[tltaylor89]

Only one month after the decision was made by ********** to crack down on online casino players using their ********** ************ to fund their accounts, now **** is following in the same direction. While using ************ was usually a sure way to get money into a player account at an online casino, or poker room for that matter, it wasn’t the easiest way to withdraw funds. However, it’s not going to be that easy any more to use your **** to put cash into your account.

**** has reported that they will begin preventing transactions labeled “online gambling” or with similar codes, as well as those transactions that go through a third-party payment system such as ewallets like *** or ***********. While the execution of the new policies don’t currently seem to be as serious as those put forth by ********** last month, it still has online casino operators and their US players worried, as both company’s bans apply only to US players.

These actions recently set forth are most likely part of a bigger plan for these companies, as “financial institutions,” to comply with the UIGEA, which is set to be implemented on June 1, 2010. While they’ve pushed the envelope, allowing transactions to go through unnoticed between players and online gambling sites, they are most likely getting scared that they’ve let it go on long enough.

You may begin to notice that online poker rooms and casinos no longer display the **** logo on their payment methods page. Some sites have reported that they have had no problems with **** transactions and are continuing to offer this option to their players. Other gambling websites have indicated that they have experienced long holds being placed on online casino and poker room transfers. While these holds are being set forth by the issuing banks, some **** cards may be affected more than others. You might not want to risk putting your cash in limbo like that.

This will slow down some online gambling activity in the US, but only until the players find another way to fund their online poker accounts. Ewallets seem to be the best means right now to getting cash into your player account because they are third-party payment processors and there’s just more room to move, and eChecks are still the number one sure fire way, in our opinion anyway, to deposit, as well as cashout money to your online poker accounts. For today, we continue to play.

[tltaylor89]

Ever since the arrival of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, U.S. residents have found it increasingly difficult to play poker online. When the bill was passed in 2006, half of the market immediately withdrew, vastly decreasing the choices available to American players. The UIGEA did not target the act of gambling online, prohibiting it by the back-door by barring financial institutions from transferring money to online gambling websites. Now the country’s two biggest CC providers, ********** and ****, have joined the group of companies who will not allow their services to be used for any kind of online gambling transactions. Millions of Americans who fund accounts using their day-to-day debit and ************ will now have to find different methods of payment or stop playing altogether.

ERG Magazine speculate that the card companies have been prompted to act by the outcome of a particular federal case. Canadian Douglas Rennick has been charged with illegally overseeing around $350 million worth of transfers to and from online gambling sites. His latest appeal concluded just a few weeks ago with the guilty verdict being upheld. Perhaps afraid of similar federal punishment, both ********** and **** have decided to cut off all online gambling companies.

Different kinds of card payments are assigned a different four-digit code. These codes, agreed upon by all card companies, are used to help banks understand what kind of service they are transferring money to. Online gambling companies are supposed to use the code 7995, but ********** allege that countless firms are miscoding their payments in order to avoid a block. They cite a crackdown on this kind of deceit as the reason for the sudden upturn in gambling sites that no longer accept their cards.

Despite **********’s claim, it does seem that they are disallowing online poker transfers that have nothing to do with miscoding. Customers making deposits on PokerStars have begun to report that their cards are being declined, despite having enough free cash to fund their accounts. PokerStars have issued a statement regarding the CC issue, denying that they have been involved in miscoding. “PokerStars does not, nor ever has engaged in the practices of ‘mis-coded’ crdit card transactions. We have therefore been unaffected by any crackdown by **** or ********** to close down such ‘mis-coded’ accounts.” They also add weight to the claims that ********** and **** are caving in to pressure from the UIGEA. “The only way that PokerStars is affected by CC declines is when issuing banks in the United States decide that they will decline 7995 coded transactions.”

This is one of the most wide reaching clampdowns so far and will affect a huge portion of the online gambling user-base. However, most online poker players will already have faced problems depositing and withdrawing on their favorite sites. Many banks already decline simple transfers, forcing players to use eWallets like PayPal and Moneybookers. These options remain available and will likely become the de-facto choice for anyone looking to make a deposit. It is also important to note that these new blocks any apply to cards registered in the United States. Online gambling is not illegal in most other countries and most worldwide residents can continue to fund their online poker accounts just as they always have done.

