vpFREE2 Forums

$1,199 versus $1,200 on paytables

Pick'em (PE)generally pays $1,199 (playing dollars)for a SF which does
not generate a W2G, whereas WHA or TB+ generally pays $1,200 for 4As
which requires a W2G(dollars). Does anyone know why?

I am speculating that since the 5th coin in PE pays proportionately
more the manufacturer (Bally) has no problem with the $1,199 payout,
but may fear IRS disapproval if the 5th coin paid $1 less than the
prior increment. However in the absence of specific IRS guidance,
players must greatly prefer the $1,199 number.

David

d_richheimer wrote:

Pick'em (PE)generally pays $1,199 (playing dollars)for a SF which
does not generate a W2G, whereas WHA or TB+ generally pays $1,200
for 4As which requires a W2G(dollars). Does anyone know why?

I am speculating that since the 5th coin in PE pays proportionately
more the manufacturer (Bally) has no problem with the $1,199
payout, but may fear IRS disapproval if the 5th coin paid $1 less
than the prior increment. However in the absence of specific IRS
guidance, players must greatly prefer the $1,199 number.

I haven't paused to think about this previously, but I think you're
likely onto something here ... although it wouldn't be IRS regs at work.

While I haven't read applicable state regs myself, there's been ample
evidence to suggest that some states (possibly IL, for example)
stipulate that game return can't be diminished as a consequence of
increasing wager.

This has been noted specifically in the design of MultiStrike, where
Free Ride frequencies target, in part, an increase in expected return
as you wager to additional play Levels.

Under this hypothesis, you've hit the nail on the head. Reducing the
5 coin ratio from the "standard" payout would be permissible so long
as the ratio is greater than that when 4 coins are wagered. However,
otherwise a decrease in the ratio (even slightly) wouldn't be permitted.

- Harry

Not at the Fremont...4A pays 1199 for full pay TB+ !

···

Pick'em (PE)generally pays $1,199 (playing dollars)for a SF which does not generate a W2G, whereas WHA or TB+ generally pays $1,200 for 4As which requires a W2G(dollars). Does anyone know why?

In reality it shouldn't make a difference as the tax liability is the same. It is just a little easier to list the net for a session when there isn't the paperwork of the W-2G. For example if you lost $500 trying to get the jackpot and it paid $1199 assuming you stopped after hitting it, you have a session win of $ $699. If you have the W2G you have misc income of $1200 and can deduct the $500 in itemized deduction you lost to get it. Might affect your AGI though.

···

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, tomflush <tomflush@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
From: tomflush <tomflush@nyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] $1,199 versus $1,200 on paytables
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 10:17 PM

             Not at the Fremont...4A pays 1199 for full pay TB+ !

Pick'em (PE)generally pays $1,199 (playing dollars)for a SF which does

not generate a W2G, whereas WHA or TB+ generally pays $1,200 for 4As

which requires a W2G(dollars) . Does anyone know why?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

While this is true at the Federal level, it is not necessarily the case at
the state level.

Some states have jackpot taxes that are paid at the time of the jackpot and
cannot be offset by losses.

···

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 3:57 AM, pesach kremen <royalflush2222@yahoo.com>wrote:

  In reality it shouldn't make a difference as the tax liability is the
same. It is just a little easier to list the net for a session when there
isn't the paperwork of the W-2G. For example if you lost $500 trying to get
the jackpot and it paid $1199 assuming you stopped after hitting it, you
have a session win of $ $699. If you have the W2G you have misc income of
$1200 and can deduct the $500 in itemized deduction you lost to get it.
Might affect your AGI though.

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, tomflush <tomflush@nyc.rr.com <tomflush%40nyc.rr.com>> > wrote:
From: tomflush <tomflush@nyc.rr.com <tomflush%40nyc.rr.com>>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] $1,199 versus $1,200 on paytables
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 10:17 PM

Not at the Fremont...4A pays 1199 for full pay TB+ !

> Pick'em (PE)generally pays $1,199 (playing dollars)for a SF which does

> not generate a W2G, whereas WHA or TB+ generally pays $1,200 for 4As

> which requires a W2G(dollars) . Does anyone know why?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

pesach kremen wrote:

In reality it shouldn't make a difference as the tax liability is
the same. It is just a little easier to list the net for a session
when there isn't the paperwork of the W-2G.

