Will Neteller Pay?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Do they ACTUALLY HAVE our money!? Are they like a brick mortar bank in that they only need to keep a small percentage of money liquid? Do they have dollars to back every dollar deposited?

This nonsense about a "backlog" is bullsh*t. How can it take four to six weeks to transfer money?

This whole thing pisses me off!

[/ QUOTE ]

Neteller has your money... you will see your money again...

If you take a look at the discussion regarding the middlemen in a Neteller -> Bank transaction, you will better understand the situation.

[bcubed72]

[ QUOTE ]
Except for the excessively long wait to actually get the funds, this could turn out to be a good thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it.

One of the major stumbling blocks for getting internet gambling going in the first place was, "how can I trust them?" A few bad apples absconded with money and gave the industry a setback. Eventually people (such as myself) decided "they're publicly traded companies worth billions...it wouldn't be in their best intrest to be dishonest." That was the operative unitl UGIEA and, notably the NETELLER fiasco.

Even if this is resolved sucessfully, people will elect to remember how people were left wondering if or when they would be paid...it would be rational for the casual player to second-guess the wisdom of internet gaming. This is, as far as I'm concerned, even bigger news than the passage of the UGIEA in the first place.

A coule points:
1. It seems a non-US citizen could facilitate obtaining one's cash, out of the goodness of his heart (and 2%, perhaps). Not only would such a person be a hero to 2+2ers, he also could clear a quick six figures.

2. There must be something more going on than just two guys--who don't even work for them anymore--got arrested. After all, the NETELLER bigwigs would be accountable for past transactions up to the statute of limitations; this wouldn't change that. Anyone know the behind-the-scenes issues that caused this to happen?

[sandycove]

It is for certain illegal for an American citizen, resident abroad, to process transfers as you suggest and there are federal reporting requirements that would expose this behaviour. Failure to report is, as always, risky business. So, at a minimum, the reward should be substantial.

Further, these transactions would be noted by the institution and the government involved, would almost surely be illegal there as well, and again, at a minimum, would raise red flags, attract unfavourable attention, and even turn the facilitator into an unwelcome guest in his host country – putting his entire investment of time and money there in jeopardy.

Hardly worth it for any percentage. And certainly not for the humble figures mentioned here.

(There will be lawyers, “jailhouse” and otherwise, who will quibble with this view. I invite them, rather than add to the noise, to go into the business themselves and put their professional credentials on the line…)

The community here continues to be irrationally myopic. The United States government has made its position transparently clear for many months. Opponents to this official position have no viable political constituency or any positive argument that advances the general public good, the service providers in question contribute utterly nothing in the national interest and other more traditional U.S. institutions with access (casinos, the NFL, religious interests, parents, pandering politicians) have consistently opposed extra-national online gambling operations with vigour and financial muscle .

The government always had the strongest hand, its cards were always exposed and, if you continued to play, it was inevitable you were going to lose some chips…

(I stipulate that this view does nothing to advance your practical concerns today – but perspective has been thin on the ground around here recently.)

The near-term solution is for major sites, in some manner, to become their own bankers. That’s seldom a good idea, particularly given the international nature of this enterprise and the U.S. position. But the market makes it a tempting gamble. Long term, I’d think the casinos would have to get on board, but competing state and federal jurisdictions might make such an arrangement impractical on a national basis, not to mention less profitable, since wagering would certainly be prohibited and strictly in-state poker would lead one to steal one's own customers.

[Karak567]

I just tried to withdraw to my debit card (as I have been doing every day for the past week or so) and got this:

"P1001 Processor has declined your transaction"

I don't have time to call right now, but I will later. Before I do, does anyone know what this is?

[sooooooo]

Sandycove is one of the few people on here with a clue. I posted within a week of the regulation passing as to what would REALLY happen, and my comments were removed by moderators. Everyone on here is just spreading best case scenarios as if they are the most likely scenario. In the end, this has damaged everyone. Do you really think that this board is not being monitored?

Every idea people bring up on here is just going to give the politicians more fuel for their fire. It just makes everyone look like flagrant abusers of the law who will do anything to bypass the government. This is not what you want to be projecting.

