vpFREE2 Forums

Gambling and Taxes- Almost Final Report

This will be my final, I hope, post on this subject. I felt I owed
you folks an update on where I am on this subject. This will make no
sense to those who have not followed the thread of the question I
raised on this topic a couple weeks back.
  After tomorrow I will have talked to everyone I believe I can talk
to about filing taxes the proper way for a high rolling video poker
player from a state the does not allow gambling losses be deducted
against winnings. This includes reading all available books,
studying the Feguson Court case result and talking to a well known
and respected West coast gambling accountant through my personal
accountant and myself.

My conclusion is that high rolling video poker players from states
that do not allow loss deductions are either very few and far between
or nonexistent except for myself. I know that sounds absolutely
insane, but either it is true or no one else is admitting it.
Therefore, there is no generally accepted principle on how someone
like me should file (Gross w2g's vs Sessions even conservatively
defined and Schedule C versus other). Its a catch 22 with me
seemingly stuck in the middle. Tomorrow I will make a decision with
my accountant and then pray a lot. I thank you all for your
comments. Your posts have been mostly positive and helpful and led
me to new sources.

Feel free to post your comments, but I will be saying no more on this
topic. Denny

No one from the states who do not count losses can afford to be high rollers.

denflo60 <dennis.florence@worldnet.att.net> wrote: This will be my final, I hope, post on this subject. I felt I owed
you folks an update on where I am on this subject. This will make no
sense to those who have not followed the thread of the question I
raised on this topic a couple weeks back.
   After tomorrow I will have talked to everyone I believe I can talk
to about filing taxes the proper way for a high rolling video poker
player from a state the does not allow gambling losses be deducted
against winnings. This includes reading all available books,
studying the Feguson Court case result and talking to a well known
and respected West coast gambling accountant through my personal
accountant and myself.

My conclusion is that high rolling video poker players from states
that do not allow loss deductions are either very few and far between
or nonexistent except for myself. I know that sounds absolutely
insane, but either it is true or no one else is admitting it.
Therefore, there is no generally accepted principle on how someone
like me should file (Gross w2g's vs Sessions even conservatively
defined and Schedule C versus other). Its a catch 22 with me
seemingly stuck in the middle. Tomorrow I will make a decision with
my accountant and then pray a lot. I thank you all for your
comments. Your posts have been mostly positive and helpful and led
me to new sources.

Feel free to post your comments, but I will be saying no more on this
topic. Denny

···

---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

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

re: tomorrow I will make a decision....

You mention that you have certain choices to make regarding taxes.
What are the options that some COULD consider in your situation?

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

re: tomorrow I will make a decision....

You mention that you have certain choices to make regarding taxes.
What are the options that some COULD consider in your situation?

Movetoomuch:

Let me file the usual disclaimer that I am not an accountant and this
is only what I have so far learned. Consult your own accountant and
do not just rely on my understanding.

  First off You could declare all your gambling W2G winnings as
normal income, and then declare losses on the line indicated on the
form when you fill out your income tax. If you don't have many W2
G's this is OK. If you have many then the value of your itemized
deductions decreases as all your W2G's show up in your adjusted gross
income. Also you'll get hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax even if
you lost as much as you won.

Secondly, in certain states where losses are not deductable, your
earnings could be taxable to the full amount at least of W2g's as
there may be no line to deduct losses on the state form.

You can fill out schedule C, so that your losses can be deducted from
your winnings so only the net win affects the the adjusted goss
income. To do this you must be a professional (I will add the words
gambler). While courts have rules that Poker players can consider
gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
players up to the present.

You could use the session method where you net your winnings anfd
losses are netted for each session. The problem here is that
sessions are not defined, although there are several good articles on
how sessions may be used. Assuming this results in an income less
than your total W2G's, which it likely, you could well be audited
because there is nothing in the IRS computers that look at footnotes
or explanations even if you list all your W2g's and say they are all
included in the net sessions. With contemporaneous records and an
accountant's help I think you can win this argument but you might end
up in tax court to do it and it may not be worth it to you.

