Gambling and taxes

[tector]

This country is apparently among the more stupid places on earth on this issue (among others).

On BC Saturday I was at the Wynn, sitting next to a Canadian who was appalled at the tax routine we have to go through (yes, I actually had a couple of IRS tickets). In Canada, apparently, there is NO tax on gambling winnings. Then, today, I read this about the WSOP:

http://www.taxabletalk.com/2011/11/0...ries-of-poker/

[Scav]

Originally Posted by tector

This country is apparently among the more stupid places on earth on this issue (among others).

On BC Saturday I was at the Wynn, sitting next to a Canadian who was appalled at the tax routine we have to go through (yes, I actually had a couple of IRS tickets). In Canada, apparently, there is NO tax on gambling winnings. Then, today, I read this about the WSOP:

http://www.taxabletalk.com/2011/11/0...ries-of-poker/

No tax tickets in Canada is correct. But everything is taxed there, including things like vet bills and lasix shots, GST (goods/services tax). It sucks.

[tector]

Hell, I am appalled when I run into the sales taxes I see around the country. We are at 6% here and I thought that was bad. But I was recently in Texas and it was 8.25% where I was at--WTF?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by tector

Hell, I am appalled when I run into the sales taxes I see around the country. We are at 6% here and I thought that was bad. But I was recently in Texas and it was 8.25% where I was at--WTF?

As much as you hate the religious right, what were you doing in Texass?

[tector]

It was a brief visit in Dallas. Then I moved on to LV.

Austin is alright, BTW.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by tector

Austin is alright, BTW.

Agree - The only problem with Austin is that it's completely surrounded by Texas

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by tector

It was a brief visit in Dallas. Then I moved on to LV.

Austin is alright, BTW.

Still, hard to picture you in Texass.

You might be the only person less tolerant of those uptight aholes than me.

Who did you end up playing in the KD future book?

[Heels1989]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Agree - The only problem with Austin is that it's completely surrounded by Texas

[NTamm1215]

Too much unnecessary Texas hate in this thread.

[tector]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Still, hard to picture you in Texass.

You might be the only person less tolerant of those uptight aholes than me.

Who did you end up playing in the KD future book?

Well, I had small piece of Take Charge Indy pre-race. I took your suggestion on Liaison. I am hoping he will appreciate the dirt more.

I like the bozo in that thread who called futures a "sucker bet". First I am still WAY ahead on futures for having Concern back in the BCC back in the day. Second, I have had tremendous value on a few occasions, most recently Eskendereya at a 100-1. If I had been so inclined (I wasn't) I could have easily converted that ticket to very substantial cash a week or two before the Derby. When I see a dumb generalization like his, I know I am dealing with a true idiot.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Too much unnecessary Texas hate in this thread.

Oh, I don't know. What's too much?

What's unnecessary?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Oh, I don't know. What's too much?

What's unnecessary?

What's your problem with Texas?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

What's your problem with Texas?

I don't really have a problem with Texas, I'm mostly just joking.

However, my one experience there was a bit creepy, being an atheist Jew.

Every radio station was religious talk radio, there were three churches every block and I saw the biggest cross in the USA while driving. The cross had to be at least a couple of hundred feet high.

I wanted to get out of there as fast as possible.

Most Texans I've met, outside of Texas, have been pretty chill though.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Too much unnecessary Texas hate in this thread.

Houston's ok

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I don't really have a problem with Texas, I'm mostly just joking.

However, my one experience there was a bit creepy, being an atheist Jew.

Every radio station was religious talk radio, there were three churches every block and I saw the biggest cross in the USA while driving. The cross had to be at least a couple of hundred feet high.

I wanted to get out of there as fast as possible.

Most Texans I've met, outside of Texas, have been pretty chill though.

They certainly call North Texas "The Bible Belt" for a reason. Having lived in both Dallas and Houston the latter is far more preferable not only because it's more cosmopolitan but because it's not Dallas.

The biggest cross I've ever seen, and Travis Stone can back it up, is at a Baptist Church about a mile from Louisiana Downs. It's enormous.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Houston's ok

[tector]

I knew that Houston thing had to be a joke.

Dallas is the capital of Jesusland.



San Antonio is OK, other than that whole disgraceful Alamo fraud.

El Paso is almost New Mexico--like a post-op tranny is "almost" a chick.

They named a decent horse after Marfa.

Every other city and town in Texas could disappear tomorrow and the nation would be none diminished.

Over the past 16 years, Texas has had two governors--George W. Bush and Rick Perry.

Top that, Mister Falcon.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by tector

Well, I had small piece of Take Charge Indy pre-race. I took your suggestion on Liaison. I am hoping he will appreciate the dirt more.

I like the bozo in that thread who called futures a "sucker bet". First I am still WAY ahead on futures for having Concern back in the BCC back in the day. Second, I have had tremendous value on a few occasions, most recently Eskendereya at a 100-1. If I had been so inclined (I wasn't) I could have easily converted that ticket to very substantial cash a week or two before the Derby. When I see a dumb generalization like his, I know I am dealing with a true idiot.

I don't think someone who believes that the future bet is a "sucker bet" is either a bozo or idiot. If someone took a poll my guess would be that more people would vote yes than no.

When someone makes a future bet they are betting the horse will make it to the gate. If I had the means to easily "convert" the wager I may take a shot. I'm wondering why you didn't convert that ticket when you had a chance.