Furthermore, the mere fact you ignore what is going on here is preposterous. Poker sites have created an enormous wealth transfer from Americans to a few rich foreigners, with absolutely no social benefit. And I am saying this as a professed libertarian. This is not a libertarian country though, and blaming the Republicans for this is stupid. No one in Washington likes the idea of online poker, and very few Americans like the idea of internet gambling, especially when it is run by overseas firms outside of US jurisdiction. The only people in Washington who are against this regulation are against it because certain banking institutions whom they receive funding from do not want the expense of compliance. There may be a few outlier politicians who don't think this is in the scope of their power, and are therefore against the bill, but I guarantee you they do not like the idea of Americans giving away money to Anurag Dikshit.

In addition, citing the fact that poker is a game of school is not going to help your cause. For the vast majority of players, it is not a game of skill. People play poker because they like to gamble. A small minority of people play poker because they enjoy the strategy involved, and that makes up most of the people on 2+2. Continuing to purport that 2+2 is a sample of the general population or the poker playing population is a fallacy.

Personally, I am against government regulation of our decisions in life, but there has to be some regulation when you are allowed to gamble electronically, with electronic money, which you may or may not even have. For example, I know of numerous individuals who were able to wire money from there bank account that they didn't even have to play poker online. When something like this is possible, the government unfortunately must be involved.

Finally, if the government decides that it is illegal to operate an online casino in the United States, then I completely agree that they should do everything in their power to prevent overseas companies from targeting our citizens. These companies had a lot of balls to advertise in our country, and now they are paying the price. If guarantee you if they never advertised in the US and never sponsored players to wear their shirts on TV you would still be able to play online poker today. But they were greedy, and wanted to make a quick buck at your expense. Politicians do not like flagrant abuses of our laws, and thus Frist showed them the consequences of rubbing it in our face that they couldn't stop them.

[MannyIsGod]

[ QUOTE ]
Sandycove is one of the few people on here with a clue. I posted within a week of the regulation passing as to what would REALLY happen, and my comments were removed by moderators. Everyone on here is just spreading best case scenarios as if they are the most likely scenario. In the end, this has damaged everyone. Do you really think that this board is not being monitored?

Every idea people bring up on here is just going to give the politicians more fuel for their fire. It just makes everyone look like flagrant abusers of the law who will do anything to bypass the government. This is not what you want to be projecting.

Furthermore, the mere fact you ignore what is going on here is preposterous. Poker sites have created an enormous wealth transfer from Americans to a few rich foreigners, with absolutely no social benefit. And I am saying this as a professed libertarian. This is not a libertarian country though, and blaming the Republicans for this is stupid. No one in Washington likes the idea of online poker, and very few Americans like the idea of internet gambling, especially when it is run by overseas firms outside of US jurisdiction. The only people in Washington who are against this regulation are against it because certain banking institutions whom they receive funding from do not want the expense of compliance. There may be a few outlier politicians who don't think this is in the scope of their power, and are therefore against the bill, but I guarantee you they do not like the idea of Americans giving away money to Anurag Dikshit.

In addition, citing the fact that poker is a game of school is not going to help your cause. For the vast majority of players, it is not a game of skill. People play poker because they like to gamble. A small minority of people play poker because they enjoy the strategy involved, and that makes up most of the people on 2+2. Continuing to purport that 2+2 is a sample of the general population or the poker playing population is a fallacy.

Personally, I am against government regulation of our decisions in life, but there has to be some regulation when you are allowed to gamble electronically, with electronic money, which you may or may not even have. For example, I know of numerous individuals who were able to wire money from there bank account that they didn't even have to play poker online. When something like this is possible, the government unfortunately must be involved.

Finally, if the government decides that it is illegal to operate an online casino in the United States, then I completely agree that they should do everything in their power to prevent overseas companies from targeting our citizens. These companies had a lot of balls to advertise in our country, and now they are paying the price. If guarantee you if they never advertised in the US and never sponsored players to wear their shirts on TV you would still be able to play online poker today. But they were greedy, and wanted to make a quick buck at your expense. Politicians do not like flagrant abuses of our laws, and thus Frist showed them the consequences of rubbing it in our face that they couldn't stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure how you can profess to be a libertarian and reconcile some of your statements in that post; especially what you said in your final 2 paragraphs. I don't think anyone should ever roll over and submit to any laws they feel unjust, and I feel this law to be incredibly unjust, unnecessary, and unenforceable. Ideally, of course.