Finally you can become a subchapter S Corporation with an EIN tax
number. This says you're a professional and especially if you'making
money and prove you're a legitimate full time [player who through
some means wins (A hypothetical advantage player who plays to
infinity on only positive games is an extreme example) three out of
five years you can also subtact your travel meals, books etc expenses
in netting your winnings. You have to pay both your own and a
company's portion of FICA deductions (about 15% with about a 2.5%
credit on another line). Unfortunately with current policies at
least my Casino of choice will not let me play as a Corporation of 1
with an EIN tax number.

At all times keep great records and try to be in a position to prove
you can beat a machine with a built in mathematical advantage. If
all else fails stop gambling as I may have to do. That way there is
no time spent learning tax law, reading volumes and opening up bank
accounts and paying accountants and lawyers or move to a non taxable
jurisdiction. I will say though, I have learned one hell of a lot in
the process. Again remember the disclaimer. I am not an
accountant. Hire one. Denny

<<While courts have rules that Poker players can consider
gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
players up to the present.>>

This is not true. Many VP players file as professional gamblers.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.

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

<<While courts have rules that Poker players can consider
gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
players up to the present.>>

This is not true. Many VP players file as professional gamblers.

Jean: I am not saying that people don't file that way. I was

unaware though of any court ruling that says that Video Poker playing
can be considered a profession. In other words is there I case you can
cite that is the reverse of the March 1 Ferguson decision where a local
court said that Ferguson could not consider himself a professional as
a video poker player. If you know of such a case please share it with
me so I can give it to my accountant and the lawyer he is using as a
consultant. Denny

···

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

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@...

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

Denny, that was a very good overview of choices. I just want to
flag one issue.

  First off You could declare all your gambling W2G winnings as
normal income, and then declare losses on the line indicated on

the

form when you fill out your income tax.

There is an extra cost for doing it this way if you would not
otherwise itemize your deductions. In such cases, part of your
gambling losses are going toward bringing you up to the level where
itemizing is advantageous.

If that's not clear, I could elaborate with an example.

--Dunbar

PS--same disclaimer; I am not a CPA.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...>
wrote:

Movetoomuch:
>
Let me file the usual disclaimer that I am not an accountant and

this

is only what I have so far learned. Consult your own accountant

and

do not just rely on my understanding.

  First off You could declare all your gambling W2G winnings as
normal income, and then declare losses on the line indicated on

the

form when you fill out your income tax. If you don't have many W2
G's this is OK. If you have many then the value of your itemized
deductions decreases as all your W2G's show up in your adjusted

gross

income. Also you'll get hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax even

if

you lost as much as you won.

Secondly, in certain states where losses are not deductable, your
earnings could be taxable to the full amount at least of W2g's as
there may be no line to deduct losses on the state form.

You can fill out schedule C, so that your losses can be deducted

from

your winnings so only the net win affects the the adjusted goss
income. To do this you must be a professional (I will add the

words

gambler). While courts have rules that Poker players can consider
gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
players up to the present.

You could use the session method where you net your winnings anfd
losses are netted for each session. The problem here is that
sessions are not defined, although there are several good articles

on

how sessions may be used. Assuming this results in an income less
than your total W2G's, which it likely, you could well be audited
because there is nothing in the IRS computers that look at

footnotes

or explanations even if you list all your W2g's and say they are

all

included in the net sessions. With contemporaneous records and an
accountant's help I think you can win this argument but you might

end

up in tax court to do it and it may not be worth it to you.

Finally you can become a subchapter S Corporation with an EIN tax
number. This says you're a professional and especially if

you'making

money and prove you're a legitimate full time [player who through
some means wins (A hypothetical advantage player who plays to
infinity on only positive games is an extreme example) three out

of

five years you can also subtact your travel meals, books etc

expenses

in netting your winnings. You have to pay both your own and a
company's portion of FICA deductions (about 15% with about a 2.5%
credit on another line). Unfortunately with current policies at
least my Casino of choice will not let me play as a Corporation of

1

with an EIN tax number.

