3 ms·

It depends on how he expects to be taxed. If this is his only session during the year, he actually wins 60-70% of the money vs losing 80%. So he needs to either

It depends on how he expects to be taxed. If this is his only session during the year, he actually wins 60-70% of the money vs losing 80%. So he needs to either be way ahead or way behind from other gambling activity for this to work out the way you described (assuming he's a US citizen).

dustingetz 15y ago
that's interesting, but i'm not sure i follow or agree - i can't put numbers on it, but intuitively his variance feels a bit like, but less than, poker's variance. Poker graphs look like a sawtooth of small losses and big wins. This means he would have to get spectacularly unlucky to be down after 50 sessions, given his positive pre-tax expectation[1]. so it depends how he structures his taxes. if he can get his taxes calculated yearly instead of per session, taxes make him a bit less of a winner. if his taxes are calculated per session, he is -EV. this is the same problem that poker players face, IIRC the precedent there is that if you file as a small business you can sum your wins and deduct your losses annually. (/me used to be a small-time poker player) [1] expectation in blackjack is computable because perfect play is deterministic, expectation in poker is harder because it depends on human factors like your mood and your opponent's skill level and his mood. you can only measure past expectation. A lot of players think they are winners but are really breakeven or losers, but blame it on bad luck.
- cityhall 15y ago
  His rebate is cumulative with the casino according to the article, except that they allowed him to reset it when he started this streak. He effectively only has one session per casino for rebate purposes. Taxes are always computed on net winnings annually. Filing as a pro can affect the rate and allow deductions for expenses, but even amateurs can deduct losing sessions against winners if they have documentation.

dustingetz 15y ago

that's interesting, but i'm not sure i follow or agree - i can't put numbers on it, but intuitively his variance feels a bit like, but less than, poker's variance. Poker graphs look like a sawtooth of small losses and big wins. This means he would have to get spectacularly unlucky to be down after 50 sessions, given his positive pre-tax expectation[1]. so it depends how he structures his taxes. if he can get his taxes calculated yearly instead of per session, taxes make him a bit less of a winner. if his taxes are calculated per session, he is -EV. this is the same problem that poker players face, IIRC the precedent there is that if you file as a small business you can sum your wins and deduct your losses annually. (/me used to be a small-time poker player) [1] expectation in blackjack is computable because perfect play is deterministic, expectation in poker is harder because it depends on human factors like your mood and your opponent's skill level and his mood. you can only measure past expectation. A lot of players think they are winners but are really breakeven or losers, but blame it on bad luck.

cityhall 15y ago
His rebate is cumulative with the casino according to the article, except that they allowed him to reset it when he started this streak. He effectively only has one session per casino for rebate purposes. Taxes are always computed on net winnings annually. Filing as a pro can affect the rate and allow deductions for expenses, but even amateurs can deduct losing sessions against winners if they have documentation.