Online poker seizure made front page of Yahoo finance. - Page 8 - Internet Poker

not sure if this was asked before but should i be concerned one bit that my bank account contains funds drawn from the processor's account? i use the same bank (W.F) where the account was that got screwed.

There has been so much speculation and worry and different answers to that question you can choose any answer you like - from your account is going to be closed for illegal gambling and your name put on a list that means you can't open another checking account anywhere for at least 5 years, to absolutely nothing to worry about at all. The real answer is you will have to just wait and see.

I and other players have opened back up bank accounts at banks that require low minimum deposits in the past week just in case our primary bank account goes good bye bye.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 12:53 AM

#177

ZeroPointMachine

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,816

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Why should we not be concerned that the DOJ or Treasury or whomever instigated this just won't keep doing it again? I'm assuming these checks have to have some US presence right? Otherwise why would they ever have used US accounts ? (Seriously could use some clarification from someone who knows how the poker site / payment processor relationship has to work.) So if that's the case it's a pretty trivial matter for the Tresury to keep sniffing out the new check processors. And getting 8 figures seized is a pretty strong deterrent to anyone.

I really think the E-checks are the problem, legally(by their definition), and in this case the paper checks just happened to go through the same processor/account. I haven't used an e-check since NeTeller bit the dust and never will. This does create the same old "How do the fish get money on the site?" problem.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 12:56 AM

#178

bangwhiz

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 264

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeroPointMachine

Why are the echecks different from paper checks?

Quote

06-10-2009 , 12:59 AM

#179

KEW

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,139

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Check out the poker traffic sites, you can see that it still makes a pretty big difference. The $30MM is meaningful, but we're still talking a couple of weeks profit, best guess. The precedent and effects on the business model are much more troubling than the $30MM itself, sounds like a bigger number than it is (not that its meaningless)

IMO with each seizure and processor shut down the processing costs increase greatly on the sites...These processing cost are more and more being passed onto the player casual players are not going to be willing to pay these fees...The sites set up complex networks in order to get $$$$ into and out of the US at some point enough will be enough...

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:01 AM

#180

burden2

banned

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 969

Quote:

Originally Posted by agnostia

get used to it... liberty for the average joe is not part of obama's agenda

You've got about as much brains as the bimbo in your avatar. Obviously this mess had momentum far before Obama took office and it might even be news to him. Bush called out gamblers as "casino deadbeats" and for years the republicans have had a hard on for online gambling the size of Iowa. When it comes to this issue, or any other harmless vice or indulgence, our only chance for freedom is the liberals/democrats. There is a small group of libertarians on the right who believe people can do what they want with their money but they are too small to be of any use. Right now it's the democrats or nothing.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:05 AM

#181

ZeroPointMachine

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,816

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangwhiz

Why are the echecks different from paper checks?

IMO Because the electronic transfer can be interpreted as falling under the Wire Act.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:10 AM

#182

bangwhiz

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 264

Does anyone think the government's real objective is to get the sites to pull out of the US market due to the threat of endless problems if they continue to operate here, and that their real target is the sites and not the players?

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:12 AM

#183

bangwhiz

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 264

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeroPointMachine

IMO Because the electronic transfer can be interpreted as falling under the Wire Act.

Thanks.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:12 AM

#184

nevowski

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 988

At least half the $16 billion Internet gambling industry, which is largely hosted on overseas sites, is estimated to be fueled by U.S. bettors.

So why hasn't the U.S. capitalized on an 8 billion dollar industry....fukk these morals pricks and everything that involves them

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:16 AM

#185

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEW

Oh there's a threshold of pain they wont go past Im sure, I just don't think we're near it yet.

Its also not all or nothing. There are also outcomes where we are left with fewer sites and higher prices for worse service due to less competition. A bad outcome of course, but not necessarily just all the sites leaving.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:18 AM

#186

nevowski

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 988

Let's just all fight this better, become more organized and take this to D.C...Come on guys, let's change this

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:19 AM

#187

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangwhiz

Note that there are zero confirmed cases of people getting put into chexsystems due to online gambling activity. So the chances of the first thing happening seem to be at or near zero.

Having two checking accounts does seem prudent however, as banks do sometimes close accounts for gambling activity, although the how's and why's of which accounts are closed seem random and are, to date, few and far between.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:20 AM

#188

KEW

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,139

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangwhiz

IMO this has always been the case..The DOJ put on the pressure offers up a settlement and the cases do not go to court..DOJ wins...The DOJ has yet to go after players...

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:21 AM

#189

Buzz-cp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 10,902

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Tilton

If you can't read the writing on the wall, you sure as hell can't read between the lines.

I NEVER said that Stars was doing anything illegal, DF. I said their business acts outside of US jurisdiction. They are not subject to US laws. Maybe international law to some extent, but not US law. With that said, they obviously do choose to act within the legal environment of the USA. It is up to interpretation if playing online poker is illegal. We think we may all know the answer, but it ultimately comes down to a judge, judges, or politicians.

please just stop and go far away

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:21 AM

#190

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangwhiz

Well, we certainly didn't need this impact because a lot of casual and recreational players are probably gonna play until they run out of chips and just bag it. They don't need this grief. I agree, the 30 Mil was just the tip of the iceberg. Probably all the business model data was based upon the past - not sure those numbers are worth a nickel now.

No, the business model numbers arent worthless at this point, or even close to it, way too early to make that judgement.

The $30MM was not necessarily the tip of the iceberg for money getting seized.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:26 AM

#191

bangwhiz

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 264

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Ok, let's say that's the end result and you are a decent player. What would the competitive landscape look like I wonder? Sort of like the African locked in pools of water from receding rivers after the rainy season ends I guess. As the pools dry out and shrink in size during the dry season, the piranhas wind up with nothing left to eat but each other.

Looks like we are certainly headed into the dry season now in online poker.

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:26 AM

#192

KEW

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,139

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

I agree with the sites are no where near the threshold for leaving...I do not even think cost could raise enough for Star and/or Tilt to leave the US...More concerned with the casual player cost and the PITA factor for the sites offering there services to US players...

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:27 AM

#193

nevowski

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 988

why isn't there an official sign up let's talk to obama government sign up thread..he wants to listen, we get eough moutsh we can do this! Let's stop bithcing and start acting, pm me, if you want to sign up, I will talk to my lawyer girlfriend tomorrow and legally get this action going!!!

some sticky this!!

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:28 AM

#194

Suerte

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 432

LetsGambool,

Thank you very much for all of your comments on this thread, as well as all the other legal threads. You seem to have a great grasp of the situations, and explain them well to the rest of us. Thanks again and GL

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:29 AM

#195

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEW

I think it definitely could reach that point even for the big sites, $30MM isn't going to do it though. A bad Wire Act ruling could, IMO.

Its not good for game quality that's for sure. Especially for as long as e-checks are down. FTPDoug stating he thought they would be back up within two weeks was a good sign (if true, of course)

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:31 AM

#196

KEW

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,139

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suerte

I have been thinking the exact same thing.....

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:34 AM

#197

KEW

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,139

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Completely off topic but tonight during a Texas Rangers game on DTV there was a Party Poker.net commercial and off the top of my head I can not remember the last Party commercial....

Quote

06-10-2009 , 01:36 AM

#198

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEW

Completely off topic but tonight during a Texas Rangers game on DTV there was a Party Poker.net commercial and off the top of my head I can not remember the last Party commercial....

Party still open in Canada these days? They played Toronto