Poker winning in canada - Page 3

On October 24 2013 10:26 Highcard wrote: There is no scientific proof you are a winning player, at best causal inference, but most likely only correlation for most people.

there is

I have won over 53% of husng matches over a sample of more than 100k games. Assuming I had 50% chance of winning each, the odds of me winning 53% after 100k games makes the Planck constant look like a big number. That's scientific proof that I'm a winning player.

On October 24 2013 10:30 player999 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 10:28 Jamie217 wrote: I think Hero is just saying there is much more luck in poker than any other sport, which is pretty hard to argue against especially in the eyes of non poker players no one can argue with that, but then what?

1 million on the table
lets say you know nothing at tennis
never played in your life
lets say you know nothing at poker

you have to play a tennis pro, top 5, 10 games
if you win 5+ you win 1 million
or you play poker pro, top 5, 10 games
if you win 5+ you win 1 million

let me guess which one you take?

On October 24 2013 10:30 NMcNasty wrote: Not sure where I stand on this issue. The fact that casual players in the US are supposed to be taxed on gambling winnings is pretty ridiculous. A 3-5% house edge is one thing, but a 28% govt cut on your year's winnings makes so many games much worse from an EV perspective. Its only not an issue because pretty much everyone loses to begin with and the rare winners cheat on their taxes anyway. But it doesn't really make much sense from a govt perspective that a poker pro could make 100k a year and pay no taxes whatsoever. He would be getting all government services for free while some poor sap working minimum wage at McDonald's is paying for them.

as I said above, there is no scientific proof you are a winning player or ever had a winning system or ever had an expectation of long term profit. It is a (-) sum game because of rake.

all the points Hero pulled from the judgement are very valid and it is nice to see logical thinking in the spirit of the law.

On October 24 2013 10:30 NMcNasty wrote: Not sure where I stand on this issue. The fact that casual players in the US are supposed to be taxed on gambling winnings is pretty ridiculous. A 3-5% house edge is one thing, but a 28% govt cut on your year's winnings makes so many games much worse from an EV perspective. Its only not an issue because pretty much everyone loses to begin with and the rare winners cheat on their taxes anyway. But it doesn't really make much sense from a govt perspective that a poker pro could make 100k a year and pay no taxes whatsoever. He would be getting all government services for free while some poor sap working minimum wage at McDonald's is paying for them.

THIS is the reason it shouldn't be taxed, or, taking the last sentence into account, taxed a pretty low amount

But it's not because its a game of luck, since it isn't

On October 24 2013 10:35 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 10:30 player999 wrote:   On October 24 2013 10:28 Jamie217 wrote: I think Hero is just saying there is much more luck in poker than any other sport, which is pretty hard to argue against especially in the eyes of non poker players no one can argue with that, but then what? 1 million on the table lets say you know nothing at tennis never played in your life lets say you know nothing at poker you have to play a tennis pro, top 5, 10 games if you win 5+ you win 1 million or you play poker pro, top 5, 10 games if you win 5+ you win 1 million let me guess which one you take?

poker has more variance, that was my point, but it's not predominant luck

On October 24 2013 10:37 Highcard wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 10:30 NMcNasty wrote: Not sure where I stand on this issue. The fact that casual players in the US are supposed to be taxed on gambling winnings is pretty ridiculous. A 3-5% house edge is one thing, but a 28% govt cut on your year's winnings makes so many games much worse from an EV perspective. Its only not an issue because pretty much everyone loses to begin with and the rare winners cheat on their taxes anyway. But it doesn't really make much sense from a govt perspective that a poker pro could make 100k a year and pay no taxes whatsoever. He would be getting all government services for free while some poor sap working minimum wage at McDonald's is paying for them. as I said above, there is no scientific proof you are a winning player or ever had a winning system or ever had an expectation of long term profit. It is a (-) sum game because of rake. all the points Hero pulled from the judgement are very valid and it is nice to see logical thinking in the spirit of the law.

as even Hero pointed out, this "logical thinking" has many many flaws, like:

''[13] The Director explains that whether or not a taxpayer is running a business is a question of fact that must be determined in each individual case. In addition, each taxation year stands on its own. Relevant factors in determining if a taxpayer is running a business include hours spent, the degree of personal expertise and overall commitment. In some of the cases relied upon by the Applicant, the Court concludes that the taxpayer was not involved in a business, but it does not automatically flow that all winnings from gambling are not taxable. ''

(c) The Minister’s reliance upon Luprypa, above, is misplaced and unreasonable. I see no analogy between a skilful pool player who systematically applied his skills to make money from inebriated opponents and anything the Applicant did in this case where, essentially, his winnings were dependent upon chance, even though he had studied, practised and improved his skills in a way that most amateur poker players do. Everyone who competes in online poker wants to win and will attempt to narrow the odds in their favour in any way they can. But this does not mean they have devised a system if they do win; chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose, as it did on the facts of this case;

On October 24 2013 10:34 player999 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 10:26 Highcard wrote: There is no scientific proof you are a winning player, at best causal inference, but most likely only correlation for most people. there is I have won over 53% of husng matches over a sample of more than 100k games. Assuming I had 50% chance of winning each, the odds of me winning 53% after 100k games makes the Planck constant look like a big number. That's scientific proof that I'm a winning player.

The nice thing about these 100k games, is you still cannot prove next year or the year after that you will be winning. Or even next month.

Nothing can change that fact that the game is (-) sum with rake. In the end, at the very least, your luck comes from playing people who lose to you. Go play Ike and see how that winrate goes.

On October 24 2013 10:46 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: (c) The Minister’s reliance upon Luprypa, above, is misplaced and unreasonable. I see no analogy between a skilful pool player who systematically applied his skills to make money from inebriated opponents

the only difference is that the opp's aren't inebriated (some are actually), but they're still being taken advantage of by the pro's superior skills

and anything the Applicant did in this case where, essentially, his winnings were dependent upon chance, even though he had studied, practised and improved his skills in a way that most amateur poker players do.

he practised and improved better than most amateur players, and for that he has an edge and is able to overcome chance

Everyone who competes in online poker wants to win and will attempt to narrow the odds in their favour in any way they can.

the inebriated pool players were trying to lose? everyone tries to win in every game

But this does not mean they have devised a system if they do win; chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose, as it did on the facts of this case;

yes it does, he crafted a strategy that allows him to win long-term, we are all aware that suck things exist

On October 24 2013 10:48 Highcard wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 10:34 player999 wrote:   On October 24 2013 10:26 Highcard wrote: There is no scientific proof you are a winning player, at best causal inference, but most likely only correlation for most people. there is I have won over 53% of husng matches over a sample of more than 100k games. Assuming I had 50% chance of winning each, the odds of me winning 53% after 100k games makes the Planck constant look like a big number. That's scientific proof that I'm a winning player. The nice thing about these 100k games, is you still cannot prove next year or the year after that you will be winning. Or even next month. Nothing can change that fact that the game is (-) sum with rake. In the end, at the very least, your luck comes from playing people who lose to you. Go play Ike and see how that winrate goes.

It surely can't, but it can prove I had an edge in those games, if I play only better players for the next 100k, that doesn't disprove the fact that I was a proven winning player over those first 100k. "Winning player" is relative to opponents, just like a tennis player ranked 20th in the world would be a huge loser if he played only top5 guys all the time, but he still wins most of his matches because he plays worst opponents more often

edit: by your logic only the number 1 in the world in any game would be a "winning player", since even the number 2 guy can just get crushed for a big sample if all he does is play the number 1 guy

furthering that point, if you do play Ike, your winning and losing will directly correlate to variance, which is in layman's terms 'luck', which solidifies the point of the judgment. If you play Ike, each month if you win or lose, it will be entirely based on variance -- luck.

As the judgment also says, each player is trying to win, is trying to apply better strategies to win, but in the end, it is (-) sum game, and any winning or losing comes down to variance.