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by tector

Well, I had small piece of Take Charge Indy pre-race. I took your suggestion on Liaison. I am hoping he will appreciate the dirt more.

I like the bozo in that thread who called futures a "sucker bet". First I am still WAY ahead on futures for having Concern back in the BCC back in the day. Second, I have had tremendous value on a few occasions, most recently Eskendereya at a 100-1. If I had been so inclined (I wasn't) I could have easily converted that ticket to very substantial cash a week or two before the Derby. When I see a dumb generalization like his, I know I am dealing with a true idiot.

Future bets in general are bad bets. Ask any race book manager whether these are hugely profitable for them. I assure you that we all know the answer.

Your claim that they are good bets are based on you hitting a bet about 20 years ago as well as the fact that you got 100-1 on a horse who never made the race.

The Eskendereya example is a perfect illustration. Did you get good value when you made the bet? Yes. Would I have taken that bet a few weeks out from the Derby? Yes. But, in the end, did you cash the ticket? The simple answer is no. There is no value in a losing ticket.

Future bets are sucker bets because you are betting on a horse who may never run. Unlike race day, there are no scratches or refunds. How many examples do we have in the last few years alone where probable favorites scratch from the Derby in the weeks or days leading up to the race. It is not just Eskendereya. Would you have taken 100-1 on I Want Revenge or Uncle Mo in April?

People will hit future bets. Sometimes they hit for serious money. But far more often than not, they will lose. Call me a bozo, but I usually like to know something about the race track, the track conditions, the post positions, and whether a horse will actually run before betting. This game is hard enough with that knowledge.

I will renew my original offer. Pick any horse from the Wynn list and I will happily book any and all future bets.

Paul

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Future bets in general are bad bets. Ask any race book manager whether these are hugely profitable for them. I assure you that we all know the answer.

Your claim that they are good bets are based on you hitting a bet about 20 years ago as well as the fact that you got 100-1 on a horse who never made the race.

The Eskendereya example is a perfect illustration. Did you get good value when you made the bet? Yes. Would I have taken that bet a few weeks out from the Derby? Yes. But, in the end, did you cash the ticket? The simple answer is no. There is no value in a losing ticket.

Future bets are sucker bets because you are betting on a horse who may never run. Unlike race day, there are no scratches or refunds. How many examples do we have in the last few years alone where probable favorites scratch from the Derby in the weeks or days leading up to the race. It is not just Eskendereya. Would you have taken 100-1 on I Want Revenge or Uncle Mo in April?

People will hit future bets. Sometimes they hit for serious money. But far more often than not, they will lose. Call me a bozo, but I usually like to know something about the race track, the track conditions, the post positions, and whether a horse will actually run before betting. This game is hard enough with that knowledge.

I will renew my original offer. Pick any horse from the Wynn list and I will happily book any and all future bets.

Paul

It's the indiscriminate use of future books that makes it lucrative for the casinos. Someone who is patient and prudent with their selections can make gigantic scores.

Your description of what entails value is ridiculous. Are you really saying that any bet that loses offered no value???????? That would also mean that any horse you bet that wins, say even at 1/9 in a 12 horse field, offers value!

Obviously the downside with future book bets is the no refund policy, but without that, you'd be getting nowhere near the same odds.

There is also the ride you get from having a future bet six months out. The action. Instead of just having action on a horse for 30 minutes prior to post and than the ensuing two minutes, this way, as the horse moves towards the Derby, you get a lot of excitement and thrill from that.

When I bet Indian Charlie at 150/1 in August, I felt like I was getting over on Vegas. When he finally made his second start in February, I knew my analysis on him was right and I did enjoy the ride he gave me from there on towards the Derby. Was I disappointed he lost? Yes, absolutely. But I got him at 150/1 instead of around 2/1, and win or lose, I got stupendous value.

The only other three horses I've bet in the Derby futures were Snow Chief, Congaree, and stupidly, a horse named Cliquot. I got large odds on all three, and of the three, only the Cliquot bet was stupid, being sort of a whim bet.

People who play eight horses in the futures, yeah, I'll agree with you on that, they are throwing away their money.

I almost played a future on Fusaichi Pegasus before his debut, but apparently, if I got word on that horse being better than AP Indy (according to the Drysdale camp), everyone else did as well. Oh well.

[Soaring Softly]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

There is also the ride you get from having a future bet six months out. The action. Instead of just having action on a horse for 30 minutes prior to post and than the ensuing two minutes, this way, as the horse moves towards the Derby, you get a lot of excitement and thrill from that.

I can speak to that. I bought a little $20 ticket on Funny Cide in the Churchill Downs Pool #1 at 93/1. That ended up working out for me (one of only two that have), but even if he had lost the Derby, the excitement I got out of his run up the the race was worth every penny of that $20! Strangely enough, the only other success I've had with a future bet was another small wager on Pleasantly Perfect in the 2003 BC Classic at 50/1....same year as Funny Cide.

I've dabbled away for the eight years since, and haven't even come close, though I was one of those that held a ticket on I Want Revenge at 60/1.

I just have fun with them. I stick to a budget, and get a kick out of it. And if the kick is one to the stomach like I Want Revenge, it just isn't any big deal. Like Indian Charlie said, I had a lot of fun with I Want Revenge's lead-up to the Derby, and even though he didn't make the race, it was worth it.