|
|
 |
|
#21
05-01-2010, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
lol i seriously doubt that.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln 
|
|
#22
05-01-2010, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
just for men i think.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#25
05-01-2010, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
because he won a contest to begin with-he didn't bet his own money. but i wish i had the problem of figuring it all out.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#27
05-01-2010, 06:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very cool!
|
|
#28
05-01-2010, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
05-01-2010, 06:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I can see that he would need to pay taxes on the 100k prize money. Whatever it is, the guy did not have to put a single dime of his own money to win all that. Great win for him.
|
|
#33
05-01-2010, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Gambling income is supposed to be reported no matter how small. Most people don't report it and the irs doesn't persue small potatoes.
|
|
#35
05-01-2010, 06:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
IMO he should pay taxes on the 90,000.00 from NBC as ordinary income (which I believe with his $900k win puts him in the top bracket of I think 35%), I think he can treat the first $10k from NBC as a gift (and tax free)... So, once you get that tax situation squared away, I think he's paying 20% on the winning from the track (which is better than his ordinary income rate of 35%)... unless of course he's got $900k in losing tickets
 The best thing for this guy is that he lives in TX with no state income tax, so winning $800k on national TV shouldn't matter to his home state.
|
|
#36
05-01-2010, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#38
05-01-2010, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In this guys case he brings the suitcase (or check) home and then calls his tax consultant to see how much to pay the irs quarterly for the remainder of the year so he doesn't incur any interest penalties.
|
|
#39
05-01-2010, 10:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Do I really need to spell out everything I say so that idiots don't misconstrue my meaning? Here goes. I was not saying Line of David had a better chance of winning the race than Super Saver. What I was saying, in admittedly far too few words, was that hey, Line of David just beat Super Saver while Super Saver had EVERY possible chance to pass him in the stretch, and he could not get by him. If you are going to place a bet for $100k on one horse, why not take it on a horse that just outgamed your horse AND is also what, 2-3 times the price? Obviously Super Saver was the more likely winner, but was he really more than three times likely to win? The way I see it, there were three possible approaches to playing that $100k bet. 1. Play the most likely winner. 2. Play the longest shot in the race (which would have worked beautifully in the Bluegrass 10k contest). 3. Play the horse with the best possible payout that has the most likely chance of winning. I believe most people would go with the first approach. The second approach would be reasonable for a race that is a complete clusterfugg, like the Bluegrass was. The third approach is going to usually be the most sensible one, and I personally didn't think Super Saver was some sort of mortal lock that could not lose. Hence, why not take a flyer on Line of David?
|
|
#40
05-01-2010, 10:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm going to blink you a brain. Let me know how you like it.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
