felicie
Dormant account
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Location
- somewhere else
I thought it meant it's a lot of bullcrap for us to go thru and all we want to do is gamble online and we shall, one way or the other.
Understood but quoting or actually paraphrasing Maxd., expect some casualties! Who,what,when,where,how et al=the question(s).I thought it meant it's a lot of bullcrap for us to go thru and all we want to do is gamble online and we shall, one way or the other.
No shit!!!!!!!Hiya: Well, there are a lot of people who do not want to give out any banking information, to anybody, if they do not have to. Thus, pre paid debit cards. Even On Line games know how hard it is to get someone to give out their banking information, to play a game, more the less, to gamble on line. This is why games had Game Time Codes, you can buy at the game store. But, yes, a second bank acct, used for Gambling, e bay, ect. is a good idea
Yes, it is the second time I posted it and the way it is written became the most important topic of discussion. Nevermind the closing of bank accounts which has occurred but not at Regions afaik but another US top ten bank!!Saw that on one of my bank statements, too. (NOT the account I use for QT transfers.) However.... I really wish someone who plays the horses could stir up a stink about this with the bank(s)... as gambling on horses is supposed to be legal... LOL
And back to the CC thing... other than prepaid cards... (and this is my personal opinion only)... Credit Cards and/or household bank accounts should never, ever be used for gambling -- regardless of whether it's considered legal or not where you live.
Time will tell but as I posted before the frontlines including branch managers are clueless to UIGEA. Thus, in that sense you are correct. Feel free to keep playing the law of averages,hehe!!Hiya: The statement in the pic from Nashvegas, is more of a ,"Boo them Up", and, "look FBI, we are doing all we can about it". The bigger the city you live in, and the bigger the bank is, the harder it is for them to actually, "Decline" anything thinking it is on line gambling releated. Unless the check from the Casino looks like this:
________________________________________________________________
OnLine super Casino-----------2/7/2010
In the S. Pacific
asd-2356
Pay To: Casino Log in name, aka; "Love2winalotof internetgambling$"
Pay: Seven hundred casino dollars-------------$700.00
note: Thanks from Online Casino xyz
________________________________________________________________
hehehe. I mean, in a Town like Las Vegas, with people from all over the world here all the time, and one of the highest rates of Internetional Banking transactions in America, It become really hard to know.
Oh, and you just know, that at some point a Bank is going to accuse the Wrong person of having a Internet Gambling Transaction, "when it was not", decline it, causing the person to lose something, and that person will be sitting at the Bank Managers desk, WITH HIS LAWYER. ........
"As we have no direct experience of the issue here our answers are based purely on our knowledge of how the banking and card schemes operate in general terms."
Q1:As I understand it the credit card companies have moved to block transactions which they identify as being related to online gambling. Have I got that right?
A1: Yes. Both Visa and Mastercard have implemented blocking for all US issued cards on transactions for both online poker and casino. Previously this has been in place by blocking 7995 transactions but they are now targeting non coded transactions. Our belief is that they are getting ready for the financial transaction aspect of UIGEA which hits the statute books in June.
Q2: How big a deal is this? I've heard from some quarters that it's seismic, that as much as "hundreds of millions" have been seized from some operators and that some of them are going to curl up and die because of this. Does that sound like a reasonable assessment of the situation?
A2: At present the figures and affected operators is at best speculation and worst rumour mongering. However, that said, the implications could be far reaching for those operators which are transacting outside of the card scheme rules in relation to 7995 coded transactions (see also Q7). It will clearly impact hard on those operators who have not restructured following the original announcement of the UIGEA and continued to rely heavily on US-based consumers for their revenue. Those operators that chose to restructure following the announcement are steps ahead in focusing their marketing elsewhere globally to allow for this deficit, it may well be a case of too late for operators caught up at this late stage of the game.
Q3: It this global or US only? I suppose another way of asking the same thing is will it affect all customer transactions or only those customers in the US?
A3: Other than individual card issuers who have there own territorial rules this appears to only affect those cards issued in US, although Citigroup appear to have rolled this out globally.
Q4: As I understand it MC/Visa block the transaction, which means the money never leaves the bank and the operator is short that deposit. Will that money ever have entered play at the casino or is just that the tap got turned off and so there's less money flowing?
A4: If the transaction is blocked at source (i.e. the card issuer) then the operator would not normally credit a players account with funds so it is unlikely that the funds would have been used by the end user at the casino / poker room. If the transaction was blocked after authorization was given by the bank, which may well be the case here, then potentially there will be money flowing around the poker room / casino where the operator has not and will not receive the funds and will have to bear the loss associated.
Q5: I've heard that the CC companies will be fining operators for these gaming related transactions. Is that something your average casino is covered against or are they likely to be out-of-pocket for those fines?
A5: This is not normally something that a casino/poker operator would have coverage for and ultimately would affect the bottom line profit of the operator. In general both Card Scheme Rules operate an Excessive Chargeback Report (based on volume and value of sales) and if you hit certain limits here then the fines can be punitive.
Q6: There's been pretty widespread speculation that this will slow payments to the players yet some shops are not showing any such thing. Are some operators simply isolated from this or are they able to absorb the damage and carry on because of contingency planning (or the like)?
A6: Being a non US merchant this I cannot comment on this. I would suggest that the bigger operators will be able to absorb some of this cost; it will hurt but won't be life threatening!
Q7: There's been some talk of a wave of chargebacks being released because of this, presumably initiated by someone other than the player yet the player would have the chargeback on their record. Does this make any sense to you?
A7: Being US exempt it is hard to comment. There are potentially two scenarios here which could come in to effect. The first is a card scheme chargeback and this would affect previously authorized transactions being charged back by the card issuer where there is evidence to suggest that the authorizations were obtained outside of the card scheme rules as they stand, i.e. non coded transactions. Additionally there is a possibility that the card schemes could sanction the operators if it can be shown that the transactions were processed outside the scheme rules and this could be in the form of fines and, the ultimate sanction, removal of transaction ability with the card scheme.
At present these comments are mainly based on conjecture and speculation, until we become aware of the exact figures involved and the stance that the card schemes themselves take it is difficult to suggest the likely impact. If the card schemes themselves were to take the heaviest stance possible then the repercussions for those operators will, potentially, put them in a position from which there will be little chance of recovery. Fines imposed by the card schemes themselves may not be as worrying or harmful as the potential to have the facility of the card scheme removed from the operator and potentially find themselves blacklisted with the card scheme to ensure that future acquirers/processors are unable or unwilling to take them on regardless of the legitimacy of any future transactions.
The layer won't be of much use:Oh, and you just know, that at some point a Bank is going to accuse the Wrong person of having a Internet Gambling Transaction, "when it was not", decline it, causing the person to lose something, and that person will be sitting at the Bank Managers desk, WITH HIS LAWYER. ........
They are spot on based on my numerous conversations (most not by my choice by any means).As a second stab at this issue I talked with a senior exec from a widely respected casino. They are not US-facing and as such do not have first hand knowledge of the recent actions. They do however have considerable expertise in the field and I value their input. They have asked not to be named.
They are spot on based on my numerous conversations (most not by my choice by any means).
Most of your source's answers have been previously mentioned in this forum *cough* in of course a more simplistic way. Even discussed with L J via phone y-day. Again, excellent info. from your source. So as a casino watchdog and player advocate site, now what
JMO on the player, and excluding the obvious like never being paid and speculative answers given by the anon. source, the seizure of your CC's (no idea re: debits, pre-paids-well I have an idea at least on debits) is a concern. I also believe those that have and rely on good credit may have some derogatory credit issues that will require long term (a couple years or so) persistence(sp) to even possibly remedy. IRS and money laundering who knows. JMO very quickly!So whats the worst that can happen to the average US online player ? This is really starting to get me paranoid, is big brother gonna be knocking on my door or even yours, can we get fined, jail time, a slap on the wrist, credit ruined or is it the big fish they want, im just a minnow in this huge pond of gambling..........laurie
These sites were mis-coding and cascading credit/debit card transactions (unknown to most customers and potentially having negative consequences way beyond simply not funding gambling for cardholders. This is fact.)A little birdy dropped this in my mailbox, more on the subject:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
These sites were mis-coding ....