Alan, Singer is just projecting his usual problems. Since he has no self control he assumes no one has any either.
Printable View
Alan, Singer is just projecting his usual problems. Since he has no self control he assumes no one has any either.
One has to wonder about self control when they walk into a casino with tens of thousands of dollars of cash in their pocket? I always thought the idea of going to a casino was to bring a little cash and go home with a lot of cash? LOL
It's textbook Alan, and it has nothing to do with following my method or advice. Next time you reach a goal or play free play, then get the "urge" to stay because you don't want the action to stop, try leaving. Then report the truth about how that great struggle was resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I control YOU arci!....:)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Rob, unlike you I think every time I put a dollar in a slot I consider it lost. I have no urges to stay. But when I am winning and can increase my stop loss I will keep playing. It's a discipline and a skill and a strategy that is learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I will try to believe that.
I'm over & out right now for a few days of continued non-casino activity. Oh I'll get back to punishing the machines soon enough--but I'm happy spanking them just once a month at most these days. You know, on MY terms. But I'm wondering....when was your last vacation where it did not include gambling?
Rob, since I started my own business 7 years ago, I haven't had a vacation. I have a weekly TV show and in addition I have several clients who need several Infomercials a year plus commercials. It's tough running a small business when you're the chief cook and bottle washer.
Hello, Slingshot
As you probably notice I am very new to this forum -could you, please, explain how to use ARTT? in details? Or provide me with a link I can find some info about it?
I will be willing to try it this coming weekend in AC.
So far I had a great luck with RTT system-as much as I understood it. Best
I have to go to Wayback Machine archives and choose articles BEFORE 2006 as they have the most captures during that time period. Then, simply click on "more free strategies" on the left. I tried to send it, but it gave an invalid file on this site. It's fun-but you have to remember the session goals and number of credits played, as you're tempted to play on and on.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by odinoka
OOOPS! What is "Wayback Machine archives "?
THANKS!
odinoka, I think the "way back machine" refers to a service on the website www.Alexa.com. I think that when you sign up for the free membership on Alexa.com and download its toolbar you are also able to access their library of how websites looked in the past. If for example you enter this website www.alanbestbuys.com in the search bar on the Alexa.com homepage you will see our website statistics, and you will also be able to click to see how we looked in the past. This is the "way back machine."
I think this is what slingshot is talking about. Perhaps I am wrong and there is another Internet archive he is talking about.
Did you type in "wayback machine"? Google should take you there. It basically takes you to a site for old and discontinued items. Simply type in VP Truth.com. for it to take you there. I'll see if I can find something to send in the meantime.Quote:
Originally Posted by odinoka
OK. Hold everything. It's on this forum. Go to "A strategy question for Rob" and there are only 8 posts and one of them has both the RTT and ARTT. I just finished searching and found out the fastest way was to type in "antfanas"-who was the nice forum member to post it-and look at " A strategy question for Rob". Sorry for all the run around.
Thank you! Slingshot! Found it! Can not wait to read it!
Alan, thank you to you as well!
I really wish Rob would expand on this quote because I suspect there are some very insightful sociocultural observations Rob could make regarding a VP player's urge to continue play and how the casino sets it all up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I also wish Rob would have granted a comprehensive interview with the author of this excellent book: Addiction By Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas (by Natasha Dow Schull) <-- LINK
The author of that book made a "60 Minutes" appearance: "Slot Machines: The Big Gamble" <-- LINK
I watched the 60 Minutes report, Count Room. Really, there was nothing new there. I think it was a good rehash of everything those of us who follow the gaming industry already knew or already saw debated.
A lot of Rob's procedures for what I would call dealing with casinos may be the result of what he perceives his own weaknesses to be. But I think most casino goers benefit from slot clubs, and benefit using a host, and benefit by taking advantage of comps. Of course there are dangers, but most casino goers never become addicted and never gamble more than they can afford to lose.
If there is anyone who needs to be on guard for possible addiction it should be someone who thinks they have an edge over the casino.
It all starts whenever you win and just wanna PLAY part of that win back hoping for more. I'm telling you the truth,folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's right, Alan. The people who win from the casino need to beware of being addicted. Winning money is a terrible addiction. The people who lose to the casinos have less to be concerned about because they know the casino has an edge, so they play anyway because they're convinced it's fun and entertaining. That's not a problem.
Real gems of wisdom.
redietz, I don't follow you at all??
