OkScratchcards.com Don't Pay - Cheating

[sophol66]

I won 2000 Pounds there playing Video Poker and slots.

Videopoker counts 10% towards the wagering.

They tell me the following by email and chat - if you play Videopoker the wagering counts but you can only lose in the game, if you win in the game the winnings will be confiscated at the end.

I asked them and verified I am hearing it right and they say yes, it is in the terms and condition - to lose in the game is fine but every winnings from the game will cause the winning from the game to be confiscated.

I was shocked from their answer but then I found that indeed it is written in the terms and condition, what is this all about, are they out of their mind ? this is cheating and they stole the money simply by cheating terms.

This is what the terms say
Only winnings, which are received by playing with a bonus in games which contribute 100% to the wagering, are cashable

I asked them to play with the winnings from the videopoker while it is not cashable let me play with it but they refuse, they confiscated the winnings

They didn't credit the account with the winnings for me to play it in a 100% game, they didnt refund the deposit, the just took the money for themselves.

They should pay in full because it is either you say a game allow to play and count and then winnings and losses count or you say a game is not allowed but to say allowed but you can not enjoy the winnings just to lose in the game is pure cheating.

It is like writing in the terms, we are allowed to cheat.

 

[Nifty29]

The terms are awful.

You shouldn't have agreed to them.

Take it as a lesson learned. I'd say you have NO chance of being paid.

Personally, the name of the place would put me off for a start.

 

[sophol66]

The terms says the winnings are not cashable not that they can confiscate the winnings, dont you agree they cheat even if their own cheating terms are being agreed, they should return the winnings let me play slots with it and the winnings from slots should be paid

 

[maphesto]

What a discusting place:

4. All of OKscratchcards.com's promotions or bonuses, winnings or deposits may only be cashed out after you have made at least one approved deposit and you have wagered at least 35 times of each bonus received – for example you must wager 350£ before cashing out if you have received a bonus of 10£.
Wagering on different games will contribute differently towards your wagering requirements. All games will contribute 100% of each wager towards your wagering requirements, except those shown in the table below:

Wagering Contributions
Game Category Game Contribution
All versions of Roulette 0%
All versions of Blackjack 10%
Quick Play 0%
Hi Lo Fever 0%
Baccarat 0%
3 Card Poker 0%
All versions of Video Poker 10%

A few lines down from that this is written:

7. Only winnings, which are received by playing with a bonus in games which contribute 100% to the wagering, are cashable.

I aslo see this:

Version Dev.246
Last edited on 29-12-2013

@op: When did you sign up?

 

[homerbert]

I am wonder how people even find such places. How they start playing there? What about they think in a moment of deposit?

 

[sophol66]

19 of december I registered deposited and play, they lie and cheat in their terms do you think they are going to honor the old terms even if it wasn't there, they don't even answer to emails

 

[bigjohn]

The terms says the winnings are not cashable not that they can confiscate the winnings, dont you agree they cheat even if their own cheating terms are being agreed, they should return the winnings let me play slots with it and the winnings from slots should be paid

Sure they should, but it seems that they wont. In the future you should only play at reputable casinos but will you?

Try the accredited list here; Link Outdated / Removed

 

[FavoPlayer]

Enter the Exciting World of OKScratchcards: #1 in the UK for Instant Win and Scratch card Games!

#1 in the UK

 

[homerbert]

#1 in the UK

i think i saw many than 100 casinos which stated same thing.
#1 in the UK by their own opinion.

 

[Nifty29]

The terms says the winnings are not cashable not that they can confiscate the winnings, dont you agree they cheat even if their own cheating terms are being agreed, they should return the winnings let me play slots with it and the winnings from slots should be paid

Why did you agree to be bound by them then?

Did you want to be cheated?

Unfortunately, this is what happens when one does not read the terms before they play.

 

[sophol66]

The terms were different when I registered

Also, even with these terms, it says winnings are not cashable but they took the winnings and deposit and brought the account to zero

This means they careless about their own terms, so what difference does it make if I agreed to the terms or not agree.

All casinos have the same standard terms, OkScratchcards is just another casino in big group having the exact same terms like Karamba Casino Hopa Casino and many many more.

The terms were different anyway

 

[Playforfun]

Cheats!

Saying game X allowed .... 10% counts for wagering = saying you play and get paid.


Saying you can only lose at those games is practically cheating.

it is WORSE than the infamous "we reserve the right".

 

[Nifty29]

The terms were different when I registered

Also, even with these terms, it says winnings are not cashable but they took the winnings and deposit and brought the account to zero

This means they careless about their own terms, so what difference does it make if I agreed to the terms or not agree.

All casinos have the same standard terms, OkScratchcards is just another casino in big group having the exact same terms like Karamba Casino Hopa Casino and many many more.

The terms were different anyway

Here's the thing.

The casino is question is obviously dodgy as hell. Neither yourself nor anyone else has shown that the term about non-cashable winnings was NOT there when you signed up. So, I have to assume that it WAS there and you just didn't read the terms properly and hence didn't SEE it. In that case, it's pretty much your fault. Sorry.

Why is it your fault? Playing at this place was not compulsory, and neither was taking their bonuses. It was a CHOICE....and a bad one at that. The way things stand, and always have, is that online casinos can pretty much set whatever rules they like. It's up to the player to decide whether these rules are acceptable or not, and to play or not play accordingly. You chose to play, and accept these incredibly rogue terms.

In these cases it is always about TWO seperate issues:

1. Stupid and predatory terms, for which the casino should be rogued immediately and avoided at all costs.

2. The player (you) ACCEPTED said stupid and predatory terms, and are therefore bound by them i.e. You cannot say "I accept these terms", and then decide later (usually because you decide to actually read the terms when you get caught by them) that "Oh wait...I don't accept these terms". You're too late .co .uk.

Now, the armchair lawyers will likely carry on about "consumer rights" and all this being "illegal in the UK/Europe/Upper Mongolia"....and they may be right to some degree....but all of that stuff is totally irrelevant as it will not apply to your situation. It's like being told you're good to go to smoke pot in coffee shops in Sydney because it's legal/tolerated in Amsterdam etc etc (give it a try by all means, but be sure to take an overnight bag with you)

Look before you leap.

 

[psmith2020]

should the website link be took of the thread title and replaced with crapmesiter.com

 

[vinylweatherman]

The terms were different when I registered

Also, even with these terms, it says winnings are not cashable but they took the winnings and deposit and brought the account to zero

This means they careless about their own terms, so what difference does it make if I agreed to the terms or not agree.

All casinos have the same standard terms, OkScratchcards is just another casino in big group having the exact same terms like Karamba Casino Hopa Casino and many many more.

The terms were different anyway

That's a long list of casinos to avoid like the plague.

Here's the thing.

The casino is question is obviously dodgy as hell. Neither yourself nor anyone else has shown that the term about non-cashable winnings was NOT there when you signed up. So, I have to assume that it WAS there and you just didn't read the terms properly and hence didn't SEE it. In that case, it's pretty much your fault. Sorry.

Why is it your fault? Playing at this place was not compulsory, and neither was taking their bonuses. It was a CHOICE....and a bad one at that. The way things stand, and always have, is that online casinos can pretty much set whatever rules they like. It's up to the player to decide whether these rules are acceptable or not, and to play or not play accordingly. You chose to play, and accept these incredibly rogue terms.

In these cases it is always about TWO seperate issues:

1. Stupid and predatory terms, for which the casino should be rogued immediately and avoided at all costs.

2. The player (you) ACCEPTED said stupid and predatory terms, and are therefore bound by them i.e. You cannot say "I accept these terms", and then decide later (usually because you decide to actually read the terms when you get caught by them) that "Oh wait...I don't accept these terms". You're too late .co .uk.

Now, the armchair lawyers will likely carry on about "consumer rights" and all this being "illegal in the UK/Europe/Upper Mongolia"....and they may be right to some degree....but all of that stuff is totally irrelevant as it will not apply to your situation. It's like being told you're good to go to smoke pot in coffee shops in Sydney because it's legal/tolerated in Amsterdam etc etc (give it a try by all means, but be sure to take an overnight bag with you)

Look before you leap.

A report to the ASA should get the attention of the UK authorities, but the main problem is their bogus claim of "No 1 in the UK", which the ASA will require them to substantiate or withdraw. They have no power to shut them down unless they have assets or offices in the UK, and even then this is a matter for trading standards. There will be a few less grey areas next year as all casinos operating in the UK will need a UK license, and a website claim like "No1 in the UK" will be deemed as intentionally marketing to UK players, which from December 2014 will be illegal without a license from the UKGC. Currently, it's a grey area, apart from UK controlled media, non whitelisted casinos can market to UK players from outside the EU, usually via spam, affiliate sites, and even snail mail offers.

Spotting such terms BEFORE you get screwed enables one to avoid getting screwed, and also avoids the need to "play nice" when discussing the terms and rogue behaviour on a forum as no winnings are held to ransom (many rogue casinos have blackmailed players into keeping quiet about rogue behaviour if they want even a slim chance of getting paid).

The best solution is to see if a PAB can be accepted. It is one means of getting CM to properly assess the behaviour of this large casino group, and even if you don't get paid, it could result in the whole bunch being chucked into the pit.

If they have confiscated the DEPOSIT and wins on slots as well, then they have not even abided by their own dodgy terms, so the player would have an even stronger case, along with their being a stronger case for this being intentionally rogue practice, rather than a very unusual set of terms.

I get a vast amount of spam for sites such as these, another indication for me that they are best avoided.

 

[Nifty29]

Now, the armchair lawyers will likely carry on about "consumer rights" and all this being "illegal in the UK/Europe/Upper Mongolia"....and they may be right to some degree....but all of that stuff is totally irrelevant as it will not apply to your situation. It's like being told you're good to go to smoke pot in coffee shops in Sydney because it's legal/tolerated in Amsterdam etc etc (give it a try by all means, but be sure to take an overnight bag with you)

Wow.

I must be psychic or something......

Bottom line? It doesn't matter what the ASA, UKGC, ABCD, or FBI says....it's irrelevant and has no bearing on the OPs issue, and, more importantly, won't help them get paid.

 

[kavaman]

This term is god awful, i mean why on earth they state contribution if playing these games only counts in your winnings being forfeited. The terms should clearly say, that only slots or scratchcards contribute towards wagering and if you play other games your winnings will be forfeited.

This is not clearly put if game weightings say you can play, but below is a term that counteracts with the game weighting part of terms ;(.

I believe this group of casinos has been pretty good towards players before this since ive heard only little bit of complaints. I hope they decide to pay the player.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Wow.

I must be psychic or something......

Bottom line? It doesn't matter what the ASA, UKGC, ABCD, or FBI says....it's irrelevant and has no bearing on the OPs issue, and, more importantly, won't help them get paid.

This is not necessarily true. Bad PR following a decision has often lead to a company performing a "handbrake turn" on an issue they initially defended to the hilt. Such an exercise DOES often cause customers caught up in the negative side of the bad decision to get redress.

Watching the various consumer programs on offer, it is often the case that after a screwing over has been featured, the company concerned decides to rethink it's initial "final decision", perhaps prompted by the fact that the bad PR that will be generated by the broadcast of the story would be lessened if the story closed on the positive note that after a rethink, the company decided to make the inevitable "goodwill gesture" towards the individual case featured, without "admitting liability" in any way to prevent the gesture being used by customers not featured on the programme. It's a game that has been played for decades, the harder a customer fights, and especially where said fight is taken to a public arena, the more likely the customer gets a positive outcome.

In the wild west of online casinos, PR is probably a players' greatest weapon. In this kind of case, the bad PR of an official "casino warning" or pit listing is more powerful than the bad PR generated by a rant in the public forum, hence the suggestion that a private PAB should be the first option, not the second or third.

ASA rulings tend to generate little in the way of bad PR, but they DO act to paint a picture for the authorities that shows them how the current regime is working. ASA powers were extended to the internet so as to keep up with the evolving retail landscape. It was known that internet advertising was seen as a legal loophole by companies who wanted to carry on misleading consumers.

The eventual value of making reports to the ASA and Trading Standards will only become clear when we see what the UK government will do about companies that deliberately use the wild west aspect of the internet to offer services to UK players whilst avoiding tax and UKGC rules. As in the US, I am sure there will be companies that will ignore any rules and seek to bypass attempts to block them.

UK users can still access Pirate Bay with relative ease, so I am sure they will be able to access a casino that has been officially banned by the UKGC. I can't see it becoming a criminal offence in the UK to use an unlicensed casino that has managed to bypass any blockade, as the consumer would be the victim of a scam.

