Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

What affect will this have on us players?

Reply to Thread
  1. MaestroJay MaestroJay is offline

    Franklin, TN
    United States

    Posts: 23
    Joined: Mar 07

    Nov 12th, 2008 (11/12/2008 7:43pm)

    What affect will this latest setback by the UIGEA have on the US players? Is it just strictly limiting the depositing and withdrawing to banks? Since I believe pokerstars isn't based in the US, can they even be held accountable by these laws? Basically what I'm getting at, is now the time to be getting our money off the sites, or just no more deposits?
  2. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,254
    Joined: May 06

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 9:42am) in reply to MaestroJay

    It really remains to be seen what effect this will have, if any. Banks and other financial institutions don't have to comply until December 1, 2009. There's also a chance that President-elect Obama undoes the midnight rule making by the Bush Administration.
     
  3. TheVillageGrinder TheVillageGrinder is offline

    United States

    Posts: 1,970
    Joined: Sep 07

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 10:01am) in reply to MaestroJay

    There is a guy named Master J or w/e doing some great work on reading through the 100+ pgs of the regulation and he uncovered this tidbit which I thought was of particular interest.

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=9 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2>§___.2(y) Restricted transaction. Several commenters asked the Agencies to clarify that the definition of "restricted transaction" would not apply to funds going to a consumer (i.e., a gambler), as opposed to funds going to a commercial customer (i.e., an Internet gambling business).38 The Act defines "restricted transaction" in § 5362(7) as “any transaction…which the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363.” In turn, § 5363 provides that “o person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept” a payment “in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling.” Under the final rule, the term "restricted transaction" would not include funds going to a gambler, and would only include funds going to an Internet gambling business

    It seems to say pretty clearly that a payment from a site going to a player would not qualify as a restricted transaction. So it seems that getting your money shouldn't be a problem. The sites will not be happy with this since it will eventually suck them dry. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  4. Obamacide Obamacide is offline

    WA
    United States

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Nov 08

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 10:58am) in reply to MaestroJay

    Nothing has changed really. I would wait and see what happens in the coming year. We will see if the Messiah really gives a crap about poker and we will see if your liberals in congress give a crap as well as they can easily pass a law exempting online poker from the UIGEA.

    The UIGEA should be repealed anyway as it should have never been attached to the Port Security act to begin with, but then again that is how these assholes you people keep re-electing operate. Perfect example of earmark legislation.
  5. Cabo Cabo is offline

    Cumming, GA
    United States

    Posts: 2,027
    Joined: Feb 05

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 11:28am) in reply to Obamacide

    Here's my two cents (since I can't get them on stars anyway).

    This makes absolutely no difference!

    The current environment sucks, and it will continue to suck a while longer, but...................

    The banks are simply not going to lift a finger to establish the procedures (they have until 12/01/09) called for by the regs. And no one can make them do it.

    They and everyone else that really matters know that Bush is a lame dick, err, duck, and this crap he is pulling will never actualy be enacted. The banks, their lobbyists, and the democrats, like Barney Frank, will make sure this BS law and these BS regs. are undone before 12/01/09.

    So we will have to wait, but, we will get our game back and probably in a better environment then it ever was.
  6. TheVillageGrinder TheVillageGrinder is offline

    United States

    Posts: 1,970
    Joined: Sep 07

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 2:35pm) in reply to Cabo

     
    Originally Posted by Cabo View Post


    The banks are simply not going to lift a finger to establish the procedures (they have until 12/01/09) called for by the regs. And no one can make them do it.

    LOL at this. You better believe the fed can make them to do it. If they don't they will be put out of business. And very very quickly.

    Banks are not rock the boat kinda businesses. They follow the law. To the letter.

    This will be enforced. Things will change. How dramatically? Only time will tell, imo.
  7. ohioschwa ohioschwa is offline

    Canton, OH
    United States

    Posts: 1,917
    Joined: Oct 05

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 7:30pm) in reply to MaestroJay

    My prediction, we will have new ways to move money in a couple of months that exploit the loopholes in the UIGEA.
  8. foldemmick foldemmick is offline

    Saint Augustine, FL
    United States

    Posts: 29
    Joined: Jan 08

    Nov 13th, 2008 (11/13/2008 7:46pm) in reply to ohioschwa

    this is and always will be about our politicians getting a piece of the pie. period
  9. CallMeLucid CallMeLucid is offline

    Chico, CA
    United States

    Posts: 169
    Joined: May 08

    Nov 14th, 2008 (11/14/2008 7:42pm) in reply to foldemmick

    it may be reversed but i wouldnt be surprised if a democrat government decides to heavily tax it.

    i'll just wait for the loopholes
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads