Quantcast

Repost From 2+2

by Bill Rini on February 7, 2007

in Is Online Poker Legal?, Online Poker, Poker

Like what you see? How about getting Bill's Poker Blog delivered to your inbox?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Else, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


Someone asked me to explain, in detail, how each type of payment processor could be shut down. I include my post from 2+2 here.

ACH/EFT: Easy to shut off. 80% of all activity goes over a network controled by the US gov. The remaining 20% goes over a small group of networks who are part of the NACHA. NACHA issued the memo that lead to the shutdown of Neteller, Click2Pay, and other payment processors the other week. All they have to do is determine which companies are in the gaming eWallet business. That would be as hard as . . . oh, logging into a poker site and taking a gander at the payment processor page.

Debit/Credit cards: These also travel over a fixed number of networks such. Cirrus and Star are examples. The credit/debit card industry already codes transactions so it’s simple for them to cut off this payment method. Some banks were willing to accept gaming risk but once the regs are published those issuing banks will decline all requests to certain industry codes. If payment processors begin publishing bogus industry codes then Visa and MasterCard would act and completely shut them off as a merchant and/or issuer. This has happened with a lot of other industries say where phone sex lines reported bogus industry codes so Visa and MC already have the facilities in place to address this.

Bank wires are very similar to ACH/EFT. Again, all they need is a list of offenders. I don’t think the DOJ will have too hard of a time supplying a frequently updated list of offenders.

Ewallets are not a payment method, per se. You have to fund them. You fund them via one of the other payment methods (ACH/EFT, debit cards, etc). An eWallet has no value without a way to get money onto and off of it.

Western Union / MoneyGram. WU already doesn’t like people using them to fund online gaming accounts and is more diligent about stopping abuse than is MoneyGram which is why most sites offer some sort of bastardized version of MG under a names like CyberCash. This is more difficult to stop and there will always be ways to slip through but once the regs come out MG will likely be forced to start taking a harder look at all of those cash transfers to the same people in Guatamala, Panama, etc.

Paper Checks are probably the most difficult to stop because they don’t happen via electronic means. The handling of paper checks is actually quite expense compared to other payment methods for this very reason. The biggest problem though will be convienience factor. Paper checks will need to mailed overseas and then cashed by an overseas bank which could take up to a month (for sending as well as funds to clear) though in most cases it would be several weeks.

So realistically the only option that can’t be shut down very easily is paper checks. This is what the banks were lobbying against. They wanted to make sure that they had some wiggle room on paper checks because it would be very expensive (or impossible) for them to come up with a good system to prevent illegal payments to and from online gaming sites.

And that really is the problem. It’s become very public that the US gov thinks online gaming is illegal. That scares away many new players. Now you add in this whole process of having to send checks and waiting for weeks for the checks to clear and that will shut out a large number of new and recreational players.

Plus you have to consider that the government already has a lot of things in place to stop money laundering. Using those same tools against online gaming would make some of the above efforts even more effective.

Related posts:

  1. US Gov Seizes Funds – What Does it Mean? Way back in 2006 when the UIGEA first passed...
  2. Diversify My Ass I read an article the other day on Casino...
  3. 888 and Party Gaming Agree With Me on Legalized Gaming in the US Last month I posted an article about what would...
  4. Scathing Review of Senator Jon Kyl It’s not often that you see a conservative website rip...
  5. Viva Las Vegas – Legalized Online Poker in the US Several weeks ago in Amsterdam Jeremy Enke and I...

SiteRackbackSign Up BonusUS
Absolute Poker 30% 150% up to $500 The poker room accepts US players
Ultimate Bet 30% 111% up to $1100 The poker room accepts US players
Cake Poker 33% 110% up to $600 The poker room accepts US players
PKR Poker 30% 100% up to $800
Paradise Poker 30% 200% up to €1,000
Players Only 33% 100% up to $650 The poker room accepts US players
Fortune Poker 30% 200% up to €1,000
Betfair 30% $1500
Aced 30% 100% up to $500 The poker room accepts US players
Poker Heaven 30% 200% up to €1000
Poker Nordica 30% 100% up to $200 The poker room accepts US players
Carbon Poker 30% 150% up to $1000 The poker room accepts US players
Red Star Poker 33% 110% up to $600
True Poker 27% 100% up to $200 The poker room accepts US players
Action Poker 35% 100% up to $2500
Cellsino Poker 40% 500% up to $500
Minted Poker 40% 100% up to $400
Power Poker 33% 110% up to $600
Interpoker 30% 200% up to €1000
Doyles Room 33% 110% up to $600
Gutshot Poker 33% 110% up to $600
Full Tilt Poker 27% 100% up to $600 The poker room accepts US players
Fat Bet Poker 40% 1000% up to €500
NoiQ Poker 30% 100% up to €5000


Site Rake Race Rake Chase Freeroll
Doyle's Room $35,000    
Cereus Poker Network* $7,500 $10,000 $10,000**
Cake Poker $60,000    
Party Poker***   $50,000  
Red Star   $23,000  
Eurobet***   $21,000  
Players Only   $16,400  
Tower Gaming***   $15,000  
Full Tilt Poker $10,000    
Carbon Poker   $12,000  
Betfair Poker   $12,000  
Boss Media Network**** $5,000    
Cellsino Poker   $5,000  
Power Poker   $5,000  
Poker Nordica   $5,000  
NoIQ €1,500    

* Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (UB) ** May not be available to all players *** Poker Heaven, Fortune Poker, InterPoker, Paradise Poker

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Robert Dudek 02.07.07 at 6:21 am

Bill,

While I am in general agreement with you about how the next few years will play out for US online poker players (more and more difficulty funding and withdrawing from accounts), you are destined to be wrong about one thing:

Liquidity will not dry up. Yes, many US fish will no longer bother jumping the hurdles to play online, but the slack will be more than picked up by increasing numbers of European and Asian players. Witness the strong growth of traffic at rooms that banned US players last October in the last few months (most notably Party and Everest).

We are still in the early stages of the poker boom in Europe. The EPT has been growing rapidly, fueled by large numbers of European online qualifiers. And it’s not only the Scandinavians that are jumping on the poker bandwagon – I’m noticing more and more players from many former Communist block countries.

And when the European boom levels off, it will be about time for Asians to enter full force.

As a Canadian, I hope that eventually the restrictions of US players will be lifted. But until then, I will have no shortage of inexperienced players at my table.

2 Bill 02.07.07 at 7:04 am

Robert,

Yes, my apologies. I do not mean that liquidity will dry up universaly. European and Asian growth is fantastic and only getting better. However, if a site is 90% US and the market begins to dry up why would Europeans and Asians choose to play there? Those players are going to go to the sites where liquidity is increasing, marketing campaigns are kicking in, and a real effort is being put into developing those markets. Right now, the only US room doing any of the above is Stars though they are still so US focused that they are probably 12 – 18 months behind sites like Party, Everest, etc that are focusing on non-US markets.

Bill

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <card> <code> <em> <i> <span class=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: