Poker
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Anyone 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 they were stupid enough).
Did this get mentioned in the questionnaire thing, I missed it.
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 they were stupid enough).
Did this get mentioned in the questionnaire thing, I missed it.
Show More
Obv 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.
Im sure the reason they have said in the past they cant do it is because of the sports book.
Its 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.
Personally, deffo a good feature IMO.
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 above this and want to trasnfer funds expect a phone call to talk it over, no big deal if your legit.
That alone allows people to play a little when stuck for funds or deposit options. If the underworld wants to launder using $250 per week, (which would stand out anyway if it was regular and one way traffic), then so fkn what. There is really no point worrying over sums so small when it is to the detriment of honest folk.
Amounts greater than $250 require closer monitoring, but should be easy to spot if it looks dodgy or not, and they also run the risk of losing it if is deemed collusion or laundering.
That alone allows people to play a little when stuck for funds or deposit options. If the underworld wants to launder using $250 per week, (which would stand out anyway if it was regular and one way traffic), then so fkn what. There is really no point worrying over sums so small when it is to the detriment of honest folk.
Amounts greater than $250 require closer monitoring, but should be easy to spot if it looks dodgy or not, and they also run the risk of losing it if is deemed collusion or laundering.
Jim 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 above this and want to trasnfer funds expect a phone call to talk it over, no big deal if your legit.
Comedy genius. Not everyone who wants to transfer funds is a desperado wanting a quick** some of us may want to have a proper game.
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 above this and want to trasnfer funds expect a phone call to talk it over, no big deal if your legit.
Comedy genius. Not everyone who wants to transfer funds is a desperado wanting a quick** some of us may want to have a proper game.
The 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 suggestion seems valid to me.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539