Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
It was a well publicised 1:1 wagering requirement.
The amount wagered works out to be much higher and therefore easier cover the transfer.
IE. If you are sitting at a high stakes cash game table and you raise to $1000 you have now wagered $1000.
This rule wasn't put in place to be restrictive to our players, it was just put in place to ensure the transfer system was for actual players and not just funds traders.
If a wagering requirement is made, but is too easy for the purpose that you make it for, then you should make another rule.
People transfer to get money quickly, because they can't get it otherwise. People transfer to stake other players. How are any of these things bad for you if you want more rake?
If you take away the ability for people to cashout fast (IE trading), then less people play on your site.
But really, this is a problem of a rule that is not being followed. You can't say "oh well we made this rule, but it doesn't really work, so we'll just negate the rule in some cases, cancel a withdraw months after it is requested, and then say too bad."
Well, you can, but it costs more than that damn WD long term. If you plan to stay in business, this is the type of thing that prevents five figures of rake from being placed on your site in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSwanLeon
As far as I know affiliates have different agreements than players. UIGEA doesn't specifically deter an affiliate to advertise. Affiliates don't deposit. Affiliates have a marketing agreement; therefore there are more methods of transferring funds to them because affiliate expenses/payments are not part of player bankrolls.
To date, I don't know of any poker affiliates that have gotten in trouble for being an affiliate. The government certainly would deter or suggest to an affiliate that they shouldn't be engaging in advertising for an online gambling company, but there is nothing on the books saying they can't.
I think you're confusing some things here.
It's also not against the law in many places for players to play poker, but they aren't paid any faster either.
The rules you're talking about, or laws, would be for affiliates, not for businesses running casino/poker/whatever, especially those that may violate certain state laws.
In any case, plenty of non USA affiliates and non USA players report long delays in payments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergistic Explosions
It's not good to post this link and talk about it in this way without being specific, otherwise you're spreading around fear.
The case you link to, the guy flew to Panama and also had money wired onto the sportsbook. It sounds like the guy was probably doing something that involved placing bets for players/hands on collusion with a sportsbook to gain customers, and that's a totally different thing in most countries (whether legal or not) from referring players to a poker room.