At all times keep great records and try to be in a position to

prove

you can beat a machine with a built in mathematical advantage. If
all else fails stop gambling as I may have to do. That way there

is

no time spent learning tax law, reading volumes and opening up

bank

accounts and paying accountants and lawyers or move to a non

taxable

jurisdiction. I will say though, I have learned one hell of a lot

in

···

the process. Again remember the disclaimer. I am not an
accountant. Hire one. Denny

Denny, that was a very good overview of choices. I just want to
flag one issue.

> First off You could declare all your gambling W2G winnings as
> normal income, and then declare losses on the line indicated on
the
> form when you fill out your income tax.

There is an extra cost for doing it this way if you would not
otherwise itemize your deductions. In such cases, part of your
gambling losses are going toward bringing you up to the level where
itemizing is advantageous.

Dunbar: Absolutely. I agree. Denny

If that's not clear, I could elaborate with an example.

--Dunbar

PS--same disclaimer; I am not a CPA.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@>
wrote:

>
> Movetoomuch:
> >
> Let me file the usual disclaimer that I am not an accountant and
this
> is only what I have so far learned. Consult your own accountant
and
> do not just rely on my understanding.
>
> First off You could declare all your gambling W2G winnings as
> normal income, and then declare losses on the line indicated on
the
> form when you fill out your income tax. If you don't have many

W2

> G's this is OK. If you have many then the value of your itemized
> deductions decreases as all your W2G's show up in your adjusted
gross
> income. Also you'll get hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax even
if
> you lost as much as you won.
>
> Secondly, in certain states where losses are not deductable, your
> earnings could be taxable to the full amount at least of W2g's as
> there may be no line to deduct losses on the state form.
>
> You can fill out schedule C, so that your losses can be deducted
from
> your winnings so only the net win affects the the adjusted goss
> income. To do this you must be a professional (I will add the
words
> gambler). While courts have rules that Poker players can

consider

> gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
> players up to the present.
>
> You could use the session method where you net your winnings anfd
> losses are netted for each session. The problem here is that
> sessions are not defined, although there are several good

articles

on
> how sessions may be used. Assuming this results in an income

less

> than your total W2G's, which it likely, you could well be audited
> because there is nothing in the IRS computers that look at
footnotes
> or explanations even if you list all your W2g's and say they are
all
> included in the net sessions. With contemporaneous records and

an

> accountant's help I think you can win this argument but you might
end
> up in tax court to do it and it may not be worth it to you.
>
> Finally you can become a subchapter S Corporation with an EIN tax
> number. This says you're a professional and especially if
you'making
> money and prove you're a legitimate full time [player who through
> some means wins (A hypothetical advantage player who plays to
> infinity on only positive games is an extreme example) three out
of
> five years you can also subtact your travel meals, books etc
expenses
> in netting your winnings. You have to pay both your own and a
> company's portion of FICA deductions (about 15% with about a 2.5%
> credit on another line). Unfortunately with current policies

at

> least my Casino of choice will not let me play as a Corporation

of

1
> with an EIN tax number.
>
> At all times keep great records and try to be in a position to
prove
> you can beat a machine with a built in mathematical advantage.

If

> all else fails stop gambling as I may have to do. That way there
is
> no time spent learning tax law, reading volumes and opening up
bank
> accounts and paying accountants and lawyers or move to a non
taxable
> jurisdiction. I will say though, I have learned one hell of a

lot

···

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

in
> the process. Again remember the disclaimer. I am not an
> accountant. Hire one. Denny
>

<<Jean: I am not saying that people don't file that way. I was
unaware though of any court ruling that says that Video Poker playing
can be considered a profession. In other words is there I case you can
cite that is the reverse of the March 1 Ferguson decision where a local
court said that Ferguson could not consider himself a professional as
a video poker player. If you know of such a case please share it with
me so I can give it to my accountant and the lawyer he is using as a
consultant. Denny>>

No, there has been no case that I know of that speaks specifically to VP being an "okay" gambling profession - but if you go back to the original case that says generally that gambling can be a profession, it does not specify what kind of gambling it has to be or can't be.

