like what Bob and others said above, but I'm saying I was under the impression that no people (not just very few people) would be affected.

[bb88]

But how would the fish fund their accounts without CC's?

[teddyFBI]

Fish know about Neteller and Party allows US bank transfers.
But I also am in the same camp as you guys: none of my CC's EVER worked to deposit! And I've tried at least 6 dif ones w/ dif CC companies/banks.
My brother in Canada says his CC works fine to deposit, but he has to request a check to withdraw.

I am pulling this # out of my butthole, but given that nearly all US CC's don't seem to allow deposits as is, I'd guess that 90% + of fish fund their accts via methods that this bill won't even touch...and the other 10% will learn about these alternate methods (e.g. neteller) soon enough.

[RoundTower]

This is standard in the US, right?

[vilemerchant]

I doubt there's many fish from the US who are able to successfully fund their poker accounts with credit cards anyway. But, this defense bill tactic sounds scarey, maybe you'll all end up in Guantanamo [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not positive about this, but I was under the impression that no US credit cards allow you to deposit on gambling sites as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few do, but not because it's been illegal. It's because there's a very high rate of disputes filed for cash transfers to online gaming sites. It's not great business for them.

The casual player human beings who so many here rudely refer to as "fish" are already funding their accounts by other means.

[NSchandler]

It would be nice if Lee Jones or TruePoker CEO or somebody could come on here and tell us what % of American customers on their sites deposit using CC.

[Nathan_2]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it against senate rules to do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, Senate rules are structured so they can do "that". Looks like something will pass the Senate now so the conference process, if they have one, is where it might die. Whatever happens it will be at 3 in morning behind closed doors.

[Jurollo]

It isnt the act of banning the credit cards that will hurt the market. Its what the bill passing would imply to casual players, that being that gambling online is illegal, which is how it would be spun in the US media.
~Justin

[Barrin6]

[ QUOTE ]
It isnt the act of banning the credit cards that will hurt the market. Its what the bill passing would imply to casual players, that being that gambling online is illegal, which is how it would be spun in the US media.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

The media has it ways. For example, when the Gambling bill past in the House a couple of months ago, all I heard in the news was that online gambling was banned and they didn't tell the whole story of how it had to passed the Senate