 

[Nifty29]

This is not necessarily true. Bad PR following a decision has often lead to a company performing a "handbrake turn" on an issue they initially defended to the hilt. Such an exercise DOES often cause customers caught up in the negative side of the bad decision to get redress.

Watching the various consumer programs on offer, it is often the case that after a screwing over has been featured, the company concerned decides to rethink it's initial "final decision", perhaps prompted by the fact that the bad PR that will be generated by the broadcast of the story would be lessened if the story closed on the positive note that after a rethink, the company decided to make the inevitable "goodwill gesture" towards the individual case featured, without "admitting liability" in any way to prevent the gesture being used by customers not featured on the programme. It's a game that has been played for decades, the harder a customer fights, and especially where said fight is taken to a public arena, the more likely the customer gets a positive outcome.

In the wild west of online casinos, PR is probably a players' greatest weapon. In this kind of case, the bad PR of an official "casino warning" or pit listing is more powerful than the bad PR generated by a rant in the public forum, hence the suggestion that a private PAB should be the first option, not the second or third.

ASA rulings tend to generate little in the way of bad PR, but they DO act to paint a picture for the authorities that shows them how the current regime is working. ASA powers were extended to the internet so as to keep up with the evolving retail landscape. It was known that internet advertising was seen as a legal loophole by companies who wanted to carry on misleading consumers.

The eventual value of making reports to the ASA and Trading Standards will only become clear when we see what the UK government will do about companies that deliberately use the wild west aspect of the internet to offer services to UK players whilst avoiding tax and UKGC rules. As in the US, I am sure there will be companies that will ignore any rules and seek to bypass attempts to block them.

UK users can still access Pirate Bay with relative ease, so I am sure they will be able to access a casino that has been officially banned by the UKGC. I can't see it becoming a criminal offence in the UK to use an unlicensed casino that has managed to bypass any blockade, as the consumer would be the victim of a scam.

Coin as many combination of Capital letters you wish....all of them are equally irrelevant.

The world does not follow UK laws. Amazingly, each country has it's own laws (you can probably find this out on google.com).

I'll tell you what the UK government will do about companies that deliberately use the wild west aspect to of the internet.....absolutely nothing. Why? If they aren't physically present, or licenced, in the UK, then they are subject to the laws of whatever jurisdiction they ARE physically present/licenced in. Good luck complaining to the Costa Rican, Curacao or Maltese governments that their casinos are not complying with UK gambling legislation!

Unless it is going to be a criminal offence to play at a non-UK-licenced operator....and I would highly doubt it will be.....UK players will still look for better deals etc elsewhere (and given the higher licence fees and taxes forced upon UK licenced operators, it probably won't be difficult to find much better deals offshore)....AND, while there is a demand, there will be a supply. It's business 101.

 

[dunover]

Coin as many combination of Capital letters you wish....all of them are equally irrelevant.

The world does not follow UK laws. Amazingly, each country has it's own laws (you can probably find this out on google.com).

I'll tell you what the UK government will do about companies that deliberately use the wild west aspect to of the internet.....absolutely nothing. Why? If they aren't physically present, or licenced, in the UK, then they are subject to the laws of whatever jurisdiction they ARE physically present/licenced in. Good luck complaining to the Costa Rican, Curacao or Maltese governments that their casinos are not complying with UK gambling legislation!

Unless it is going to be a criminal offence to play at a non-UK-licenced operator....and I would highly doubt it will be.....UK players will still look for better deals etc elsewhere (and given the higher licence fees and taxes forced upon UK licenced operators, it probably won't be difficult to find much better deals offshore)....AND, while there is a demand, there will be a supply. It's business 101.

