DO books have ALL balances covered?

[sq764]

Just curious if any decent book would be able to cover all withdrawals if, for instance, every player decided to withdrawal on the same day..

I always assumed they were moving money back and forth like a shell game..

[John Dough]

How in the world would anyone on a forum be able to give you an accurate to answer to that? Likely some do and some don't.

[HedgeHog]

WSEX obviously did not.

[Hareeba!]

Just curious if any decent book would be able to cover all withdrawals if, for instance, every player decided to withdrawal on the same day..

I always assumed they were moving money back and forth like a shell game..

Excellent question.

Simple answer is it seems that most do not.

In Australia the regulators require them all to keep all customer balances in segregated bank accounts. However a recent failure by one in the Australian Capital Territory revealed that it hadn't been happening and the regulator had failed miserably to police the law. Hopefully the regulators in the other states and territories are doing a better job of it.

I understand that the UK books operate under similar laws.
Betfair certainly does. I have been assured that Pinnacle and Matchbook do also.

SBR puts out ratings on books but appears to have no clue on this issue. They don't even attempt to assess a book's financial stability and ensure that player funds are segregated.

If you detect a book which is slow paying or limiting withdrawals you have very probably found one which hasn't got the funds to pay all players.

[prop]

I'm pretty sure Curacao was the first gambling commission to require this, but no idea how or if enforced. I don't know too much about Australia but am familiar with what Hareeba! is mentioning. Isle of Man has always required (and has a decent track record so far). Alderney claims now to require it but has proven useless and also proved their own reputation is far more important than accountability of the truth *Sham of a gambling commission imo* Kahnawake *another sham* requires funds be "separated" and there has been some controversy regarding this (in any case, it does not appear enforced of monitored). Panama required bonds way back in the day but these proved useless too and I'm not aware of them still having any sort of requirements (if they do, it is not enforced as books there have failed). Many Costa Rica sites are pretty much unregulated.

The short answer is most likely not.. even where mentioned as a requirement most places this is not enforced. Also gambling commissions do very little for the player. Malta's LGA is trying to change this and has recently been handling disputes and even ruled against a few operators, and drafted some player friendly regulations (big turn around for Malta just recently). UK just seems to rule in favor of the books 100% of the time on player issues, and against them on political issues. So there are "some" exceptions - but for the most part licensing is for the benefit of the operator and should not be viewed at all as a feature players can count on or use as a decision factor. Where a site is licensed makes so little difference for the player. Except rare times can be used to guage. For example: Gibraltar sites are now reputable (many years ago they licensed all sorts of sites, today there is prestige associated with being licensed there). Malta is decent and has slight extra protection but with licensing over 500 gambling sites there are plenty of issues so need to look who is reputable.

Back to the most likely not: PokerStars and Pinnacle are two sites I believe most likely have all balances off to the side somewhere and don't use players funds for other purposes. The big UK bookmakers have no financial concerns and have far more assets than balances so in the absence of needing to I doubt they segregate for the hell of it but do have excess of what's required (similar to a bank - can put players balances not needed into buying a new building when have that kind of volume).

Any US sites left actually having players funds truly segregated, this seems far fetched imo. I think the best strategy in the US is to follow forums cash out small even when not needing to and see who has been paying out fast and for how long (I never go more than a month between cash outs when dealing with US sites even though I don't need and would actually prefer not to cash out if it wan't for risk management purposes). At the first sign of trouble reduce balance when it increases take a break. In business for 10+ years etc. means so much less these days then it used to. It's a much different game and I'll take 18 months of straight fast payments at a 2.5 year old company, over an old company that changes their payout times from 1 week to 2 weeks, to 3 weeks in a short time frame (will next week it be 4 weeks, and keep moving on out to 6 months?) Note: this is coming from someone not restricted to US sites though - If was stuck with that garbage than I'd have no choice but to increase tolerance.

[yisman]

I doubt any US-facing book could withstand a run of cashouts by a large percentage of their customers within a short period of time (say a month).

[mikejamm]

I'm still wondering if poker players who lost money during the whole Full Tilt fiasco will ever see any of their funds. It was a prime example when some kind of shit happens and everybody wants their money out all at once.

[FourLengthsClear]

The UK Gambling commission does require UK regulated books to completely segregate customer funds. That in itself does not protect customers from fraudulent activities.

For the very biggest books there is another layer of oversight however in that they are listed companies and as such have to provide detailed accounts on a quaterly/half-yearly basis.

[patswin]

Heck no

[oiler]

im sure 90 per cent dont

[mighty maron]

I'm still wondering if poker players who lost money during the whole Full Tilt fiasco will ever see any of their funds. It was a prime example when some kind of shit happens and everybody wants their money out all at once.

4k gone and I will never see it again...