|
|
#3
05-07-2005, 09:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Question on withdrawing, then depositing, and getting Empire bon
In a word: yes (assuming, of course, that you use NetTeller or IGM-pay or other speedy method of money deposit, and if you are on a limited bankroll, that you cash out of the other site to free up the moeny in time for the deposit) It's simple and completely normal. I don't play at Stars, but everyplace I do play takes at most a few hours or overnight to process a cashout, and accepts deposits instantly (at least from IGM-pay/NeTeller) Search 2+2 to find the current typical cashout/deposit times for your method of deposit and withdrawl, and the respective sites.
Incidentally, though I completely understand your reasons for asking, I have always been surprised that many people, even experienced players think this is a problem. If I go down to Foxwoods, or LV or AC or any place where there is a competing casino nearby, I expect to leave with my winnings. I don't feel the least bit bad about taking my money to another casino and coming back that evening or the next day. Sure, a casino might not like it, but if it takes any action against it (as some claim Empire has) then they are being deeply dysfunctional and should be avoided. The vast majority of their players don't play often to even consider keeping a big wad of cash in a uninsured, interest-free, unspendable form. Of course, the majority of their players don't win, which removes some of the impetus to cash out. I sometimes think that this contributes to the fishiness of the tables. I've seen incredibly fishy play in B&Ms when players essentially blow off what's left of their bankroll. Cashing out less than half of their initial stake feels pointless to them. The money is essentially already gone in their minds, which makes them more willing to take long shots to catch up. We don't have public poker rooms and clubs where I live, but perhaps they contribute to this outlook. I understand that many of these clubs allow/encourage you to keep money in a private in-house account. I'm sure they love it when you do ["holding other people's money" is the basis of banking, and is why insurance companies, where cashouts are not as routine, own many of the biggest skyscrapers], but if they want me to do that, they'd have to provide a heck of an incentive, and frankly, that probably wouldn't be cost-effective for them. Cash in my pocket simply has too many advantages for me. An incentive for desired behavior is fine; threatening to punish non-preferred, but allowed, behavior isn't. If the security guard blocks the door, silent but threatening, when you try to leave with a withdrawal, I'd change banks. 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