In addition to the case where state taxes are assessed when a a W-2G
is issued, consider that of a senior who doesn't itemize (no mortgage,
nominal state taxes, etc.). For them, there's no avoiding reporting
W-2G's on a gross basis. An $1199 pay is desirable.

For others, even if they do deduct losses it's been discussed that, to
the extent that W-2G's inflate AGI, Medicare premiums (which are AGI
indexed) can rise significantly.

You might argue that W-2G's shouldn't inflate AGI if you report
wins/losses on a session basis. As has been discussed in the past
(notably by misscraps), reported misc income that doesn't equal or
exceed gross W-2G amounts can pose an audit challenge - quite possibly
met with an unsuccessful outcome.

- Harry

pesach kremen wrote:

Might affect your AGI though.

I was too quick on the trigger. The point is that on the federal
side, it's all about AGI. Won't likely have a consequence for most,
as you likely imply, but for those who it does impact the consequence
can be significant.

- H.

And, the equally malicious MAGI, which is the relevant quantify used in most of those
calculations.

.... bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

it's all about AGI.

- H.

Ken,

Please tell me which states those are, so I can not play in any of them.
Thanks.

Curtis

···

On 2/7/09, Ken Kirschner <ken.kirschner@gmail.com> wrote:

Some states have jackpot taxes that are paid at the time of the jackpot and
cannot be offset by losses.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know it is true in Mississippi. I'm pretty sure there are other states as
well, but I cannot say for certain.

···

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:

  Ken,

Please tell me which states those are, so I can not play in any of them.
Thanks.

Curtis

On 2/7/09, Ken Kirschner <ken.kirschner@gmail.com<ken.kirschner%40gmail.com>> > wrote:
>
> Some states have jackpot taxes that are paid at the time of the jackpot
and
> cannot be offset by losses.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

pesach kremen <royalflush2222@...> wrote:

In reality it shouldn't make a difference as the tax liability
is the same.

It wouldn't make a difference if everyone followed the letter of the
tax law, but in fact, almost no one does so. In the case of gamblers,
it's not even possible to follow the letter of the law, since the
unclarity of a gambling "session" means reporting winnings will
always involve guesswork.

In practice, the casual gambler who wins $1199 won't report it, but
if he wins $1200 and gets paperwork, he'll report it because he knows
he can't get away with not doing so.

I've always been amused by the downtown casinos that offer $1199
payout for quarter royals. It's as if the casino is practictally
*encouraging* winners to break the law.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

<<> Some states have jackpot taxes that are paid at the time of the jackpot and

cannot be offset by losses.>

<<Please tell me which states those are, so I can not play in any of them.>>

Questions like this are too complex for me to give a short answer here. It can depend on your state of residence and how it handles gambling wins and losses on state tax forms. I have a whole chapter on STATE taxes in my tax book and a complete chart on how each state handles gambling figures.

Some of you may have hesitated buying the hard copy of "Tax Help for Gamblers" because of the price, but there is a very frugal alternative you might not know about. You can download the E-Book version at http://www.shoplva.com/welcomeEbooks.cfm for only $9.98.

There are other E-Books there as well, including "Frugal Video Poker" and Dancer's new VP book. E-Books can be a very good way to collect gambling resources inexpensively.

···

________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://lasvegasadvisor.com/blogs/jscott/

3% in Mississippi definitely.

4 or 6% in Louisana

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of Ken Kirschner
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:24 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] $1,199 versus $1,200 on paytables

I know it is true in Mississippi. I'm pretty sure there are other states
as
well, but I cannot say for certain.

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail. <mailto:LGTVegas%40gmail.com> com> wrote:

Ken,

Please tell me which states those are, so I can not play in any of

them.

Thanks.

Curtis

On 2/7/09, Ken Kirschner <ken.kirschner@ <mailto:ken.kirschner%40gmail.com> gmail.com<ken.kirschner%40gmail.com>> > wrote:
>
> Some states have jackpot taxes that are paid at the time of the

jackpot

and
> cannot be offset by losses.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This would pose some interesting situations when analyzing a play in
Mississippi.
  
Say, Brand X casino has some promotion or combination of promotion
plus freeplay/cashback and the whole thing comes to a 2% add-on.