Yes, indeed that's the dilemma. How to stop us in the UK playing certain sites. One way could be to disallow card transactions to those sites by instructing the banks BUT that would mean complications for loading e-wallets like Neteller and Skrill because they would have no control over where you spent via those entities. Plus the endless supply of new offshore sites would be impossible to control. Then we have the EU free trade/freedom of choice laws, so the UK would have to insist on rules encompassing all EU nations ultimately, not just us poor Limeys.
To pursue this further would mean US-style restrictions which as we know the US players find a way round anyway, albeit with limited choices. We can control what comes into the country as regards physical goods, but to control what we bring into our homes online is a ridiculous and impossible undertaking.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes, indeed that's the dilemma. How to stop us in the UK playing certain sites. One way could be to disallow card transactions to those sites by instructing the banks BUT that would mean complications for loading e-wallets like Neteller and Skrill because they would have no control over where you spent via those entities. Plus the endless supply of new offshore sites would be impossible to control. Then we have the EU free trade/freedom of choice laws, so the UK would have to insist on rules encompassing all EU nations ultimately, not just us poor Limeys.
To pursue this further would mean US-style restrictions which as we know the US players find a way round anyway, albeit with limited choices. We can control what comes into the country as regards physical goods, but to control what we bring into our homes online is a ridiculous and impossible undertaking.

This is already being done with other sites. UK users can no longer "play" at Pirate Bay and a rapidly increasing number of other sites. The problem with Neteller is much easier to solve. It just takes getting Neteller and Skrill to cooperate, and we can see how this is done by looking to Canada, where Skrill has decided to block all Canadian customers from depositing at casinos. It should not be much of a problem putting pressure on Neteller and Skrill to block UK customers from transacting with gambling sites not approved by the UK government. Coupled with getting the banks to block transactions, it can become very hard for most UK players to carry on playing freely at unapproved sites, even though there is nothing the UK government can do to actually shut these sites down.

In the case of Pirate Bay, they HAVE to some extent criminalised the USERS, not just the provider (which they can't actually shut down). At present, nothing much is happening because arguments rage on just how to deal with the "criminals" using the services offered. Currently, it's civil action to recover penal levels of damages in order to scare users off.

The US authorities are tightening the screw, and many US players have been driven out of the market by such things as having their household bank accounts closed over the suspicion that they are playing at offshore sites.


Provided a company intends staying in a particular market, bad PR about their activities will have an effect.

Look at Skrill, no law REQUIRED them to summarily pull out of Canada, it was pressure from the threat that they would be worse off in the long term if they remained in Canada. Many operators have pulled out of Canada, despite their being no legal changes. It has all been driven by pressure and veiled threats to the bottom line if they didn't. Threats to the bottom line are taken seriously by big business, even to the extent of screwing over a particular subset of it's customers.

 

[Nifty29]

This is already being done with other sites. UK users can no longer "play" at Pirate Bay and a rapidly increasing number of other sites. The problem with Neteller is much easier to solve. It just takes getting Neteller and Skrill to cooperate, and we can see how this is done by looking to Canada, where Skrill has decided to block all Canadian customers from depositing at casinos. It should not be much of a problem putting pressure on Neteller and Skrill to block UK customers from transacting with gambling sites not approved by the UK government. Coupled with getting the banks to block transactions, it can become very hard for most UK players to carry on playing freely at unapproved sites, even though there is nothing the UK government can do to actually shut these sites down.

In the case of Pirate Bay, they HAVE to some extent criminalised the USERS, not just the provider (which they can't actually shut down). At present, nothing much is happening because arguments rage on just how to deal with the "criminals" using the services offered. Currently, it's civil action to recover penal levels of damages in order to scare users off.

The US authorities are tightening the screw, and many US players have been driven out of the market by such things as having their household bank accounts closed over the suspicion that they are playing at offshore sites.


Provided a company intends staying in a particular market, bad PR about their activities will have an effect.

Look at Skrill, no law REQUIRED them to summarily pull out of Canada, it was pressure from the threat that they would be worse off in the long term if they remained in Canada. Many operators have pulled out of Canada, despite their being no legal changes. It has all been driven by pressure and veiled threats to the bottom line if they didn't. Threats to the bottom line are taken seriously by big business, even to the extent of screwing over a particular subset of it's customers.

Yup.

US players haven't been able to play anywhere online since the UIGEA was passed years ago.

Prohibition totally works across International borders. It's water tight.

Yes, it may well restrict choice, but it doesn't stop it altogether.

Where did you get your information about why Skrill pulled out of Canada? Oh, and the "many players" who have had their bank accounts shut down for suspected online gambling?

