UIGEA Is Final - Page 11 - Poker News

cavalucho · 11-12-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

"Illegal Internet Gambling."

And child pornography.

PlzLife · 11-12-2008, 04:57 PM

Will access to pokersites be blocked from the US?

DjiDji · 11-12-2008, 04:57 PM

It's no problem for US residents to open a bank account in most european countries and transfer your funds via online banking. The account maintenance charge in Germany might be around 5 US-$ if your monthly deposit is less than around 1500 US-$. It slightly differes depending on which bank you might chose.
And I don't think this will scare the fish away.

Victor · 11-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coinflipper

It will be the same as it is now:

New processor opens and handles transactions.
After a few weeks or months that processor is Id'ed then shut down.

New processor opens and handles transactions.
...
...
...
...
...

ya. i really dont see how its gonna be any different than it is now. how is this different than the uigea? it looks the same.

RJarv · 11-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tappy Tibbons

This is not true. I have a Canadian bank account (CIBC) with a US address - you just have to apply for one in person. I told them I played poker for a living and they had no problem with that.

So, you can play on party, or wherever you like, no?

ShipDaSherb · 11-12-2008, 05:01 PM

What are the chances of that legal intrastate California poker network ever being approved? If it does there will be a big influx of players to the state.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-law/...ved-until-2009

Tappy Tibbons · 11-12-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJarv

So, you can play on party, or wherever you like, no?

I originally set it up to play on Party (and I also rented a UPS store mailbox in Canada), but as of this summer Party has fewer fish (and crappier software, as always) than Full Tilt or Stars, so I don't play there anymore. It's nice to know that if necessary, I can have funds wired to the Canadian account, then write personal checks to my own account. I think anyone who's a serious poker player and close enough to drive to Canada should consider setting up an account.

If you do set up an account, I recommend being honest about what it's going to be used for. I had my first account closed by RBC because I told them I was going to be doing IT work in Canada, and after a year of wire transfers from Gibraltar, they decided to close my account. I was told that CIBC and TD bank were the most poker friendly, and had no problems opening an account at CIBC and transfering money.

Ponder · 11-12-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tappy Tibbons

I originally set it up to play on Party (and I also rented a UPS store mailbox in Canada), but as of this summer Party has fewer fish (and crappier software, as always) than Full Tilt or Stars, so I don't play there anymore. It's nice to know that if necessary, I can have funds wired to the Canadian account, then write personal checks to my own account. I think anyone who's a serious poker player and close enough to drive to Canada should consider setting up an account.

If you do set up an account, I recommend being honest about what it's going to be used for. I had my first account closed by RBC because I told them I was going to be doing IT work in Canada, and after a year of wire transfers from Gibraltar, they decided to close my account. I was told that CIBC and TD bank were the most poker friendly, and had no problems opening an account at CIBC and transfering money.

What are the extra costs associated with this?

kk405 · 11-12-2008, 05:11 PM

this is the only viable way to enforce the law...

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmay28

Similar to the proposed rule, the final rule does not contemplate that the Agencies, other government agencies, or any other entity will establish or publish a list of businesses known to be involved in unlawful Internet gambling. Although the Act does not require creation of a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses, some commenters have suggested that the Agencies should create such a list and make it available to designated payment systems and their participants in order to permit them to block payments destined to those entities.

Admittedly this stuff is a bit over my head but from my understanding this is basically saying that it's up to everyone involved whether they want to create lists or not, but they don't have to. If they don't have to, then hopefully nobody will feel the need to push the UIGEA anytime soon.

mrwalken · 11-12-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

No. You can receive payments 100% legally, so there's absolutely no point in withdrawing.

I'm sorry, I missed how we know this is going to continue to be true. The rule explicitly talks about payments to and from gambling sites. How is a check from a gambling site not a payment from a gambling site?

FakeKramer · 11-12-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riveredya

Hopefully Obama will exec order this into the ground!

Yea and hopefully girls will start paying me to let them blow me.

MasterLJ · 11-12-2008, 05:16 PM

No... it very explicitly states that only transactions to the site are under review.

Can a mod sticky this? It would really help quiet the Fire and Brimstone crowd, along with those asking legitimately like mrwalken.

Quote:

§___.2(y) Restricted transaction. Several commenters asked the Agencies to clarify that the definition of "restricted transaction" would not apply to funds going to a consumer (i.e., a gambler), as opposed to funds going to a commercial customer (i.e., an Internet gambling business).38 The Act defines "restricted transaction" in § 5362(7) as “any transaction…which the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363.” In turn, § 5363 provides that “[n]o person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept” a payment “in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling.” Under the final rule, the term "restricted transaction" would not include funds going to a gambler, and would only include funds going to an Internet gambling business

kk405 · 11-12-2008, 05:17 PM

these were all true prior to passage of this law, but after January 2009, I suspect things will change and rules will tighten up....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tappy Tibbons

I originally set it up to play on Party (and I also rented a UPS store mailbox in Canada), but as of this summer Party has fewer fish (and crappier software, as always) than Full Tilt or Stars, so I don't play there anymore. It's nice to know that if necessary, I can have funds wired to the Canadian account, then write personal checks to my own account. I think anyone who's a serious poker player and close enough to drive to Canada should consider setting up an account.

If you do set up an account, I recommend being honest about what it's going to be used for. I had my first account closed by RBC because I told them I was going to be doing IT work in Canada, and after a year of wire transfers from Gibraltar, they decided to close my account. I was told that CIBC and TD bank were the most poker friendly, and had no problems opening an account at CIBC and transfering money.

Damntra · 11-12-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FakeKramer

Yea and hopefully girls will start paying me to let them blow me.

Not really out of the realm of possibility.

Quote:

Even though the CRA can’t be filibustered, legislative lifting is generally more difficult than executive action. “There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” John Podesta, who is helping direct Obama’s transition team, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, closely follows midnight regulations. He said he would advise the Obama administration to package all of the regulations it wants overturned into one large vehicle to be voted up or down.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html

Ultim8Degen · 11-12-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield

i think some of you underestimate Obama. I think if we have enough people messaging him instead of whatever we were just messaging, he would listen.

you really cant be this stupid