My concerns as a libertarian do not involve whether or not the money I spend stays within my country, but rather on whether or not my country stops me from spending my money as I see fit. If I want to spend all of my money on cheap trinkets from Taiwan and buy everything made in Mexico and nothing made in the US, who the hell are they, you, or anyone else to tell me thats not allowable?

Anyhow, that aside, the main problem with both your post and Sandycove's post is the central idea in both. It seems that both of the posts hang on the idea that the government's attempt at prohibition will be successful. I laugh at that. Months after UIGEA passed I haven't gone more than a day without playing poker and I really don't see that changing anytime in the near future. Yes, Neteller is gone. Yes, there are fewer sites. Yes, the landscape is different. But is it necessarily any harder right now to play poker online than it was before the law passed? Maybe marginally so, but no more than that. What we have seen, is the industry's willingness and ability to adapt rather quickly to each of these challenges.

However, in the end its all speculation. But one thing is certain and that is that I have seen no signs of the industry rolling over and admitting defeat in any way. In fact, when companies like Full Tilt publicly declare their refusal to leave the market in the face of such adversity, I take that as a clear sign they are more than willing to do what it takes to reach the market.

What I do find rather annoying is how much misinformation does fly around this 2P2 in general. Threads are littered with posts that contain horribly incorrect information (IE Neteller is closing US accounts when they are not, etc etc) when the most that can be offered is speculation. There are very few banking experts here, there are very few legal experts here, and there are very few international finance experts here. I wish people would take that into consideration before making their opinions sound like fact.

[Chinaski]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I know of numerous individuals who were able to wire money from there bank account that they didn't even have to play poker online. When something like this is possible, the government unfortunately must be involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the government should get involved if for example minorities were not allowed to make bank transfers online or if the poker sites were running large children prostitution Internet porn rings or smuggling anthrax into the country.

But they don't have to get involved because a couple of your buddies are playing poker by using their Dad's or a friend's bank account.

The larger, reputable sites do a better job of regulating themselves than the government ever could.

[emund]

my gold card no longer works even with a balance ,i cant use it at a atm

[sooooooo]

MannyisGod: The problem with your argument is it only works if casinos are legal everywhere in the United States. Politicians risk running a slippery slope if they continue to allow offshore gambling sites to target our citizens, yet imprison anyone who runs a casino in the United States. Was everyone here protesting when the WSEX owner was arrested years ago because he was running the site from the US in some ways? Nope. No one really cared, even though it was patently obvious that online gambling would not last forever. IF people protested at that point, and tried to get online poker legalized, even if they failed, we would be on much greater footing in the current environment.

And if they legalize it in the United States, then why can't brick and mortar casinos be in every jurisdiction. *GASP* The odds of that happening are slim to none. Unfortunately, despite the fact that poker is predominately a game of skill to people on 2+2, the vast majority of poker players are gambling. It is impossible to argue that gambling causes negative externalities. The fact that I am libertarian is not a hypocrisy.

Libertarian concepts agree with taxing those who create negative externalities for others. And when these externalities are broad issues such as increased crime near casinos, it is not something that is easy to deal with. Just as you feel you have a right to gamble, other citizens feel they have a right to not live next to a casino.

Finally, I agree that there will always be a way to get around the bill. The point is the typical American will not go to those means. Those who do wish to go to those means will mostly people who earn a significant income from online poker.

WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO LIST AS THE SOURCE OF YOUR INCOME ON YOUR TAX RETURN?

[Billy Bibbit]

[ QUOTE ]

WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO LIST AS THE SOURCE OF YOUR INCOME ON YOUR TAX RETURN?

[/ QUOTE ]

I filed my tax return on Thursday and I wrote down "gambling winnings: $XX,XXX" under the "other income" section of the form, just like I did last year (except last year it was just $X,XXX because I sucked back then, haha). I'd estimate my chances of getting in trouble with the government because of this right around 0%.