As someone else pointed out on this board, there were many reasons why Ferguson could not claim being a professional gambler. Intent of making a profit is not enough. As we say in our tax book, you must meet the requirements on as many levels as you can, including running your business with business-like records, length of time spent, actually making a profit some of the time, etc., etc.

Saying VP was not a possible "profession" was really just a side issue in the Ferguson case. And remember one court case does not bind someone with a good lawyer who can prove otherwise. Someone who had a different set of circumstances - and some math experts that would testify that some machines ARE beatable - could very likely have a positive decision.

Do you want to be a test case? We really need a good VP case to clarify this!!!!!

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...>
wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "queenofcomps" <queenofcomps@>

wrote:

>
> <<While courts have rules that Poker players can consider
> gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
> players up to the present.>>
>
> This is not true. Many VP players file as professional gamblers.
>
> Jean: I am not saying that people don't file that way. I was
unaware though of any court ruling that says that Video Poker

playing

can be considered a profession. In other words is there I case

you can

cite that is the reverse of the March 1 Ferguson decision where a

local

court said that Ferguson could not consider himself a

professional as

···

a video poker player.

******************************************************************
Go to ustaxcourt.gov & read the decision, the Judge NEVER said
that, did not come close to saying that , What cost this man his
case was , poor to non existing records, relying on the casino
won/loss report ONLY instead , had a full time job which, usaully
means you cant be a full time gambler , the premise that since he
practice on his computer & only played progresives that return 100%
he was a pro, didnt fly with the court as "based on the record
presented" & lack there of judge "doubts that a casino would have a
machine that can be beaten"

Another decision against a gambler came down this week, read it also
Very clear on what is needed to being consider a "pro"

For those that think that since a session is not spelled out in the
code that it has no effect , be warned that the court will use
the "common usage" meaning of any term or word & will quote a
dictionary in the decision. NOT an excuse for failing to keep
records just because something is not spelled out to your
satisfaction.

M J

can somebody email me how to create a "tinyurl" ?
since some of you dont belive in DIY, I can post a link to the tax
court decisions that effect us.

If you know of such a case please share it with

me so I can give it to my accountant and the lawyer he is using as

a

consultant. Denny

> ________________________________________
> Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
> This new book (autographed) and other
> frugal products are now available at my
> new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
> E-mail address is queenofcomps@
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

<<Jean: I am not saying that people don't file that way. I was
unaware though of any court ruling that says that Video Poker

playing

can be considered a profession. In other words is there I case you

can

cite that is the reverse of the March 1 Ferguson decision where a

local

court said that Ferguson could not consider himself a professional

as

a video poker player. If you know of such a case please share it

with

me so I can give it to my accountant and the lawyer he is using as

a

consultant. Denny>>

No, there has been no case that I know of that speaks specifically

to VP being an "okay" gambling profession

···

**********************************************
Not needed

- but if you go back to the original case that says generally that
gambling can be a profession, it does not specify what kind of
gambling it has to be or can't be.

As someone else pointed out on this board, there were many reasons

why Ferguson could not claim being a professional gambler. Intent
of making a profit is not enough. As we say in our tax book, you
must meet the requirements on as many levels as you can, including
running your business with business-like records, length of time
spent, actually making a profit some of the time, etc., etc.

Saying VP was not a possible "profession" was really just a side

issue in the Ferguson case.
**************************************************************
Judge did NOT say that!

And remember one court case does not bind someone with a good lawyer
who can prove otherwise.
*********************************************************************

Lawyer not needed, good records needed,

Someone who had a different set of circumstances - and some math
experts that would testify that some machines ARE beatable - could
very likely have a positive decision.
******************************************************************
Please read the decision , does not matter if the machine is
beatable or not.

M J

>

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

<<Jean: I am not saying that people don't file that way. I was
unaware though of any court ruling that says that Video Poker

playing

can be considered a profession. In other words is there I case you

can

cite that is the reverse of the March 1 Ferguson decision where a

local

court said that Ferguson could not consider himself a professional

as

a video poker player. If you know of such a case please share it

with

me so I can give it to my accountant and the lawyer he is using as

a

consultant. Denny>>

No, there has been no case that I know of that speaks specifically

to VP being an "okay" gambling profession - but if you go back to the
original case that says generally that gambling can be a profession,
it does not specify what kind of gambling it has to be or can't be.

As someone else pointed out on this board, there were many reasons

why Ferguson could not claim being a professional gambler. Intent of
making a profit is not enough. As we say in our tax book, you must
meet the requirements on as many levels as you can, including running
your business with business-like records, length of time spent,
actually making a profit some of the time, etc., etc.

Saying VP was not a possible "profession" was really just a side

issue in the Ferguson case. And remember one court case does not
bind someone with a good lawyer who can prove otherwise. Someone who
had a different set of circumstances - and some math experts that
would testify that some machines ARE beatable - could very likely
have a positive decision.

Do you want to be a test case? We really need a good VP case to

clarify this!!!!!

Jean:

  I really would rather not become a test case. I happen to agree
with you though that some VP games, played carefully are beatable at
least in the short run and can be argued as such. If I was 20 years
old again, I'd get some bright people and a powerful computer setup
and try to prove just that. (No retorts from you math guys out there
as this is a tax discussion.)For those who believe that everything is
already known about everything, I would encourage the reading of the
book "Fortune's Formula" by William Poundstone 2005. Sometime the
sciences of physics and math are closer to investing and gambling
than one thinks. Alas at 63, I leave that to someone else who's a
bit younger. While I am on books also read the latest book by Konik
on Sports Betting which suggests a similar thing. Denny

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@...

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@>
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "queenofcomps" <queenofcomps@>
wrote:
> >
> > <<While courts have rules that Poker players can consider
> > gambling as a profession, the same is not true for video poker
> > players up to the present.>>
> >
> > This is not true. Many VP players file as professional

gamblers.

> >
> > Jean: I am not saying that people don't file that way. I was
> unaware though of any court ruling that says that Video Poker
playing
> can be considered a profession. In other words is there I case
you can
> cite that is the reverse of the March 1 Ferguson decision where a
local
> court said that Ferguson could not consider himself a
professional as
> a video poker player.

******************************************************************
Go to ustaxcourt.gov & read the decision, the Judge NEVER said
that, did not come close to saying that , What cost this man his
case was , poor to non existing records, relying on the casino
won/loss report ONLY instead , had a full time job which, usaully
means you cant be a full time gambler , the premise that since he
practice on his computer & only played progresives that return 100%
he was a pro, didnt fly with the court as "based on the record
presented" & lack there of judge "doubts that a casino would have a
machine that can be beaten"

Another decision against a gambler came down this week, read it also
Very clear on what is needed to being consider a "pro"

For those that think that since a session is not spelled out in the
code that it has no effect , be warned that the court will use
the "common usage" meaning of any term or word & will quote a
dictionary in the decision. NOT an excuse for failing to keep
records just because something is not spelled out to your
satisfaction.

M J

can somebody email me how to create a "tinyurl" ?
since some of you dont belive in DIY, I can post a link to the tax
court decisions that effect us.

MJ: Again, thank you and I have read the Ferguson case and I

agree with you too. I was unaware of any positive court case that
ruled a VP player as a professional. Being retired, I have no other
job, made money, have copious contemporaneous play records and
believe VP at times can be beaten much like other speculative
investments. Could you post the name of that new court case you
refer too or the website it is at so I can bring it to the attention
of my accountant and his consulting attorney. Denny

If you know of such a case please share it with
> me so I can give it to my accountant and the lawyer he is using

as

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@...> wrote:

a
> consultant. Denny
>
> > ________________________________________
> > Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
> > This new book (autographed) and other
> > frugal products are now available at my
> > new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
> > E-mail address is queenofcomps@
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

<<> can somebody email me how to create a "tinyurl" ?

Go to http://tinyurl.com/ - it's really easy!

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.

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

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

<<> can somebody email me how to create a "tinyurl" ?

You can do the tinyurl thing, or you could COPY and PASTE the link
from the site with the information.

To do this, HIGHLIGHT the address up at the top. It will start with
http://

Then press CONTROL C - this is the windows universal COPY COMMAND.

Then go to this message you want to type, and press CONTROL V topaste
it.

If you click the EDIT menu at the top, you will see COPY and PASTE
with their associated shortcuts. You can copy and paste almost
everything doing this.

<<since some of you dont belive in DIY, I can post a link to the tax
court decisions that effect us.>>

I don't know what DIY stands for, but I - and probably many others on this list - would appreciate links to court decisions that effect us.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.

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

<<I happen to agree
with you though that some VP games, played carefully are beatable at
least in the short run and can be argued as such.>>

Oops I have NEVER said that - just the opposite. We all would like to find out that "secret," but so far the math tells us that there is no "system" that will guarantee that we will win in any length of the short term, on below- OR above-100% machines. What I (and many others) have proved during the 17 years that I have been doing only 100%+ plays on video poker machines that one CAN make a profit in the long term. The only variable here is how long is the long term. It is usually much longer than the "average" recreational player plays. But serious frequent players have proven this time after time after time.

Sure - I often win in the short term - like in one session or even in a series of sessions. These are streaks. But I can not predict a winning or a losing streak in the future. I only know the length of them AFTER the fact.

It may be comforting to think you can "control" your losing by stopping and starting at certain times and/or doing special strategy plays, but remember - life is just one video poker session. It doesn't matter whether you play a million hands at one stretch, or chop it up into many smaller chunks. Add up all the winning/losing "chunks" and you will see the results of the long term. The math proves that if you always make 100% plays you eventually, if you play long enough, will come out with a profit. The bigger the advantage you have the faster these profits will come. The longer you play the closer you will get to the expected return.

I hate to be blunt, but too many people think they "ought" to win because they try to play the best VP games they can find. Too many times the "bestest" plays in one casino or in one area aren't 100%. Go ahead and play these since you will lose less than on the "worsest" machines, but don't expect long term profit. Take them as a recreational pastime and limit your losses to what you can afford. And be happy when you hit a jackpot. You CAN hit jackpots on "bad" machines. In the long run those jackpots won't make you a long-term winner, but they are fun and will give you some fun winning sessions.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.

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

queenofcomps wrote:

No, there has been no case that I know of that speaks specifically to
VP being an "okay" gambling profession - but if you go back to the
original case that says generally that gambling can be a profession,
it does not specify what kind of gambling it has to be or can't be.

As someone else pointed out on this board, there were many reasons
why Ferguson could not claim being a professional gambler. Intent of
making a profit is not enough. As we say in our tax book, you must
meet the requirements on as many levels as you can, including running
your business with business-like records, length of time spent,
actually making a profit some of the time, etc., etc.

Saying VP was not a possible "profession" was really just a side
issue in the Ferguson case. And remember one court case does not
bind someone with a good lawyer who can prove otherwise.

As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, Ferguson clearly suffered
an adverse decision largely on the very points that Jean notes in the
second paragraph above.