FWIW, our government tried to persuade the banks to block internet gambling payments. It didn't work...they said "not unless you legislate it". The politicians decided there was nothing to be gained by pissing off the banks....after all, they do contribute generous amounts to their campaigns. The banks said it was not their place to tell customers where they can spend their own money....and I suspect (your favourite word) the UK banks won't want to do it either....and banks in every country can be very influential. IIRC, even the US banks refused to block all transactions at their end suspected of being gambling related, for the same reasons the Australian banks provided. Online gambling is NOT illegal in the USA or Australia, so the banks felt they should not be blocking activities that were not illegal. If the US banks REALLY wanted to completely stop the vast majority of gambling transactions, they probably could. The fact is that they don't....it costs them money to do it.

Oh...and pirate bay is a terrible example. Piracy is illegal. Online gambling is not.

 

[dunover]

This is already being done with other sites. UK users can no longer "play" at Pirate Bay and a rapidly increasing number of other sites. The problem with Neteller is much easier to solve. It just takes getting Neteller and Skrill to cooperate, and we can see how this is done by looking to Canada, where Skrill has decided to block all Canadian customers from depositing at casinos. It should not be much of a problem putting pressure on Neteller and Skrill to block UK customers from transacting with gambling sites not approved by the UK government. Coupled with getting the banks to block transactions, it can become very hard for most UK players to carry on playing freely at unapproved sites, even though there is nothing the UK government can do to actually shut these sites down.

In the case of Pirate Bay, they HAVE to some extent criminalised the USERS, not just the provider (which they can't actually shut down). At present, nothing much is happening because arguments rage on just how to deal with the "criminals" using the services offered. Currently, it's civil action to recover penal levels of damages in order to scare users off.

The US authorities are tightening the screw, and many US players have been driven out of the market by such things as having their household bank accounts closed over the suspicion that they are playing at offshore sites.


Provided a company intends staying in a particular market, bad PR about their activities will have an effect.

Look at Skrill, no law REQUIRED them to summarily pull out of Canada, it was pressure from the threat that they would be worse off in the long term if they remained in Canada. Many operators have pulled out of Canada, despite their being no legal changes. It has all been driven by pressure and veiled threats to the bottom line if they didn't. Threats to the bottom line are taken seriously by big business, even to the extent of screwing over a particular subset of it's customers.

So first point in bold above:

OK, so the UK government puts Skrill and Neteller through the mill. So, what's to stop me paying via WU or more likely trustworthy foreign payment agents and webwallets which will spring up to replace the big two?? The government will find it a 'bedknobs and broomsticks' scenario; for every one they cut off, two will spring up....

And the second:

So they 'criminalized' users, but a very poor analogy. Online gaming is LEGAL so by its definition users cannot be criminalized, and even if they were as regards an individual gaming site (the 'lawyer' in you should know this!) the higher court of the EU would overrule this as a restriction on freedom of choice and consumption. This is why I reiterate yet again, the UK cannot go down this path alone. It is doomed to embarrassing failure.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yup.

US players haven't been able to play anywhere online since the UIGEA was passed years ago.

Prohibition totally works across International borders. It's water tight.

Yes, it may well restrict choice, but it doesn't stop it altogether.

Where did you get your information about why Skrill pulled out of Canada? Oh, and the "many players" who have had their bank accounts shut down for suspected online gambling?

FWIW, our government tried to persuade the banks to block internet gambling payments. It didn't work...they said "not unless you legislate it". The politicians decided there was nothing to be gained by pissing off the banks....after all, they do contribute generous amounts to their campaigns. The banks said it was not their place to tell customers where they can spend their own money....and I suspect (your favourite word) the UK banks won't want to do it either....and banks in every country can be very influential. IIRC, even the US banks refused to block all transactions at their end suspected of being gambling related, for the same reasons the Australian banks provided. Online gambling is NOT illegal in the USA or Australia, so the banks felt they should not be blocking activities that were not illegal. If the US banks REALLY wanted to completely stop the vast majority of gambling transactions, they probably could. The fact is that they don't....it costs them money to do it.

Oh...and pirate bay is a terrible example. Piracy is illegal. Online gambling is not.

This depends on the laws of individual countries. Pirate Bay survives because it is legal where the site is registered, but illegal in the UK. Therefore the UK can't take it down, they can only build a wall of censorship around the UK. There are a few states in the US where gambling online has specifically been made illegal, and in theory players can be prosecuted. The US banks ARE now acting against their customers, even where they have nothing more than suspicions. They are scared of being prosecuted for turning a blind eye, some banks more so than others. This is despite the considerable power the US banks have over the politicians. There have been many US players who have reported "trouble with their bank" after suspicions that some of their transactions are gambling related, even though the banks have let them through rather than block them.

