Poker winning in canada

Most people think it is NOT taxable but no one is very sure...
Always been kind of a grey area..

Well the court decided that it is NOT taxable!!

judgemnet is here : http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc916/2013fc916.html

Finaly a CLEAR answer for us canadians!

your country is awesome, congrats

On October 23 2013 22:57 tapatapaz wrote: your country is awesome, congrats

forgot the toronto raptors, pot, seth rogen (and those other actors)




but all of that ^ is negated by bryan adams

i think canada still owes us an apology

holy shit, lol,
wtf @ wolverine?

WTF? this decision is absurd, it basically said that poker is a game of luck

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;

suuuure, chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose...

I don't think it should be taxed too, as a player myself, but if the criteria are these that they talk about here, it def should be

is it a game of luck and it must be seen as a game of luck, everywhere, and especially in canada

in canada you dont pay taxes on lotery if you win
or at casino
any LUCK GAME = no taxe

Anyway there is a problem in the judgemnet for poker players

''[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. ''

but the judge destroyed CAR(canada agency revenu) 's arguments so much that we kinda can say it is not taxable xd

On October 24 2013 08:42 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: is it a game of luck and it must be seen as a game of luck, everywhere, and especially in canada in canada you dont pay taxes on lotery if you win or at casino any LUCK GAME = no taxe

I want that too, I'm just saying it isn't true

On October 24 2013 08:45 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: Anyway there is a problem in the judgemnet for poker players

thats not the only problem at all, the whole thing is full of flaws

for example, by meeting these criteria they should be seen as a business:

(a) the degree of organization that is present in the pursuit of this activity by the taxpayer, (b) the existence of special knowledge or inside information that enables the taxpayer to reduce the element of chance, (c) the taxpayer’s intention to gamble for pleasure as compared with any intention to gamble for profit as a means of gaining a livelihood, and (d) the extent of the taxpayer’s gambling activities, including the number and frequency of bets.

poker pros clearly meet these points

those are arguments from CAR destroyed by the judge lol

[52] I say this for the following reasons:

(a) The Minister in this case relied upon the fact of winning and, in effect, conducted the kind of retrospective assessment warned against by Justice Bowman in Leblanc, above, as part of the assessment of reasonable expectation of profit;

(b) The Minister concludes that the Applicant had a “system” but does not provide any meaningful explanation of what this system might be. It looks as though the Applicant’s simply playing online poker on his computer on an intense and regular basis over an extended period of time is equated with a system. This is bolstered by the Leblanc fallacy that, because he happened to win more than he lost during the three years in question, he must have had a system. I see no evidence of the Applicant applying a system in a way that would make this conclusion by the Minister intelligible or reasonable.

(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;

(d) The method of payment used was no indicator of a “system” or a reasonable expectation of profits. Everyone who wants to pay has to set up some kind of payment system, so this cannot be an indication of running a business. Paypal accounts are used in a variety of contexts where payment is required online;

(e) The Applicant’s cutting back on other work and income while he won at poker is also no indicator of a system or running a business with a reasonable expectation of profit. A large gambling win could result in the winner quitting work entirely, but that would not mean he or she had been running a business. The luxury of being able to work less is one of the fruits of successful gambling, just as having to work more may be one of the results of unsuccessful gambling. Chance dictates the outcome in either case;

(f) The use of winnings to finance a mortgage is no indication of running a business. Winnings can be used in a constructive way. The gambler is not obliged to play until he or she loses, and the use of winnings in this case was no indicator of a system or a business that was being run with a reasonable expectation of profit;

(g) There is no indication that the monitors or other equipment which the Applicant used to gamble in this case were anything special or that the Applicant had made capital investments for the purpose of running a business or earning a profit;

(h) The Applicant’s record keeping was minimal and entirely consistent with the need to prove the source of funds for tax purposes. They were not business records in any meaningful way, and did not even correlate to CRA’s own criteria.

On October 24 2013 09:28 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: those are arguments from CAR destroyed by the judge lol

the arguments in such "destruction" makes no sense at all, just look at my first post

unless you start by assuming poker = luck (which makes no sense at all)

also the arguments from CAR were pretty shitty and missed the point a lot indeed, and thats what was pointed out, but if they were better, they wouldnt be destroyed

dhu yeah poker = luck
ever seen a fish join a game, luckbox a pot and run?
thinking poker is only a game of skill is very retarded
seriously lol

the luck factor isnt as importnat to us than fish or w/e but if you have to take it ''individually''

when we play only the result at the end really mather
lets say you play Fish A he hit n run you lost 100bb lost AA vs KK w/e a suckout
he run
your 100bb are gone
you lost htat money
then you play FISH b and win 120bb
so you areup 20bb
but you are still down 100bb vs fish A but made 120 BB vs fish b
that 100bb ar egone you might be up 20 bb but should be up more!

im griding, hard to explain my tought t.t

and also dont expect me to say its not a game of luck because this it what make poker not taxable in canada
any canadians saying its skill based game is shooting in his own foot

On October 24 2013 09:35 player999 wrote: also the arguments from CAR were pretty shitty and missed the point a lot indeed, and thats what was pointed out, but if they were better, they wouldnt be destroyed

yes
but try to explain what is a ''system'' at poker to win
even you with poker knowledge wouldnt be able to

way to ignore variance

poker has been proved as a game of skill very extensively by specialist all around the world, if you could understand portuguese I could show you a big paper by one of Brazil's top jurists explaining how it is a game of predominant skill

I know poker players can't say it because they're shooting their own foot, I'm just stating what is the actual truth (even though it is in my best interests that they keep fooling themselves)

by your logic football = luck, any crappy team can luckbox a win against Barcelona too

fact that skill is involved doesnt change the fact that is it a game of chance -.-

On October 24 2013 09:55 player999 wrote: by your logic football = luck, any crappy team can luckbox a win against Barcelona too

do you serisly compare the ''luck'' factor in poker with a sport?
wtf? rly?

canada is exactly like sweden pretty much, only much cooler bigger moose and better at hockey, gg

Luck in poker:

Your hole cards
Your seat/position
Other players
Hitting flop
Hitting turn
Hitting river
Getting called by worse when you got hand
Getting folded to when bluffing
Always depend of your hand vs other guy hand
Getting KK when vilain has AA
Making right play at the right time

i mean there is TONSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS of factors that involve luck
you cannot reduce the luck factor
you can.. LONG TERM.. well, the luck factor is the same
actually long term or not doesnt change shit
what change is that if you alwyas make the right play ull be making money at some point , doenst change that you gona get money in with 70 vs 30%

thsoe %%%%%%% we count,... its all luck

its funy you bring up variance, whch kinda say it is a game of luck xd

On October 24 2013 09:57 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: Show nested quote + On October 24 2013 09:55 player999 wrote: by your logic football = luck, any crappy team can luckbox a win against Barcelona too do you serisly compare the ''luck'' factor in poker with a sport? wtf? rly?

it is a mind sport in case you aren't aware

a better comparison to your "1 hand poker game" example is a "1 point tennis game". I can def beat Djokovic in a game like that, doesn't mean it is a luck game, just means it's a skill game with a lot of variance; in the long run he will crush me.

as regulars we dont see tons of stuff as luck becuase we are used to it
...

all those ''coolers'' we get, well, its luck you know xd

On October 24 2013 10:07 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: its funy you bring up variance, whch kinda say it is a game of luck xd

do you even know what is variance? every sport has variance. are sports games of luck?

wtf winning a ''1 point tennis game'' vs a pro or w/e doenst mean you are better and doesnt mean you got lucky
there is no..third party controlling the outcome...

On October 24 2013 10:13 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: wtf winning a ''1 point tennis game'' vs a pro or w/e doenst mean you are better and doesnt mean you got lucky

so tennis is a game of luck?

and what third party controls outcome in poker?

On October 24 2013 10:10 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: as regulars we dont see tons of stuff as luck becuase we are used to it ... all those ''coolers'' we get, well, its luck you know xd

tht just proves chance is a factor, but the difference between a skill game and a luck/chance game isn't the absence of luck/chance, but rather the PREDOMINANCE of skill over the luck chance/factor

okay
what the fuck
poker is skill only
apparently you dont know the ''beauty of that game is that anyone can win''

if you can overcome the luck/chance, like in poker or any sport, it means they are skill-based games. if you can't like in roulette or slots, it means they are luck/chance-based games

oh so you can tell us how big of a % luck is and how big of a % skill is? with facts?

On October 24 2013 10:22 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: okay what the fuck poker is skill only apparently you dont know the ''beauty of that game is that anyone can win''

you are just not reading anything I guess

nothing is "skill only" not even sports, but a "skill-game" is one where the skill can overcome the luck

poker is (-) sum game because of rake. There is a difference between scientific proof of winning > causal inference > correlation > anecdotal data.

There is no scientific proof you are a winning player, at best causal inference, but most likely only correlation for most people.

So anyways, good judgment.

On October 24 2013 10:24 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: oh so you can tell us how big of a % luck is and how big of a % skill is? with facts?

you don't need to say how big % it is, just that it is possible to apply strategies that will win in the long run regardless of the luck

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

trying to make the right play isnt a strategie man ...

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?

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 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)

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

On October 24 2013 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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.

Probably because poker is still seen as gambling, which means it is a losing proposition over time and done purely for entertainment.

yea but not for a professional poker player. you should just have a cap on winnings say $10k (it's like $8k in norway) that you can win before taxation takes place, and then if you're making more than that you tax it like regular salary.

On October 24 2013 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: so good for canadian players that your court is retarded .

that sentence kind of pissed me off...alot...
gona restrain myself from answering more

On October 24 2013 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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 disagree with your opinion here Eri. Taxing poker winnings (to me) seems like double taxation (there are treaties to prevent this in the real world between countries in order to not to fuck with each others' citizens, as I'm sure many of you know). Why do I think it's like double taxation? Here goes:

First off, the poker room / casino / online poker room taxes you in the form of rake, so in a way you're paying taxes on something that somebody already received a cut of. Secondly, the poker room / casino / online poker room also pays taxes on it's revenue - so the government already gets a cut from your paid rake! Why should you be obliged to pay on your net winnings? What do losing players get? Tax reduction due to "expenses" or what? Come on now The offshore nature of online poker service providers is an entirely different thing (them not paying nearly enough taxes compared to their revenue), let's not discuss that here. It's a legislation issue.

In Hungary, the current law (for live poker) is that it's taxed as gambling - 40% of all winnings - but it's all coming from the cardroom's / casino's pockets (they pay 40% of all rake income, and it's heavily enforced - cameras in every legal poker room, tax revisors coming and going all the time and whatnot). If you're a Hungarian citizen and win any kind of money playing live poker (tourney or cash game, doesn't matter), it's not taxed and you can't be bothered for it. If necessary (on big tourney wins), you can ask for a certificate that the poker-room has to provide, proving you won X amount of money - for tax exemption purposes (I guess this opens doors for 'smart' people to hide some unclean money, at least that's what I would do should I have my own illegal business, but whatever. This is how the law currently is). Should you win something abroad however, then you have to pay taxes (if it's taxable in the given country), but you can choose if you want to pay taxes on it there, or in Hungary (again, to avoid double taxation, but it has to be taxed somewhere 'cuz afaik there's not a country that has live poker regulated as Hungary does).

Income and sales.

Hero and Highcard are obviously levelling. If you think you can beat the game only if the chance shines up on you, then why on earth are you playing it? Just gambling for fun?

On October 24 2013 21:06 Naib wrote: Should you win something abroad however, then you have to pay taxes (if it's taxable in the given country), but you can choose if you want to pay taxes on it there, or in Hungary (again, to avoid double taxation, but it has to be taxed somewhere 'cuz afaik there's not a country that has live poker regulated as Hungary does).

what if you lose it all on cash games? (or other tourneys)

You can always refer to low stakes to prove that poker is a neg sum game, 1000 players each deposit 1k, they play against each other everyday for a month at 25-100NL. At the end of the month, some have 10k, some 5k some 2k etc... however that 1 million they initially deposited is now prob closer to 250-400k, and if the renaming players continue to play the remaining sum just keeps decaying. The guys with 5k+ will now set up their own bigger games, and one player may end up with 25k+, and so on... The longer this goes on the less the sum of the money is and the bigger the gap between top and low. I don't think it's fair to tax the guy who ends up at the top of this mountain, since they overcame incredibly impossible odds to begin with. Objectively speaking, are they actually better then everyone else or just riding the apex of the standard deviation wave

On October 25 2013 11:07 TalentedTom wrote: You can always refer to low stakes to prove that poker is a neg sum game, 1000 players each deposit 1k, they play against each other everyday for a month at 25-100NL. At the end of the month, some have 10k, some 5k some 2k etc... however that 1 million they initially deposited is now prob closer to 250-400k, and if the renaming players continue to play the remaining sum just keeps decaying. The guys with 5k+ will now set up their own bigger games, and one player may end up with 25k+, and so on... The longer this goes on the less the sum of the money is and the bigger the gap between top and low. I don't think it's fair to tax the guy who ends up at the top of this mountain, since they overcame incredibly impossible odds to begin with.

this is why it shouldnt be taxed

Objectively speaking, are they actually better then everyone else or just riding the apex of the standard deviation wave

trying to prove this and that its all luck is just being silly

^^ yes and no. Replace 1000 people with 1000 poker bots, all 100% the same programming code. You are going to get similar results. Are the bots who make made 50x their initial investment better then those who went busto?

^ That's not how poker actually works though. In reality its a meat-grinder not a lottery. The fish get split up and devoured between the house and the pros. I can open up Stars and tell you who is who within five minutes. The casinos get taxed on their share, why shouldn't the pros be?

Simple question for the no-tax crowd -
Should professional poker players be able to freeroll the government forever? Should they be able to drive on govt roads, get govt healthcare, get police, fire, and military protection all for free for the entirety of their lives?

The answer that its not an issue because there just aren't professional poker players somehow is retarded.

" The casinos get taxed on their share, why shouldn't the pros be?"

In Canada the casinos do not get taxed because all Casinos in Canada are government owned. So by going to the casino we are already paying rake/tax to the government. So if they tax winnings on top of the rake, it would result in paying a double rake to the same institution. By playing casino games we are paying for the services mentioned above. The exception then lies in the online games that are privately owned, would be a very grey area to tax one but not the other.

On October 25 2013 12:04 TalentedTom wrote: By playing casino games we are paying for the services mentioned above.

Not sure if just the rake can cover the cost of those services though. Its also a little dubious as to whether you would actually be generating that rake or not. If you come out a winner, you're really just using the fish's money to pay the rake. If that fish were losing that money anyway, its not like your presence would be contributing any more money to the govt. But I'll concede that there may be cases where the action you're giving will keep a game going and the rake flowing.

On October 25 2013 02:39 napoleono wrote: Hero and Highcard are obviously levelling. If you think you can beat the game only if the chance shines up on you, then why on earth are you playing it? Just gambling for fun?

dhu
we never said its all luck
i really, really, did not expect someone on that site to think i was saying its only luck
of course skill if fking huge part of the game...doesnt change that luck might be 50% of the game too...

tell yourself that everytime you log in and the biggest fish ever is here, all money you get from him is luck not skill
luck because you connected at the right time
and luck because he gave it to you instead of otthers reg
skill is only a importnat part of the game at nl600+ imo
most regs just wait for coolers.. even vs fish

On October 25 2013 13:14 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On October 25 2013 12:04 TalentedTom wrote: By playing casino games we are paying for the services mentioned above. Not sure if just the rake can cover the cost of those services though. Its also a little dubious as to whether you would actually be generating that rake or not. If you come out a winner, you're really just using the fish's money to pay the rake. If that fish were losing that money anyway, its not like your presence would be contributing any more money to the govt. But I'll concede that there may be cases where the action you're giving will keep a game going and the rake flowing.

dhu
alot of people here dont work but receive like 700$ evry month from gouv. and get everything free
at least poker players dont get that 700$ a month...

also to be taxed in canada it must me seen as a buisness
which mean you can get taxes back from a entry to tournament/travel because they are buisness expenses....

On October 25 2013 16:56 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: also to be taxed in canada it must me seen as a buisness which mean you can get taxes back from a entry to tournament/travel because they are buisness expenses....

Technically, you can go as far as saying the gas to travel place to place is a business expense, eating food on trips, etc., iirc from 2+2.

On October 25 2013 12:04 TalentedTom wrote: " The casinos get taxed on their share, why shouldn't the pros be?" In Canada the casinos do not get taxed because all Casinos in Canada are government owned. So by going to the casino we are already paying rake/tax to the government. So if they tax winnings on top of the rake, it would result in paying a double rake to the same institution. By playing casino games we are paying for the services mentioned above. The exception then lies in the online games that are privately owned, would be a very grey area to tax one but not the other.

oh actually with government owned casino where all casino profit basically goes into tax purposes I would be inclined to agree.
but pokerstars? vegas casinos? noway.

I think the most important part of the argument is that the government of canada makes an insane amount of money from any gambling game even poker so why the fuck should they tax the winnings as well. Im not sure how it is in other countrys but canada basically just takes probably like 20% of the lower classes paychecks anyway thats already basically a tax. I have alot of relatives who pump at least that every paycheck Canada has alot of degens wouldnt be surprised if we have the most the bingo halls are packed every night.

It was alot of fun when I was a poor kid and my mother would spend 50 bucks everynight.

I lost a few brain cells reading heros)engage, but for the rest, it is a nice conversation. Were you drunk for the whole convo?

I also think we should be taxed, but as a player I enjoy the fact we are not. I think in a society like Canada, it is pretty egoist of us, not to pay taxes. So yes, I think I am egoist towards the society. We get so many 'free' services paid by tax payers, doesn't make sense we don't pull our weight a little.

There are a few good reasons not to tax us tho. If winnings are taxable, loses should be deductable... which will never happen. It can happen you have a losing year, and if you don't pay any taxes that year, you are gonna run into trouble (probable tax evasion investigation, etc) + you will not get a deducted your loses from previous years.

Anyhow, I wasn't aware of the 8k cap in Norway, I think this makes a lot of sense. Whatever the cap, it makes sense to tax amounts that seem more likely to be money made from 'professional' poker, versus amator poker. Might be kind of a problem tho if you bink a big MTT or something. You could still be an amator and make 100k+ on a single event. So there might be flaws but I like the idea.

Also, I find it pretty sad that highly graded people still come up with the conclusion that it is a game of luck.

Anyhow, cheers.

Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake)

I think it should be taxed. Retail investing in stocks or forex is taxed where i live and its pretty much the same with poker.

On October 29 2013 07:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake)

No offence but that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say about it

love how you guys seems to think ull be winning at poker forever and wont ever lose/break even
yeah poker is so ez we are freerolling...

On October 29 2013 08:26 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: (every post in this thread)

xxx

have no idea why this thread broguht out the asshole out of everyone

On October 29 2013 08:00 careface_ wrote: Show nested quote + On October 29 2013 07:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake) No offence but that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say about it

When u played a live home game with 0 rake for a long time u would appreciate the difference too

In my eyes the online players get taxed twice

On October 29 2013 10:49 mnj wrote: have no idea why this thread broguht out the asshole out of everyone

this xD

On October 29 2013 10:49 mnj wrote: have no idea why this thread broguht out the asshole out of everyone

Every man has a beast inside himself, and that beast comes out whenever you put a keyboard in his hand

yea...idk, i like heros but his posts itt put me on the tilt t.t

On October 29 2013 11:04 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On October 29 2013 08:00 careface_ wrote:   On October 29 2013 07:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake) No offence but that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say about it When u played a live home game with 0 rake for a long time u would appreciate the difference too In my eyes the online players get taxed twice

We are talking about gouvernement taxes, poker sites charge you for a service, not even sure how you can compare the 2, lol...

On October 30 2013 04:02 careface_ wrote: Show nested quote + On October 29 2013 11:04 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On October 29 2013 08:00 careface_ wrote:   On October 29 2013 07:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake) No offence but that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say about it When u played a live home game with 0 rake for a long time u would appreciate the difference too In my eyes the online players get taxed twice We are talking about gouvernement taxes, poker sites charge you for a service, not even sure how you can compare the 2, lol...

Well actually in our country live games weren't taxed, casiono payed taxes from rake ( 50% tax lol).

On October 30 2013 04:02 careface_ wrote: Show nested quote + On October 29 2013 11:04 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On October 29 2013 08:00 careface_ wrote:   On October 29 2013 07:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake) No offence but that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say about it When u played a live home game with 0 rake for a long time u would appreciate the difference too In my eyes the online players get taxed twice We are talking about gouvernement taxes, poker sites charge you for a service, not even sure how you can compare the 2, lol...

Ye, up to 1000$ per day for that service back when i played online with high volume

Pretty insane

And then neteller/moneybookers take their fee

And then 50% tax on whatever is left after that in my country - Poker players getting so screwed over here lolol

Nope what i have now is much better, no rake, no neteller, no regs, no 3-betting, no HUD, no buttoning, no game theory optimal, no variance =))

http://www.google.no/imgres?imgurl=ht...Uv3AFYeJ5ASGyoEI&ved=0CKkBEP4dMBA

http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/b...year-s-wsop-main-event-taxman-588905/

Sixth place finisher and Quebec resident Marc-Etienee McLaughlin faces a complex tax situation, but as Fox points out, his home city has one of the highest marginal tax rates in Canada at 50%. Taking that into account, McLaughlin is likely to owe $792,935 on his $1,601,024.

oh no he only gets $800k

I thought there were no taxes?

On November 07 2013 16:39 player999 wrote: I thought there were no taxes?

hes not gonna have to pay once its all done

On October 29 2013 08:52 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On October 29 2013 08:26 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: (every post in this thread)

rofl this pic

On October 30 2013 04:02 careface_ wrote: Show nested quote + On October 29 2013 11:04 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On October 29 2013 08:00 careface_ wrote:   On October 29 2013 07:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Poker players are already very heavily taxed by the poker sites / casinoes (often more than half the income goes to rake) No offence but that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say about it When u played a live home game with 0 rake for a long time u would appreciate the difference too In my eyes the online players get taxed twice We are talking about gouvernement taxes, poker sites charge you for a service, not even sure how you can compare the 2, lol...

Well, if they tax the poker site you are inderectly being taxed, and then again when withdrawing. Works in the real world like that too though, u get taxed on your income and whenever you buy anything (lol fucking taxes, and lefist by extension)

How can I become Canadian. Would hate to win the main and have to give 1/2 to the gov.

Hypothetically. Say you are USA citizen an make the November 9 of the wsop me. During the break before November could you renounce your citizenship to avoid paying taxes? What about renouncing immediately after winning the tournament.

Just sick the us gov will take 4 million if you win 8 million in the main. Why does the gov deserve even one cent of that money?

Poker players can't be taxed!! wtf people???

it's not a regular job! they don't receive any government benefits, they are just playing with their money.

now Casinos and Poker Sites, sure! they will always win in the end of the month, making profit out off people from the government's custody.

there was a site that reported the canadian wosp finalist had to pay like 50% in taxes. This cant be true? Can anyone way in on this.

