Difference between a pro and recreational gambler

[notes1]

If I started with $2500. played some and ended up with $2300, my records would show they gave me $2500 and I lost $200 --- and the $2300 "net" would be winnings. If I started with $2500 and ended up losing all of that and $3000 more, I would record the $2500 as money they gave me and my loss as $5500. As is true for all of us, some days you have winnings. Some days you have losses.At the end of the year, the net winnings or net losses would be transcribed to my tax form.


 i am not an accountant, but would like to hear an opinion from one. i am fine with the first example of getting $2500 free play, cashing out $2300 and reporting that amount to IRS. the part i am uncertain about is the example of getting $2500 free play, Losing that free play, losing an additional $3000 of real money and reporting a loss of $5500 to the IRS. can one claim a loss on free play?  i am not making a judgement, just asking a question, hopefully answered by an expert.

[pokerforme]

Well there is another peek into how Bob is making a living playing VP.

[BobDancer]

 i am not an accountant, but would like to hear an opinion from one. i am fine with the first example of getting $2500 free play, cashing out $2300 and reporting that amount to IRS. the part i am uncertain about is the example of getting $2500 free play, Losing that free play, losing an additional $3000 of real money and reporting a loss of $5500 to the IRS. can one claim a loss on free play?  i am not making a judgement, just asking a question, hopefully answered by an expert.I normally ignore Notes1' posts. This one asks a legitimate question in a non-hostile manner, so I'll address it.In the example given, the $2500 of free play is reported --- as is the -$5500 of net loss. (They are in different columns on my Excel spread sheet).These two columns are both reported --- and summed (on a monthly basis). In this particular case, the 'net loss' will be $3000 --- which is accurate --- because BOTH +$2500 and -$5500 are on the sheet and, basically, added together. I the two trips happened in the same month, the free play would sum to $5000 ($2500+ $2500) and the net loss would sum to -$5700. (-$200 - $5500) These two sum to -$700 --- which would accurately reflect that I lost a net of $700.For whoever said their methodology was to just write down their daily net result would report +$2300 and -$3000 for these two days --- summing to the same $700 I got.It may not be the same way you track your scores (everybody does it differently), but it's accurate and consistent and can be defended in an IRS audit.

[wildman49]

It may not be the same way you track your scores (everybody does it differently), but it's accurate and consistent and can be defended in an IRS audit.I guess your accounting shows the true VP win/loss. But not the real cash loss or win for a trip.For me if I walk in with $200 cash, have $100 free play, play all day on that free play and cash out $50. I went home for that gambling trip up $50. I don't care how I got the $50, if I found money on the floor, someone left money in the machine, or I cash out comps for cash, ahead is ahead. This will skew the VP % for the year,  this I get. I never tell someone I lost $100 today when it was $100 free play, I have lost nothing, broke even, but as far as VP play that day there was a loss indeed, just not out of pocket.

[BobDancer]

I guess your accounting shows the true VP win/loss. But not the real cash loss or win for a trip.For me if I walk in with $200 cash, have $100 free play, play all day on that free play and cash out $50. I went home for that gambling trip up $50. I don't care how I got the $50, if I found money on the floor, someone left money in the machine, or I cash out comps for cash, ahead is ahead. This will skew the VP % for the year,  this I get. I never tell someone I lost $100 today when it was $100 free play, I have lost nothing, broke even, but as far as VP play that day there was a loss indeed, just not out of pocket.It sums to the same thing. If I have $100 in free play, lose $40 of it and keep $60 of it, I have my free play column show +100 and my gambling score column show -$40. Both columns are summed, and the net result is I was $60 ahead for the day.Your method is to have one column only and for it to show $60.In this example, at least, they are equivalent methods.

[DougJ]

]I normally ignore Notes1' posts. This one asks a legitimate question in a non-hostile manner, so I'll address it . . ..[/QUOTE]

Easier to ignore their posts. (I do!)

Bob, I appreciate your input on this forum, and read your column on another forum.
Enough said.


Oops, Bob's quote somehow ended up outside the quote box, and now I can't edit it. Oh well.

[DAAnMAAn]

My thoughts on this thread, for what it's worth:1. Bob defined a professional as, I'm paraphrasing, someone who makes money at a given thing. I don't see a problem with that.2. Conversely, one ceases to be a pro when they lose money at a given thing. I don't see a problem with that either, I would probably call it then a 'hobby.'3. Bob charging a fee, say $250 an hour, for private lessons, may be ridiculous for a low stakes player. Better to buy a software program to correct mistakes and buy a book or two. But for the higher stakes player, it could save them thousands of dollars! Truth be told, if I was a high stakes player with big pockets and played lot's of vp, I would be picking Bob's brain indeed.4. Lot's of jealousy with Bob and sometimes he comes across arrogantly. But as a doctor once told me, it's not bragging if you can back it up.5. Expected Return of a game is a long-term theory. Obviously in the short term we experience wins and losses in all the pay tables. Long term, it should be close to ER, the question is, what is long term???6. In Bob's defense, I've heard him talk about his losses as well as wins. 7. I think the best thing he has done is help and encourage others to play better, to study, and always improve.8. I think the worse thing Bob has done is educate the slot departments in the casinos. It's clear VP is a tighter game now than it was in the past. However, there is still good games out there and as long as the casinos can balance rewarding the knowledgable players and having enough 'bad' players to feed the trough, vp should be allright.9. It irritates me as well that people base their results in one or a few sessions (except those who are only able to play a few times a year). If I hit a few quad aces and a royal in one session and can't hit the side of a barn the next session, it doesn't mean I was a good player the first one and a lousy player the second one. It's the fluctuations of the game. You'll hear this alot from the pros. They care about making the right play, playing the right machine, or playing the right promo, not on the results (not to say they don't care about the results, but understand results is a long-term concept and take everything involved into consideration in obtaining a long-term positive value). 10. And yes, I can see how a 'recreational' player cares about those immediate results and I don't judge them on that. However, I also don't judge players who play thousands of hand each week and may care more about paytables and making the best plays.~DP.S. Don't worry, be happy. It's VP.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=DAAnMAAn]Don't worry, be happy. It's VP.[/quote]Good post!  If someone wants to make a living playing Candy Crush, that's there choice.  Take it easy, it's only a game... 

[pokerforme]

I agree FloridaPhil. DAAnMAAn one of the best overall posts in this thread.

[jetermacaw]

DAAnMAAn: Great stuff!