New Posts For Thread: Player to Player transfershttps://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfersAnyone else think they are a good idea?All the main sites seem to have them.The argument against collusion is weak. Players determined to collude will tfer the money elsewhere. In fact it would be easier to spot if you saw suspicious transfers (if thThe point being that 90%+ pf players are happy with transfers of that value. anything higher requires it to be looked at by a fraud team. Since BF does not really have a fraud team they are obviously scared of the workload and therefore the suggehttps://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfers?post_id=423914298#423914298The point being that 90%+ pf players are happy with transfers of that value. anything higher requires it to be looked at by a fraud team. Since BF does not really have a fraud team they are obviously scared of the workload and therefore the suggeSat, 05 Dec 2009 09:09:19 -0600Jim Hensen 05 Dec 14:30 yes good idea. laundering is an issue but cannot be hard to monitor. For a start you could cap transactions at $250 between any two people per week and any regular activity is scrutinised. If your playing at levels abohttps://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfers?post_id=423914290#423914290Jim Hensen 05 Dec 14:30 yes good idea. laundering is an issue but cannot be hard to monitor. For a start you could cap transactions at $250 between any two people per week and any regular activity is scrutinised. If your playing at levels aboSat, 05 Dec 2009 08:27:33 -0600yes good idea. laundering is an issue but cannot be hard to monitor. For a start you could cap transactions at $250 between any two people per week and any regular activity is scrutinised. If your playing at levels above this and want to trasnferhttps://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfers?post_id=423914286#423914286yes good idea. laundering is an issue but cannot be hard to monitor. For a start you could cap transactions at $250 between any two people per week and any regular activity is scrutinised. If your playing at levels above this and want to trasnferSat, 05 Dec 2009 07:30:16 -0600Its nothing to do with collussion - it is money laudering where the concern is, hence why they have play requirements before withdrawel.Personally, deffo a good feature IMO.https://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfers?post_id=423914270#423914270Its nothing to do with collussion - it is money laudering where the concern is, hence why they have play requirements before withdrawel.Personally, deffo a good feature IMO.Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:19:19 -0600Obv its a good idea mate. Im sure the reason they have said in the past they cant do it is because of the sports book.https://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfers?post_id=423914262#423914262Obv its a good idea mate. Im sure the reason they have said in the past they cant do it is because of the sports book.Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:50:29 -0600Anyone else think they are a good idea?All the main sites seem to have them.The argument against collusion is weak. Players determined to collude will tfer the money elsewhere. In fact it would be easier to spot if you saw suspicious transfers (if thhttps://community.betfair.com/poker/go/thread/view/94146/23653246/player-to-player-transfers?post_id=423914258#423914258Anyone else think they are a good idea?All the main sites seem to have them.The argument against collusion is weak. Players determined to collude will tfer the money elsewhere. In fact it would be easier to spot if you saw suspicious transfers (if thSat, 05 Dec 2009 04:05:02 -0600