Poker activists will be hoping that the ********** & **** ban is short lived. The UIGEA does not technically come into effect until June 1st 2010, giving Congressman Barney Frank and his allies time to push through legislation designed at installing a legalized and regulated online gambling industry. If new bills are not introduced before the deadline, it could become even more difficult for U.S. citizens to play online poker.

[Reno Paul]

Don't see the source of the info.......This could be a big blow to deposits if it holds true.

[tltaylor89]

COuld be bad for business

[tatommack]

I hope this doesn't effect my ********** ****

[tltaylor89]

Both my Visas wont work now

[MastaB]

my **** stopped working at Bodog last week. cc company shut it off, i called up and they said it was shut down for online gambling

[Mikail]

My **** is still working as of today.

[Chi_archie]

uh oh

[MastaB]

my **** stopped working at Bodog last week. cc company shut it off, i called up and they said it was shut down for online gambling

I played dumb and they opened the card back up on the spot

[tltaylor89]

I played dumb and they opened the card back up on the spot

us ** from now on

[MendozaLine]

rarely use my CC when depositing. More of a ** guy

[tltaylor89]

rarely use my CC when depositing. More of a ** guy

Those fees must kill you ** fees are based on a sliding scale you might pay $100 dollars on a $500 deposit to a sportsbook because of that

[sharpcat]

You do realize that it is illegal to post somebodys article without either providing a link or adding a credit to the author at the end of your post right???????

anyhow this was originally expected to happen back in december but was extended to june, the card companies are just choosing to comply now rather than wait. Most likely this is due to douchebags depositing funds via CC and than turning around and filing a lawsuit because the lost their money.

[sharpcat]

Those fees must kill you ** fees are based on a sliding scale you might pay $100 dollars on a $500 deposit to a sportsbook because of that

deposits with **/** fees are covered by the book if you deposit with a good book and you are sending them more than 100 bucks.

[tltaylor89]

deposits with **/** fees are covered by the book if you deposit with a good book and you are sending them more than 100 bucks.

[bigbank]

[QUOTE=sharpcat;3301275]You do realize that it is illegal to post somebodys article without either providing a link or adding a credit to the author at the end of your post right???????

yeah buddy, dont want this guy at your door

and yes this **** ban is crap

[sharpcat]

not like anybody is going to do anything about it but you should at least add the name of the author if you reference their article.

[CarpeDime]

wow the republicans' dream of no internet gambling in the US might finally be coming true

good for them I guess, it's certainly been a slow drawn-out struggle

[bigbank]

guess i better brace myself for ** or i better start winning

[tltaylor89]

guess i better brace myself for ** or i better start winning

They could put a dent in the deficits if the improve it

[montyh]

I just got my bank statement from a local bank. "In effort to comply with federal regulation GG, this message serves as notification to you that ____ ____ ___ bank prohibits use of its accouts for Illegal internet gambling". Its never came up before but something big must be going on..... Every account got the message.

[ttwarrior1]

this is bad for me, very bad, 5 poker sites and i can't even deposit

[tblues2005]

Never be able to stop the Fed ex cashier's check. that was ALWAYS my fallback if things got bad enough. Here's how it worked, at least with Pinnacle.

1)Go to the bank with your cash and get a cashiers check
2)go to fed ex and send it to the location defined by the book
3)should get there in 2 days MAX, depending on the book, the funds are credited immediately, or you are not allowed to withdraw until the funds clear.

Its UNSTOPPABLE, only issue is the delay in either using the funds, or having the ability to withdraw some.

Thanks Brock. You are so right it will be unstoppable this way. I am sure that Bet Jamaica and the good books out there will find ways to get money into people's account no matter what. Some books will come out there and even pay people's transfer fee to send the money to them.

[ttwarrior1]

lol no fed ex here, I have to call and have them pick it up and charge me money, no thanks

[MartinBlank]

lol no fed ex here, I have to call and have them pick it up and charge me money, no thanks

Most books pick up the cost of the FEDEX charge.

They just credit your account for the amount FEDEX charged you.

[lakerboy]

IF you are depositing using CC you shouldnt be gambling.

[pavyracer]

Next to follow is ** and **.

[Mr. Peepers]

IF you are depositing using CC you shouldnt be gambling.

True that....

[iceminers26]

Next to follow is ** and **.

How? You do not send to a company, you send person to person, so I ask how in the heck will they ever stop this?

[mdemps9190]

why should you not be gambling just cuz u use a DC?