Your WORST nightmare

[CharlieMaxwell]

As the furor over the BetPanAm situation and the speculation over which sports book may go in the tank next rages, people seem to have overlooked the biggest worry.

Find out what that is by reading Wild Bill's latest article which can be found on the RX home page at www.theprescription.com

Charlie

 

[Jazz]

Trust me, I've never overlooked this scenario - in fact, somewhere buried in the archives were posts of mine with a similar sentiment speculating the mass exodus from books via NT if that happened. I can juggle more than one worry at a time as I imagine most posters here can and of course have had to

[This message was edited by Jazz on February 11, 2004 at 06:42 PM.]

 

[wilheim]

The worst nightmare scenario is nothing new as Jazz pointed out. The issue is more of a political question than anything else. The current administration in the US is under serious pressure to come up with viable reasons why they waged war against Iraq. Right now, pre-election interference with the goverements of friendly nations is the last thing that they are interested in. The upcoming election should go a long way towards either increasing our fears, or with any luck, putting them to rest.


wil.

[This message was edited by wilheim on February 11, 2004 at 07:12 PM.]

 

[AdamSelene]

"If you accept that an internet transaction takes place where the individual resides rather than where the accepting business resides then gambling on the internet may be illegal under The Wire Act," (Sportingbet CEO Nigel Payne)

*if you accept*

If you accept that an internet transaction takes place where the individual resides rather than where the accepting business resides...

Then you accept that any business on the Internet must comprehend and comply with the laws, regulations, and *taxation* of 239 countries, 3585 states/provices, 143400 counties/districts, and
3585000 cities (rough extrapolations).

And every business must verify the country, provice, distrct and city of the connecting Internet user; which is difficult to do even at the a country level, and easy to circumvent.

Or you can accept that the transaction occurs where the business resides, and then the business is responsible for complying only with their local laws and regulations, and the customer is responsible for complying with his local laws and regulations.

This is really an issue of common sense.

[This message was edited by Adam Selene on February 11, 2004 at 07:21 PM.]

 

[AdamSelene]

Interestingly I read another article today that suggests quite the opposite.

US approaches Brown on internet bets prohibition

Senior American politicians have canvassed the UK Treasury for its views on whether the US should ban its citizens from gambling over the internet.

The move has been taken by some leading betting industry figures to signal a potential change of attitude in America, potentially opening up the $20 billion a year US online market.

Full Article


Online wagering is a well established and legal activity in the UK and other countries. At least one UK book openly operates a Costa Rican subsidiary targetting US customers.

The DOJ drumming up the Patriot act to chase offshore gaming money thru Europe is just not going to go over.

 

[Fishhead]

I am MUCH more worried about this than the any book I am in getting up and leaving in the middle of the night.

Please take WILD BILL'S article to heart.

 

[oldmantime]

So if we take Wild Bill's Article "to heart", what should you suggest we than do?

 

[AdamSelene]

A) Get a p0stal mailbox in the U.K. and wager with U.K. books.

B) Don't use books not smart enough to protect their accounts.

Honestly, there's much greater risk of a book suffering financial losses due to financial processing intermediaries than the DOJ chasing bank accounts.

This has already happened several times, with payment intermediaries disappearing, cash and all. One here in San Jose made the news, FinnPay last year at Superbowl.

The difficulty of financial processing for offshore wagering pushes some books into much higher risk payment methods and intermediaries.

 

[WildBill]

Adam you are missing the point. I am not saying this will happen, just pointing it out. The problem is, for us, that one book being chased by the DOJ isn't the problem per se, it is if it gets out that the DOJ chased that book. It will be easy for people to assume nothing is safe and then a full-fledged run COULD ensue. That was the issue I was addressing. You are right the processing problems are an issue, but obviously Western Union isn't going anywhere and Neteller appears to be safe. They too could be a potential issue for a DOJ chase, but that I consider FAR less likely. I am simply saying one book could get tangled up in the DOJ web and we could have a serious confidence crisis here. What can we do? Well I am personally hoping if we all talk about it, all accept that it is a risk and pre-think it out, maybe there will be a little less of a run or an irrational fear develop. Nothing is certain, but if it catches everyone off guard and everyone acts on their first thought then we are all in trouble.