vpFREE2 Forums

W2Gs - was DIAD (long and probably too much info for most)

    Posted by: "rob.singer1111@yahoo.com"

I do not understand why so many people fear W2G's. The more
the better and the more jackpots the better. Isn't that
really the name of the game in video poker?

More concerning to me would be playing for points & slot
club status than playing for as many W2G's as possible.

First of all, your point is presumably that W2Gs represent the big hits (for most people) that make their game a winning game -- so you're assuming that the non-W2G events, both good and bad, come with expected frequency and the W2Gs come with expected frequency or better.

However, W2Gs themselves do not guarantee winning sessions, as most everyone on this list realizes -- they can easily be offset by a long run of the more common 5-card draws that pick up nothing, single high card draws that don't pair, low pairs that never hit a set, and flush and straight draws that just don't come -- or whatever the comparable common but bad events are in your particular game of choice -- I imagine some of us have had a run of that :slight_smile:

So the answer to your comment and question, "The more the better and the more jackpots the better. Isn't that really the name of the game in video poker?" is in fact no -- the name of the game is winning, not getting W2Gs, and if you happen to do it by getting dealt a set every time, and nothing else, that can work just as well as the "more than your share" hits of quads, SFs, and royals. It can even work better, if your jackpots are NOT accompanied by "average or better" results the rest of the time.

You don't really "want" W2Gs, you just want to win as much as, or more than, expected - no matter how you get it. While it's certainly true that the "W2G events" are usually a part of that outcome, it's not mandatory.

I've had many stretches, and I'm quite certain I'm not alone, where a royal flush was not so much a wonderful event, as it was just a way to make up for some of what I'd already fed into the machine -- and sure, it was nice to get some of it back in a single hand, but I would have been just as happy to get it back any other way, particularly by not losing it in the first place. Not losing is an important part of winning.

As for why people usually "fear W2Gs" -- it's not because they don't want to win, but because they don't want to pay taxes -- and because they apparently report winnings associated with W2Gs, but in violation of tax law, they apparently do not report winnings that do not generate W2Gs.

Even if you comply with tax laws and report all winnings, there is a point where winning more at "gambling" (regardless of losses, unless you're filing as a professional gambler) creates a point in gross income that takes away certain tax deductions from "the rest of your life".

The assumption in the above sentence is that you have a "rest of your life" -- some do, some don't, and that may be the difference in the end, as to why some people "fear W2Gs".

But if you don't report all gambling income that you have from non-W2G sessions, then you certainly would prefer a big win without an associated W2G -- not as easy to do, of course, but better after-taxes for those who don't report non-W2G winnings in full, if at all.

I don't fully understand exactly how it works in every state, and sure don't know if filing as a professional gambler makes a difference, but I do know that if you're not filing as a professional gambler, states with gross income tax absolutely take away any long-term positive expectation after-taxes. You can win $1,000,000 in half your "sessions" and lose $950,000 in the rest of your "sessions", for a net of $50,000 before taxes, and then if you pay more than 5% in gross income tax, there goes your "net" - and perhaps a little more.

Which is why people want to have winnings that are not W2G events - it's easier to cheat on your taxes if you don't have W2Gs, and sometimes cheating on your taxes is the only way to win at video poker after-taxes. Best way to assure that is to play quarter machines, I guess; then you can deny that you ever play the game, and just hope that the evidence doesn't turn up somehow (for most people, it won't).

--BG

I don't especially care for the inept way the government is spending the taxes I'm forced to pay. Some of these monies don't even go for what they are earmarked to do in a specifically named account. So, I don't feel like contributing any more taxes than necessary. Also, as mentioned, there are plenty of reasons to watch your income if you're retired but not rich. Your social security, for one, will be taxed and/or reduced if your household income exceeds a certain amount, last I heard it was around 34K a year, when in fact that social security money was already taxed when you paid it in while working. Double taxation doesn't seem all too fair to me.

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

···

--- On Sun, 2/19/12, Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net> wrote:

      >>Which is why people want to have winnings that are not W2G events - it's easier to cheat on your taxes if you don't have W2Gs, and sometimes cheating on your taxes is the only way to win at video poker after-taxes. Best way to assure that is to play quarter machines, I guess; then you can deny that you ever play the game, and just hope that the evidence doesn't turn up somehow (for most people, it won't).<<

I usually don’t get in discussions like this as y’all know more than me….but on this I will as SS is taken out PRE TAX not after taxes….the first part of it being taxed over a certain amount is correct….I don’t see how you get double taxation out of it.

Lisa

Your social security, for one, will be taxed and/or reduced if your household income exceeds a certain amount, last I heard it was around 34K a year, when in fact that social security money was already taxed when you paid it in while working. Double taxation doesn't seem all too fair to me.

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

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

Social security is handled a little differently for self-employed vs. employees, but the end result is the same. The employer's portion is not taxed as it is not defined as "income" for tax purposes, but the employee's portion is subject to tax. Self-employed individuals can deduct half of the social security component of their "self employment tax" (which is nothing more than total social security and Medicare payments that would have been made on the earned income had the self-employed person been an employee) from income for tax purposes. Either way, the individual is paying taxes on only his half of the contribution. Actually with the "holiday", the employee's contribution of income is 2% less so the numbers are currently skewed a little in favor of the individual. It's not double-taxation because only (up to) one-half of your social security income can be taxed. In other words, the half of your premiums that wasn't taxed (the employer's contribution) can be taxed upon receipt of your social security income. The inability to deduct payments was in the original legislation in the '30's. I believe the taxation of the annuity payments was a product of the massive tax code changes under Reagan in the 80's. It's not my intent to engage in some philosophical debate about whether taxing half of that income is right or wrong, only reporting data.To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com

···

From: viajo1964@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:03:34 -0600
Subject: RE: W2Gs - was [vpFREE] DIAD (long and probably too much info for most)

      I usually don’t get in discussions like this as y’all know more than me….but on this I will as SS is taken out PRE TAX not after taxes….the first part of it being taxed over a certain amount is correct….I don’t see how you get double taxation out of it.

Lisa

Your social security, for one, will be taxed and/or reduced if your household income exceeds a certain amount, last I heard it was around 34K a year, when in fact that social security money was already taxed when you paid it in while working. Double taxation doesn't seem all too fair to me.

[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]

Not true. Up to 85% of your social security can be taxed.

···

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:59 AM, David Silvus <djsilvus@hotmail.com> wrote:

In other words, the half of your premiums that wasn't taxed (the
employer's contribution) can be taxed upon receipt of your social security income.

You are correct. Half of your social security income is used to determine whether you meet the threshhold, but up to 85% may be taxed. I stand corrected.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: hard16@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:35:49 -0500
Subject: Re: W2Gs - was [vpFREE] DIAD (long and probably too much info for most)

Not true. Up to 85% of your social security can be taxed.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:59 AM, David Silvus <djsilvus@hotmail.com> wrote:

In other words, the half of your premiums that wasn't taxed (the
employer's contribution) can be taxed upon receipt of your social security income.

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