And my only two choices for video poker are dollar Full Pay White Hot
Aces (99.8%), or dollar 9/6 Jacks or Better (99.54%). The 9/6 Jacks
would be the better play.

In the case of the WHA, I'm going to get W2-G'd everytime I make a
royal or 4 aces. That averages to about every 3830 games. The 3%
tax equates to a loss in expected value of 24 bets per 3830 games or
about .63%, effectively reducing the payback for the game to about
99.17%.

But with the 9/6 Jacks I'm gonna lose 24 bets in expected value only
every 40,391 games, reducing the payback to 99.48%. That's not much
of a chop. The clear choice would be the 9/6 Jacks.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Robert Culver <rculver@...> wrote:

3% in Mississippi definitely.

<harry.porter@...> wrote:

on the federal
side, it's all about AGI

Last year, I had net gambling winnings of about $2K. But since I included my gross session winnings as income (mostly offset by the session losses included in my itemized deductions), the inflated AGI caused me to lose a portion of the $600 stimulus rebate.

Stuart

Here is the list of states that withhold taxes, from "Tax Help for Gamblers." Whether you can get it back depends on many factors, including your state of residency. I discuss that at length in the state tax chapter.

Louisiana (6%)

Iowa (5%)

Missouri (4%)

Indiana (3.4%)

Mississippi (3% withheld for all W-2G wins, but this is what they call a non-refundable state income tax - see further explanation in this chapter)

Michigan (4.35%). This withholding is for non-residents only and covers winnings from casinos, racetracks, and off-track betting.)

Connecticut (5%) No withholding for anyone unless federal withholding is required, i.e., non-resident aliens

···

________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://lasvegasadvisor.com/blogs/jscott/

3% in Mississippi definitely.

and it is not refundable

4 or 6% in Louisana

they withhold 6% and it is somewhat refundable.
according to someone else, the more you win they less you get back as
a percentage.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Robert Culver <rculver@...> wrote:

Here is the list of states that withhold taxes, from "Tax Help for
Gamblers." Whether you can get it back depends on many factors,

including

your state of residency. I discuss that at length in the state tax

chapter.

>
Missouri (4%) withholding

wins are offset by losses, and up to 100% can be refunded

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <queenofcomps@...> wrote:

<<Louisiana -
they withhold 6% and it is somewhat refundable.
according to someone else, the more you win they less you get back as a percentage.>>

This might be generally true - but one must be VERY careful about taking tax "advice" given on this or any forum. As Marissa and I repeat until we are blue in the face, there are so many different individual factors that info that would be true for one person might not be "right" for someone else.

So information you collect on this or other forums, including tax stuff I write here and in the tax book, can be very valuable to educate you on the whole subject, but the final answer is having a good tax preparer who is knowledgeable about gambling (so many aren't) and can look at ALL the issues in your particular case.

Even then, a gambler is NEVER 100% sure he won't be audited!!!!!

···

________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://lasvegasadvisor.com/blogs/jscott/

>
> 3% in Mississippi definitely.
>
>
This would pose some interesting situations when analyzing a play

in

Mississippi.
  
Say, Brand X casino has some promotion or combination of promotion
plus freeplay/cashback and the whole thing comes to a 2% add-on.

And my only two choices for video poker are dollar Full Pay White

Hot

Aces (99.8%), or dollar 9/6 Jacks or Better (99.54%). The 9/6

Jacks

would be the better play.

In the case of the WHA, I'm going to get W2-G'd everytime I make a
royal or 4 aces. That averages to about every 3830 games. The 3%
tax equates to a loss in expected value of 24 bets per 3830 games

or

about .63%, effectively reducing the payback for the game to about
99.17%.

But with the 9/6 Jacks I'm gonna lose 24 bets in expected value

only

every 40,391 games, reducing the payback to 99.48%. That's not

much

of a chop. The clear choice would be the 9/6 Jacks.

I was running late. I got back from WalMart last evening, put the
stuff away, and decided to do a quick scan of my email before meeting
friends for cocktails. Wow! There's a post from Bob Dancer. To
what do I owe this pleasure? I opened the post up. Bob didn't go
into much detail but explained to me that the information I gave in
the above post was incorrect. I quickly read the post once, then
decided to deal with it later as I was late for meeting my friends.
I walked quickly down to the bar.