There are so many factors to the variance, related to strategies, seat placement, game played, rake structure, game structures, the list goes on and on.

Poker is just a large scale mathematical model of rock/paper/scissors. The judgment says you would not tax winnings from rock/paper/scissors,

you cant overcome chance
if you get money in with 40 to win
no mather what you do its still 40% to win
trying to put money ahead everytime isnt chance or skill its how it is to everyone
making the right play change nothing to the chance factor

and dude
im not saying poker is 0% skill
wtf
...
what im saying is that you have ZERO CONTROL of the chance factor

On October 24 2013 10:56 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: you cant overcome chance if you get money in with 40 to win no mather what you do its still 40% to win trying to put money ahead everytime isnt chance or skill its how it is to everyone making the right play change nothing to the chance factor and dude im not saying poker is 0% skill wtf ... what im saying is that you have ZERO CONTROL of the chance factor

if you can profit longterm, it means you can overcome chance.

we have zero control of the luck factor, but we still are poker pros because we can apply samples big enough that we come out ahead enough of the time to show a profit. that's a skill game.

following your logic, casinos shouldn't be taxed because everyone can just run hot and win money from them

casino is a buisness
wtf
lets say jonathan duhamel
now ps pro
sponsored
im pretty sur he MUST pay taxes on his winning

The only good thing to come out of Canada is Trailer Park Boys

Player999, playing poker has a TOTAL expectation of profit of (-) because it is a zero sum game before rake.

A Casino has a TOTAL expectation of profit x, where x relates to the TOTAL mathematical edge of the game played. Varies game to game. Casinos cannot lose, as such they are taxed based on their earnings from that % edge built into the game.

Because you are winning today at poker, doesn't mean you will be winning tomorrow at poker, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove because the game is zero sum. It is variance in the play, the people, the game, the structure that you won.

YOU CAN be taxed if you are a rakeback grinder. You have an EXPECTATION of whatever % and if you just grinded mindlessly to earn $100k year from rakeback on a schedule, specific basis PURELY for rakeback then you are deemed running a business.

3 very different things.

you can still lose your BR if you are a rakeback pro Highcard so no you cant xd

On October 24 2013 11:11 Highcard wrote: Casinos cannot lose, as such they are taxed based on their earnings from that % edge built into the game.

They absolutely can lose, and that's not how they're taxed. They're taxed based on total income.

On October 24 2013 11:11 Highcard wrote: A Casino has a TOTAL expectation of profit x, where x relates to the TOTAL mathematical edge of the game played. Varies game to game. Casinos cannot lose, as such they are taxed based on their earnings from that % edge built into the game.

sure they can, what if everyone gets lucky? (hero's argument)
on a more serious point, following your logic, a person can have an edge too in the poker game, a mathematical edge, from applying a +EV strategy

Because you are winning today at poker, doesn't mean you will be winning tomorrow at poker, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove because the game is zero sum. It is variance in the play, the people, the game, the structure that you won.

taxes are relative to the PAST year's results. the future doesn't matter, you can't prove you will win in the future indeed but you can prove you had an edge in the past games

YOU CAN be taxed if you are a rakeback grinder. You have an EXPECTATION of whatever % and if you just grinded mindlessly to earn $100k year from rakeback on a schedule, specific basis PURELY for rakeback then you are deemed running a business.

you can use math based on winrate and variance and determine your expectation of winnings for the year within a margin of error aswell. for people with varying stakes, lots of move ups, lower winrate, etc this will vary more and the margin can be quite big, but for people that grind only one stake, fixed schedule, lots of volume, this can be quite precise. to the RB example, what if the guy loses 90k and wins 100k in RB? tax it the same as someone breakeven and 100k up in RB? or someone +1mi on the tables and +100k in RB? rakeback is just part of the winnings, and a part of it that has much less variance (it can vary still if you play more/less, or if you are forced to move down, or if you move up and get more RB, etc)