However, these was one ancillary statement in the court decision that
raises a bit of a red flag:

"We are additionally unconvinced that petitioner's gambling activity
meets the standard for being a trade or business because we are not
persuaded that an individual who gambles against a machine that is
programmed by a casino can have, as his or her primary purpose, income
or profit. After all, such a machine is on the floor to make money for
the casino and is not there to provide income or profit for the
casino's patrons. For most individuals, gambling against a machine
that is programmed to make money for the casino constitutes what the
Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987),
characterized as a sporadic activity, hobby, or amusement diversion.
For other individuals, gambling against such a machine may become a
habit or an addiction. In neither scenario is it a trade or business
with the participant's primary purpose being income or profit."

Again, I expect these observations factor nominally in the court's
decision. However, while tax opinions of the court can't be cited as
precedent for the evaluation of any ensuing tax case, it's reasonable
to assume that a court judge would consult this decision in
considering a similar case. This remark may well come to bear on the
conceptual framework within which other decisions are deliberated.

- Harry

Come on, 63 is not all that old. In fact, it's considered a real good
idea for us old farts to take on new adventures to keep the brain
stimulated.

On the other hand, I think you'd be better off tackling another
windmill than looking for non-random behavior in random processes. Not
that I believe it's impossible with pseudo-random VP machines, just
more work than it's worth (and it would be worth a lot).

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:

  I really would rather not become a test case. I happen to agree
with you though that some VP games, played carefully are beatable at
least in the short run and can be argued as such. If I was 20 years
old again, I'd get some bright people and a powerful computer setup
and try to prove just that. (No retorts from you math guys out there
as this is a tax discussion.)For those who believe that everything is
already known about everything, I would encourage the reading of the
book "Fortune's Formula" by William Poundstone 2005. Sometime the
sciences of physics and math are closer to investing and gambling
than one thinks. Alas at 63, I leave that to someone else who's a
bit younger. While I am on books also read the latest book by Konik
on Sports Betting which suggests a similar thing. Denny

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

queenofcomps wrote:
> No, there has been no case that I know of that speaks

specifically to

> VP being an "okay" gambling profession - but if you go back to

the

> original case that says generally that gambling can be a

profession,

> it does not specify what kind of gambling it has to be or can't

be.

>
> As someone else pointed out on this board, there were many

reasons

> why Ferguson could not claim being a professional gambler.

Intent of

> making a profit is not enough. As we say in our tax book, you

must

> meet the requirements on as many levels as you can, including

running

> your business with business-like records, length of time spent,
> actually making a profit some of the time, etc., etc.
>
> Saying VP was not a possible "profession" was really just a side
> issue in the Ferguson case. And remember one court case does not
> bind someone with a good lawyer who can prove otherwise.

As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, Ferguson clearly

suffered

an adverse decision largely on the very points that Jean notes in

the

second paragraph above.

However, these was one ancillary statement in the court decision

that

raises a bit of a red flag:

"We are additionally unconvinced that petitioner's gambling activity
meets the standard for being a trade or business because we are not
persuaded that an individual who gambles against a machine that is
programmed by a casino can have, as his or her primary purpose,

income

or profit. After all, such a machine is on the floor to make money

for

the casino and is not there to provide income or profit for the
casino's patrons. For most individuals, gambling against a machine
that is programmed to make money for the casino constitutes what the
Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987),
characterized as a sporadic activity, hobby, or amusement diversion.
For other individuals, gambling against such a machine may become a
habit or an addiction. In neither scenario is it a trade or business
with the participant's primary purpose being income or profit."

Harry: Yes, I remember that statement well, and that is why I
responded to the earlier post in the manner I did. I cannot prove I
can in the short run, but neither can they prove that I can't. I
believe that this to be an accurate statement. Its at least worthy
of a good discussion.....not in this forum please. Denny

Again, I expect these observations factor nominally in the court's
decision. However, while tax opinions of the court can't be cited

as

precedent for the evaluation of any ensuing tax case, it's

reasonable

to assume that a court judge would consult this decision in
considering a similar case. This remark may well come to bear on

the

···

conceptual framework within which other decisions are deliberated.

- Harry