They were there and I joined in. But I wasn't much fun for them.
The word "incorrect" kept running through my brain. Tom, Adrian, and
Toni were laughing and whooping it up. But I was staring at the
wall. "How could I have been incorrect" I kept asking myself. I
kept going over the details of the play in my head.

Toni said "Mickey, are you okay?"
"Yes, Sweetheart, I'm okay. I'm just thinking about something."
"What are you thinking about?" She asked.
"Bob Dancer."
"Who's Bob Dancer?" she asked again.
"He's a professional video poker player.
"Just like you?" she queried. Toni, Tom and Adrian know I play video
poker for a living. They just don't know how it's done and that I
won't teach them how to do it. Well, maybe one of these days I might
teach Toni.
"Not exactly like me, Toni. He's the most famous video poker player
in the world. Books, DVD's, Seminars, Classes. He's put down the
biggest plays known to man."
"What's a play?" Adrian asked.
"Not right now Adrian. I've got other things to think about."
"So, why are you thinking about that guy tonight" Tom piped in.
"Have you ever heard of vpFREE" I ask him.
"No, what's that."
"It's a yahoo group on the internet. All of the elite video poker
players of the world are on the site. Everyone is not elite because
anyone can join the group. But all of the elite are there."
"And you belong to that group" Toni asked.
"Yes, and I made a post the other day analyzing a play and I may have
been incorrect in my math."
"What's a play?" Adrian asked again.
"I'll tell you later, Adrian. Let me think right now."

They go back to jaw jacking amongst themselves and I go back to
racking my brain. It finally registered.

"That's it!! I got it!!" They stare at me
"24 bets!" I said "24 bets per W2-G is wrong. It would be 24 bets
loss in EV per royal and-" I pull out my pocket calculator. "3% of
$1200 is only $36, which would be 7.2 bets loss in EV per Quad Aces."

They stare at me. "So what the hell does that mean?" says Tom
"It means I have to go back on vpFREE with mud on my face and correct
my mistake."
"You're so sweet, Mickey" Toni says.
"Yes, that's right sweetheart. Now what I want to know is when are
you going to leave that Pizza Chef and take up with me?"
"You know I already left him."
"But you still live in the same house."
"I live in one end of the house and he lives on the other. And you
know I have a son to think about."
"You know, Toni, theres a woman at The Main Street Lounge hot on my
trail. You keep messing around and I might let her catch me."
"No, you won't" she said.
"How do you know?"
"Because you don't love her. You love me."
"You know, Toni, you would make an outstanding poker player. But
watch out girl! One of these days I might come over the top of you
and move all in."
"What did you say to me?!! You can't talk to me like that!!"
"No, No, No, Toni what I mean't was-"
"I heard what you said, Mister!"
"Toni, you're ignorance is so refreshing."
"So now I'm stupid too!!!!"
"No, No, No, Toni--come back!" She grabbed her purse and stomped
off. At least I got to watch her walk away. Toni is not hard to
look at--no matter which direction she's headed. She disappeared into
the women's room.

I looked over to see Tom and Adrian sitting there with smirks on
their faces. "Congratulations, Mickey" says Tom. "You just managed
to piss off the whole Chippewa-Cree Nation."

"For Christs sakes" I said. "Aint't you guys ever played any poker?.

I sat there, dejected, wondering how I was going to get myself out of
the jam.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Robert Culver <rculver@> wrote:

_______________________________
So, anyways, today I reread Bob's post. First, he told my that the
WHA game (99.8%) was actually Triple Bonus Poker Plus. So I went
back to the Wizard of Odds and took a look. The Wiz has the same
payscale listed under both WHA and TBPP. Maybe a mistake on the
Wizzes part, I don't know because I don't play either game.

Then I go to one of the vp analyzers and punch in the numbers. 4
Aces @ $1164 and the Royal Flush @ $3880. Yep, Bob was right. The
99.8% game would come in at 99.57%, not the 99.17% that I reported.
I didn't screw up the 9/6 Jacks. It came in at 99.48%. The TBPP/WHA
game definitely has the higher EV.

But if I had some sort of promotion or cashback/freeplay working on
something like this my personal choice would probably be to trade in
the extra EV for the lower variance.

Thanks, Bob, for taking the time out to point out my mistake. And
may I give YOU some advice: Never piss off an Indian.

Good luck

Mickey