The information as to why Skrill pulled out of Canada came from here (the forum). It was from some "off the record" discussions, so there is no official statement to this effect.

The UK government could also apply pressure to the major eWallets to cajole them into blocking unlicensed merchants. It will leave the more obscure deposit methods available to the determined, but UK players at unlicensed sites could find themselves having the same problems with deposits and withdrawals as US players. One difference will be that unlike the US, there will be plenty of licensed operations to play at where the process should be even easier than it is now. This could starve the unlicensed casinos out of the UK market rather than them having to be driven out.

Most US players currently have two options, play at a non approved site, or don't play at all. A few are getting a third option, play at a state licensed online casino. Maybe these players will find the higher tax take by the government a price worth paying for doing away with the hassle and jerking around they currently suffer over deposits and withdrawals. After all, many barely notice the difference between an RTG casino on 91.5% and one on the standard 95% - they are all seen as just as tight.

 

[Nifty29]

This depends on the laws of individual countries. Pirate Bay survives because it is legal where the site is registered, but illegal in the UK. Therefore the UK can't take it down, they can only build a wall of censorship around the UK. There are a few states in the US where gambling online has specifically been made illegal, and in theory players can be prosecuted. The US banks ARE now acting against their customers, even where they have nothing more than suspicions. They are scared of being prosecuted for turning a blind eye, some banks more so than others. This is despite the considerable power the US banks have over the politicians. There have been many US players who have reported "trouble with their bank" after suspicions that some of their transactions are gambling related, even though the banks have let them through rather than block them.

The information as to why Skrill pulled out of Canada came from here (the forum). It was from some "off the record" discussions, so there is no official statement to this effect.

The UK government could also apply pressure to the major eWallets to cajole them into blocking unlicensed merchants. It will leave the more obscure deposit methods available to the determined, but UK players at unlicensed sites could find themselves having the same problems with deposits and withdrawals as US players. One difference will be that unlike the US, there will be plenty of licensed operations to play at where the process should be even easier than it is now. This could starve the unlicensed casinos out of the UK market rather than them having to be driven out.

Most US players currently have two options, play at a non approved site, or don't play at all. A few are getting a third option, play at a state licensed online casino. Maybe these players will find the higher tax take by the government a price worth paying for doing away with the hassle and jerking around they currently suffer over deposits and withdrawals. After all, many barely notice the difference between an RTG casino on 91.5% and one on the standard 95% - they are all seen as just as tight.

Please link to these "unofficial discussions" about Skrill. In my experience, "unofficial discussions" usually equate to "making stuff up" and "concocting theories" to back up a personal opinion. If the source is credible and verifiable, I will of course acknowledge it as real.

Piracy might not be "illegal" in some countries, but in the vast majority of the world it IS illegal. Certainly, there are VERY few countries where online gambling is strictly verboten in comparison to those where privacy is illegal.

Also, please provide the example of "MANY players" who have had their bank accounts closed due to the bank discovering they used them for online gambling. I'm not talking about one or two with specific banks who had issues, nor those where cheques bounced and their accounts were closed (as this would happen regardless of the source of the cheque).

I also think your head is still in the clouds when it comes to your assessment of how many operators are going to stump up the ridiculously high licence fees and taxes proposed by the UKGC. If they have a way to circumvent it....and I would be VERY surprised if there aren't several avenues to explore and use (after all, US players can still play at a reasonable amount of casinos regardless of the UIGEA)...they WILL...and continue to operate offering games to UK players AND have a financial advantage in being able to offer higher RTPs and better promotions.

Regulation means more costs for operators. More costs for the operators means lower RTP and less attractive promotions for players, as well as possible longer payment times. At the moment, the UK government isn't getting their slice of the pie....when they do, it's the PLAYER who gets the smaller slice as a result, not the casinos.

Given that it would be almost unthinkable for it to be a criminal offence for a UK player to play offshore, I can see players going where they get the best value, which most likely will NOT be with UK-licenced operators.

As sad as it is, even if players occasionally get screwed at an offshore operator, the higher RTP offered across the board would almost certainly still make it more financially viable, especially to those who wager consistently high and/or play regularly.