Agreed with careface_'s posts mostly. Professional poker as a source of income should definitely be taxable if I'm making a moralistic judgment, but the practice of how is indeed murky and difficult to implement straightforwardly for reasons careface said.

You def can't consider poker rake as tax, that's the fee you're paying for the service provided when a company facilitates your access to games and players you can expect to win money from. If you were in corporate employment, the pretax wage you'd be paid by the firm would (usually) be a fair bit less than the value you're adding to the firm as a result of your efforts (otherwise the firm wouldn't keep employing you) and you can think of the difference as the work you do that your employer gains from in order for the firm to have an incentive to exist. Clear parallels with poker sites here.

I do think you can consider some proportion of poker winnings to be taxed twice but not for the rake reason. I think net losers that contribute into the poker economy overall are contributing from their disposable income, or money that has already been taxed. Net longterm winners (professionals) are getting their revenue from dollars that, although may have been passed around from hand to hand within the poker economy, were post-tax dollars at the time they entered the poker economy.

edit: when i think about it more, i've made a stupid argument lol. firms make revenue from consumers who are spending their after-tax dollar and ofcourse still have to pay tax on their revenue.

ok conclusion: professional poker players should be taxed, somehow (feeling kind of bad now that i wasn't, being in uk)

On October 25 2013 11:50 NMcNasty wrote: ^ That's not how poker actually works though. In reality its a meat-grinder not a lottery. The fish get split up and devoured between the house and the pros. I can open up Stars and tell you who is who within five minutes. The casinos get taxed on their share, why shouldn't the pros be? Simple question for the no-tax crowd - Should professional poker players be able to freeroll the government forever? Should they be able to drive on govt roads, get govt healthcare, get police, fire, and military protection all for free for the entirety of their lives? The answer that its not an issue because there just aren't professional poker players somehow is retarded.

I don't have an opinion on the overall topic because it's kind of a complex situation and I'm probably gonna be biased anyway. But you can't say "Should professional poker players be able to freeroll the government forever?" We pay tax on everything except on our income, so it's really not a huge deal when you take into consideration everything else we give in taxes. In any case, because we are basically a company that is run by ourselves, we should be able to have the benefits of what companies have, that way we can deduce costs, etc. Basically a poker player, because it's self employed (kinda) should be able to run like a micro/small bussiness.

On November 11 2013 13:09 locoo wrote: Show nested quote + On October 25 2013 11:50 NMcNasty wrote: ^ That's not how poker actually works though. In reality its a meat-grinder not a lottery. The fish get split up and devoured between the house and the pros. I can open up Stars and tell you who is who within five minutes. The casinos get taxed on their share, why shouldn't the pros be? Simple question for the no-tax crowd - Should professional poker players be able to freeroll the government forever? Should they be able to drive on govt roads, get govt healthcare, get police, fire, and military protection all for free for the entirety of their lives? The answer that its not an issue because there just aren't professional poker players somehow is retarded. I don't have an opinion on the overall topic because it's kind of a complex situation and I'm probably gonna be biased anyway. But you can't say "Should professional poker players be able to freeroll the government forever?" We pay tax on everything except on our income, so it's really not a huge deal when you take into consideration everything else we give in taxes. In any case, because we are basically a company that is run by ourselves, we should be able to have the benefits of what companies have, that way we can deduce costs, etc. Basically a poker player, because it's self employed (kinda) should be able to run like a micro/small bussiness.

It differs between countries and states, but if the taxes you're referring to is sales tax, that's only going to add up to a couple hundred dollars a year, as opposed to tens of thousands for income tax.

In the US, you already can deduct business expenses, but you have to pay 15%ish self-employment tax on your income (in addition to normal income tax). I'm able to deduct anything I spend on trips to Vegas, Atlantic City, or the Bahamas as a business expense, and also 15% of my rent due to my home office, but it still usually doesn't add up enough to surpass the extra self-employment tax. But if you travel a lot overseas those deductions will be amazing for you.