Poker winning in canada - Page 4

On October 24 2013 11:21 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: you can still lose your BR if you are a rakeback pro Highcard so no you cant xd

It doesn't matter if you lose your bankroll, technically you would have to pay taxes on those RB earnings if you were a RB grinder by trade and ran a 'business to earn RB"

are you guys seriously comparing casino to online poker?
geeze

On October 24 2013 11:22 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

yeah, casinos are very much like poker players, they gamble on games they have an edge on

the big dif is they have the ability to grind a LOT of games at once and make a very steady low stakes grind that, combined with the huge volume they put by offering multiple games, makes it almost mathematically impossible for them to lose

a good analogy would be if you could make dozens or even hundreds of clones of yourself, and put a lot of them to grind low stakes and make a good steady profit, with this you would win pretty much always

they have bankroll management considerations aswell, they can choose to decline action to highstakes gamblers that want to bet 1mi/hand at blackjack just to avoid the variance, or they can just go for it if they think they have the BR and risk losing the profit of many weeks/months, because they know they have an edge

taxing them and not taxing players that have an edge over poker games is a contradiction

On October 24 2013 11:27 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: are you guys seriously comparing casino to online poker? geeze

are you guys srsly comparing X to poker
geez

please repeat this compelling logical argument some more times

comparing is recognizing similarities between different things and using those similarities to make a point by correlation

On October 24 2013 11:33 player999 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 11:27 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: are you guys seriously comparing casino to online poker? geeze are you guys srsly comparing X to poker geez please repeat this compelling logical argument some more times

wow
okay

i think ur right poker should be taxed everywhere in the world

anything that has any similarities to the main thing in a discussion, can be used as a comparison object to make correlation points relevant to the main discussion

refusing comparisons just by the fact of acknowledging differences between the 2 things being compared is missing the point entirely and making the incorrect assumption that the objects of the comparison are being considered 100% similar by the person comparing them

On October 24 2013 11:22 player999 wrote: Show nested quote + 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 -------------------- 1 game you could have an edge, the next game you could have (-) edge. You have to prove a business model to create an edge which is very hard to prove because this, again, is a zero sum game. This has everything to do with the determination of running a business.   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 -------- Same answer as above, everyone is working towards exploiting each other but it is such a large game tree model to prove the business model for taxation law. If the game wasn't zero sum, this would be moot.   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)

-------
same answer, about the business model for taxation and earnings from a game of zero sum. The RB total is not important, it is the method in which the RB was earned. This is entirely based on the law of business and running a business for profit. If you are playing poker in a schedule, specific to earning RB then you are running a RB business and owe money on the RB earning regardless of what profit/loss you make from the game itself. You can deduct business expense like computer, internet, yadda yadda in relation to the RB earnings to offset some taxation but again this is all about the law of business.

On October 24 2013 11:39 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: i think ur right poker should be taxed everywhere in the world

I never made that point at all
I said that following your logic and the CAR logic, it should be taxed

But the logic that should be used in my opinion is this, which means it shouldn't be taxed (or taxed in really small %s):

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.

On October 24 2013 11:41 Highcard wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 11:22 player999 wrote:   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 -------------------- 1 game you could have an edge, the next game you could have (-) edge. You have to prove a business model to create an edge which is very hard to prove because this, again, is a zero sum game. This has everything to do with the determination of running a business.   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 -------- Same answer as above, everyone is working towards exploiting each other but it is such a large game tree model to prove the business model for taxation law. If the game wasn't zero sum, this would be moot.   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) ------- same answer, about the business model for taxation and earnings from a game of zero sum. The RB total is not important, it is the method in which the RB was earned. This is entirely based on the law of business and running a business for profit. If you are playing poker in a schedule, specific to earning RB then you are running a RB business and owe money on the RB earning regardless of what profit/loss you make from the game itself. You can deduct business expense like computer, internet, yadda yadda in relation to the RB earnings to offset some taxation but again this is all about the law of business.

why not deduct the losses in the games as expenses then?
so someone that loses 100k in the tables, and makes 100k RB, should actually get refunded? because those 100k lost were expenses that were necessary to acquire the 100k in RB

because if you lose it means you dont have a system

-craps, roulette, slot machines, all of the casino games have a % edge built into them.

-Poker does not have a % edge built into it: zero sum

- It is very easy to see that a casino runs a business on a daily basis outlined from very specific parameters that do not change.

-Poker players have a variance of many factors daily which all relate back to a zero sum game

-A casino can never lose in the absolute sense

-A poker player requires variance to win in the absolute sense

in the spirit of the law, poker is gambling on variance, with a variance related to exploiting other strategies that within themselves are gambling towards a zero sum game.

I don't think I will respond anymore in this thread, that is all I believe there is for me to say

In blackjack the casino has an edge on random player, while a card-counter has an edge over the casino. Neither of those edges are official in any way. Everyone agrees that the casino should be taxed, so why shouldn't the card-counter be?

In the US it was considered a victory for card-counters that the skill element involved in the game was acknowledged and that card-counters were allowed to treat their practice as a business. Income would have been taxed either way but counters now had the ability to deduct traveling expenses although they would have to pay a self-employment tax. Its a little hazy as to whether you're legally required to declare that you're "running a business" or not. There doesn't seem to be any specific line separating the casual winner from the professional.

In Canada though, there would be no reason why the players would want to be treated like a business because they get taxed at 0%. So the tricky part is determining how the government would determine that someone's a pro. But I don't think the answer is just that "they can't" meaning the player would essentially be able to freeroll the govt for the rest of his life.

I think rather than poker and football the parallel would be poker and betting on football. If you keep betting on the better team when the odds are right you should win in the long run, but its still gambling.

On October 24 2013 01:08 PuertoRican wrote:

I....I want whatever's on that white plate.

lol. poutine.

I don't understand why on earth professional poker players would or should be exempt from taxes. I mean, I understand that you guys would like to be, but I can't comprehend a single argument why 100k from poker should be taxed less than 100k from work. I also understand that some poker taxation laws have been retarded (like double taxation for withdrawn and redeposited money) and I totally understand that players would dodge taxes in these events

so good for canadian players that your court is retarded and not only wrongly classifies poker as a game of luck but also wrongly gives it tax exempt status.

also poker is obviously a game of skill, but it is different from well, every single other sport in the sense that 1: a complete newbie CAN beat the best player in the world and 2: you need a ridiculous sample size to "eliminate" luck.

I mean yea "bad" teams can beat barcelona. except by bad in this context we're talking top 100 team in the world out of 1 million. and yea sure a bad player can take one point of djokovich. me though, I'd probably have to play something like 1000 matches against him to win one point, if I played 5 heads up sitngos against phil ivey i'd be highly likely to win at least 1 - and that'd be true even if I were as bad at poker as I am at tennis.

i think the skill aspect of poker comes from action management on a series of chances and their expectations.

similar to investing / trading in a market.

while the player has no input in the determination of what he is dealt pre flop, his management of the holdings will influence the outcome by reactions from other players, despite the cards.

so there is both a luck and skill factor and the more hands/games played, the smaller the influence of luck and the greater influence from the management skill.

it isn't pure luck, like flipping a coin, but it isn't pure skill, like chess. there are luck factors or people who just seem to run infinitely good (ever play with some fish who is just completely terrible, but somehow is up money, over a small sample - and sometimes even larger sample - of hands?)

i think the easiest game to play to understand the luck/skill factor in poker is to play MTTs