Bits and bobs

[peterbirks]

A good month (more details tomorrow night). And it looks like some bonus sessions will soon be appearing for July 4th (Ultimate's kicks in on Monday for 24 hours). And my new 19 inch monitor should arrive fairly soon.

The Chinese are definitely taking over in the US. Never mind buying oil and gas companies, Huffy, the maker of bikes, has just fallen into the hands of its creditors, the main one of which is, yes, a Chinese bank. This is just the start. Like I wrote, the Chinese have been buying T Bonds and company bonds in the US for many years. I wonder how many Ford bonds they hold?

I am seriously beginning to wonder whether there is any point posting stuff on the two main poker forums any more. It's clear that most players will remain stuck in the context of tournaments that once they get emotionally involved, they become more risk averse. One guy on Gutshot asserted (in response to my comment, "if you get knocked out, so what? There is another tournament tomorrow") "I play tournaments to win" as if my comment implied that I played tournaments with the aim of getting knocked out. What this guy seems to mean by "playing tournaments to win" is avoiding any 50:50 situation where he might get knocked out (even if the odds offered are 6-to-4). This is not playing tournaments to win in any way, shape, or form. It's playing tournaments not to get knocked out, which is not the same thing at all.

But, since these people can't (or won't) see the error of their ways, I think that I will just let them carry on.

And then another guy on The Hendon Mob recounted his play in the Late Night Poker knock out on Party. In essence, he made a play with KQ on a flop of Qxx, and was then raised back. Clearly it had utterly escaped his attention that this was a possibility, because he was now the famous "pot-committed". He called and duly went out to AQ. For god's sake, when will these people think more than one bet ahead? If he had done that he could have either check-folded, check-called, or smacked all of his money in first.

The guy had four possible ways to play the hand and, like so many tournament players in this situation, chose absolutely the worst.

I couldn't even be bothered to post about this one. In a sense, it cheered me up. As DY pointed out, most of them really are utterly clueless, and my major mistake this past year has been giving players at quite high stakes far too much credit.

Comments

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

Interesting to see the Hendon Mob forum mentioned. I wandered through there not that long ago looking for more material about the taxability of gambling winnings. There are a couple of articles on there of relevance.

I've been looking into things in the context of poker tournaments. As you well know, the winnings from a poker hand are not taxable. It's amusing to find that the Revenue have two reasons for this - firstly because if they taxed profits they would have to allow losses to people of a greater amount. Secondly they see the winnings as a result of luck (although some players might see that as a moot point).

This is fine whilst you are sitting down and playing a hand or even online. But the trend towards competitions and tournaments is a bit more grey-area. When Andy Murray wins Wimbledon and £630,000 next year no-one is suggesting that he won't be taxed on that, nor that he can set his costs against that. It's a sporting competition that he has entered and the prize money won by a professional is taxable.

There is a strange distinction with winnings. If you enter a contest as a professional then you will pay tax on your winnings (Wimbledon or the Leeds Piano Competition). If someone else puts you in or an independent body awards you something, then you aren't taxable (the Booker Prize or say a BAFTA if they came with a cheque).

So if you enter a poker competition which has a prize which you win by skill and for which you have to enter then why the hell shouldn't it be taxable? And by extension why shouldn't those who fail to win it be able to claim losses on their costs in trying to win the tournament. It's all really grey and whilst poker play was seedy club and low turnover I think the Revenue ran away from the whole thought of the thing. But now poker is suddenly the new rock'n'roll and the stock market flotations are raising profile everywhere I think it won't be long before something happens in this area.

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a UK tax-paying poker player who happened to make money through (in particular) a gambling activity not his primary/principal occupation (I suspect there are tax-specific words I should be using) is not liable for income tax, which is why one of our more visible "pros", Dave "Devilfish" Ulliott, still describes himself - and is - a pawnshop owner. Despite his "hobby" being rather more lucrative: his tournament winnings in this year's WSOP are well in the 6 figures, IIRC.

Russell Fox ( rcfox ) knows more than most about how it all works in the US...

Mike

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

You can have profits from gamling 'tainted' by the fact that you are involved in something running a game. An interesting tax case (if that's not a contradiction in terms) covers how a club owner who sat down at his own tables ended up having to pay tax on the profits he made. But that's because his poker profits were seen as an adjunct to his profits from running the club.

Devilfish can call himself a male stripper - it woudln't affect the taxability of his winnings unless he was part of the administration of the games he was playing in.

The position in the States is a lot simpler - it's taxable and you will get your winnings with 20% tax or whatever, already taken off. Even as a foreigner it's taxable, although I think there are things you can do as a non-resident to make sure you wouldn't suffer tax or that you can reclaim. What the IRS do about allowing you losses I don't know but knowing the American lack of enthusiasm about gambling there may be a specific exclusion.

[(Anonymous)]

Your earlier comparison with Wimbledon doesn't work. When Federer wins £600k, no other tennis players have lost money.

DY

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

once they get emotionally involved, they become more risk averse

I have that leak. Or I think I do. It's why I think I usually get to the last 20% but fail to cash (or at least get deep - I do make a small profit - because I get short-stacked waiting for good situations, which don't come round quickly enough.

Getting stuck in sooner should mean (a) I get busted out earlier more often and get to do something else and (b) when I get to the later stages I'm in a better position to get deep into the cash. It's something to work on.

The Japanese are coming!!

[iadams.livejournal.com]

The Japanese were supporting the US Treasury throughtout the 90s; do you remember the horror expressed when the Rockefeller Centre was bought by the Japanese? America has always been reliant on imports of one sort or another: despite having one of the lowest proportions of GDP as international trade amongst developed nations, they have always relied on importing both human and financial capital.

Plenty of ansgt will be expressed, but in the end, they'll take the money and stop caring.