Rusty, first of all, please start quoting, this italicising bollocks makes folowing who said what bloody impossible. I asked politely before, I just won't bother replying the next time you do it, as I can't be bothered wading through your posts to find your own text, and then you'll have nobody to react to your trolling.
Genuine players? So now you're deciding what is and isn't the criteria for a genuine player? I would say that anyone who puts their money into an online site is a genuine player wouldn't you?
No for the reasons I have stated, hope this clears it up for you.
POTRIPPER? Well I've already said why that was a ridiculous point to make.
The casinos have tried strong regulation, the players wouldn't jump through the hoops necessary. Are you proposing that those same casinos should carry on as a loss making enterprise just to service the few players who did jump through the hoops?
Are you saying the Casinos moved because they were too strictly regulated or not?
Of course I am.The regulations put in place made acquiring players extremely difficult for the operators. Without players the casinos couldn;t make any money, so they had to leave.
If as you say they never signed up in the first place how would you know about them?
They signed up and never deposited, pretty clear to track that percentage, of course this was from jurisdictions where gaming was allowed, many were not and these players were of course also easy to track. You'll note that these restrictions were dropped totally to allow Stars to relocate there a couple of years ago.
I'd love to hear why you think they would be any better regulators of online gaming than existing white list jurisdictions, and why they would make a better job online than the shambles they make of B&M casino regulation ?
Many reasons.
Firstly they are an independent body that has far reaching powers.
What expertise in regulating online gaming do they have that would give you confidence that they could exercise these far reaching powers.
They operate under UK law and are overseen by the UK Government.
And that's a positive?
The 2005 gambling act would be fully enforced
Really? And how do you come to that conclusion. They didn't enforce the '69 with any great consistency, but changing the year and their name will make them better how exactly?
They have the resourses to properly regulate the Casinos they license.
Based on what other than wishful thinking? How well funded is the UKGC as you seem to have these figures to hand?
I can not be sure but I think if it were put to a vote most players would prefer to have UKGC regulate than say Alderney or Kahnawake.
You are free to disagree but unfortunately players do not have the luxury of making a choice
I agre with you, but history shows that when 'strong' regulation was introduced, it was a flop, and the IoM had to seriously review how they did business in order to attract licensees back to the island.
Just to go back to this point as it's important. If you knew anything about the IoMGC's attempts at regulation in the early 00's, one thing you wouldn't describe it as is 'well regulated'
Then please provide some information and state why you would not describe it as well regulated.
I could start with the draft regulations being leaked to the banking industry, who then drove through changes that made online gaming comparable to banking. Then the progressive introduction of more and more regulations even after licensees had signed up on the back of the original licencing terms. Or the change that meant that while originally a license was for a corporate body to run as many casinos as they wished, and had made business plans on that basis, these were subsequently reneged upon, and licensees were expected to pay for every single re-skin they wished to launch, blowing said business plans out of the water. Or the fact that despite being an online industry, every single email or live chat contact with a player had also to be kept, printed off and the hard copy filed for posterity. Or the fact the every licensee had different directives to follow.
Or players being restricted to 5k per month in withdrawals in total, no exceptions ever, regardless of how much was deposited by the player - ironically (and idiotically) there was no such restriction on depositing as long as KYC was satisfied I must admit that trawling back 6+ years for any great specifics is a bit difficult, hopefully some more specifics will come back to me.
Casinomeister seems to think it is ok here is an excerpt from Online casino licensing infrormation from this site.
Each of these jurisdictions provide varying levels of regulation, but this is an important element for a player as good regulation can prevent a casino from, how best to put it... shirking their responsibilities! Of the above, both Gibraltar and the Isle Of Man (off the UK coast) have a strong reputation for ensuring operations are run smoothly and totally above board. If I see either of these touted on a casino's website, I feel like I'm in the right place!
He is stating the complete opposite.
Of course he is, you realise that casino licensing IoM of the early 00's is a completely different proposition from the current incarnation of the IOMGC? (rhetorical question)
They learned their lesson, set about understanding the industry, what was needed to make businesses work, while simultaneously protecting the player. I would go much further, and state that the IoM is now the safest jurisdiction in the world for online gaming, certainly much more so than Gib.
Sadly back in 2001, the post of Online Commisioner went unfilled, so the job fell into the hands of the existing gaming inspectors, most of whom could barely switch on a PC, far less have any understanding of what was then still a relatively fledgling industry, and thought they could apply their knowledge of the solitary casino and handful of betting shops, and simply transfer that to the online world. Within 18 months of the first casino opening, all six had left or closed down.