Slingshot, several times you've indicated you have a gambling problem. Do you? And if you do why do you continue to tempt yourself by still going to casinos and even reading a forum like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Or, do you think you are properly managing the problem you had?
I have a close relative who was addicted to sports betting, lost everything and almost lost his life, and went thru GA programs. He is now so opposed to anything connected with gambling that if you said to him "I bet those dark clouds will mean rain before noon" he will respond with "I don't bet."
You're right. I shouldn't even be here. Thanks, Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That was sarcasm, Alan. People who have beaten the casinos obviously know they have an edge on the casinos. So these are the people you are saying should beware because they may get addicted. Think about the sheer lunacy of saying that. They are addicted to making money, I guess.
Meanwhile, you think the poor souls who lose for 30 years on an annual basis, because they define donating x amount of dollars per visit as "entertainment," aren't really the folks who have an addiction problem. It's all fine because it's entertainment and they intend to lose. So that's okay; it's not an addiction.
Step back and read what the hell you're saying. Some of it reads like shilling for the casinos; some of it makes zero sense.
Perceptions of probability in these threads is sometimes very interesting. Arci has already figured the odds against Rob having done what he claims to have done -- winning at video poker -- playing his negative games. Arci, I do not recall the exact number, but I think it was .3% or less. Or maybe it was .03%. No matter, I'll use the bigger number. Now Alan was perfectly fine with accepting that Rob had beaten the odds and won despite the probabilities involved. What Alan is not fine with is the idea that Rob somehow paid very little in taxes on his winnings. This, according to Alan, hurts Rob's credibility.
Now I ask you, what are the odds that Rob paid very little in taxes? Do you really believe they are significantly less than .3%? We have two claims, and I have to say that to me Claim #1, the video poker claim, is much tougher to statistically swallow than Claim #2, the no tax claim.
Anyone else have an opinion?
redietz, are you saying that someone who goes to a casino maybe twice or three times a year but always loses is addicted?
I think the people who are addicted are more likely the so-called "advantage players" who are armed to the teeth with a bankroll and believe that the more they play the more they will win.
Given a choice between which player has a problem -- I think the so-called advantage players who think they have it all figured out have got a problem. And I think players who go to a casino for entertainment don't have a problem because when it is no longer entertaining, they quit. Do advantage players quit when it's not entertaining? No, because the math tells them there is no reason to quit.
Again, I am going to ask you: who has the problem? Someone who can quit when it's no longer fun, or the "advantage player" who says there is no reason to quit.
When you tell me that you reject win goals and loss limits, it tells me that you have a problem.
redietz, I think you also claim to be a professional gambler. What percentage of your profits are paid as income tax? (I am assuming you have have profits.)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Once again Alan shows us he is mathematically challenged and clearly making up scenarios to fuel his fantasies. Notice how he basically claims that APers never stop playing. They play 24/7/365 according to Alan. That is what would occur if they do not quit. Alan, let me clue you in. APers quit when they want to. This could be after playing for 10 minutes or 10 hours. Your clams are nothing but silly nonsense. This stupidity should be left to Singer where most people know he is intentionally lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
One can only chuckle at this denial of simple mathematical reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, there's another factor to consider when filing as a pro. You must pay FICA on your earnings. It makes claims of paying no taxes an obvious lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, make up your mind. You have said there is no reason to stop playing when you have a mathematical advantage. The comments have also been made that when you have a mathematical advantage the only reason to stop is for fatigue or hunger or to go to the bathroom. I think that is a problem. In fact, why do you bother to go to the bathroom? Why not bring a urinal to your seat? And I know that at Caesars, if you request it, they will bring food to you at your machine. As a matter of fact, they have machine-side service at Rincon also.
Also, what mathematical reality?? Where is the math in addiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
No mathematical reason, Alan. I've shown you proof that your results are not determined by when you quit. I have also stated many times that a person should only play when they want to play. I've even told you I played once a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Who made those comments? It's like saying a person working for an hourly wage should never stop working. You need to start thinking about the rule of holes here, Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Mathematical reality is the universe in which most of us reside. A few folks try to claim they live in another universe. One of those would be you, Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So, now Alan is trying to equate math and addiction somehow. Amazing ...
Exactly right, Arc. Results are not determined by when you quit. Which is why "advantaged players" who think they have an edge keep playing... just like addicts. Are they addicted by the math or addicted to the math?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
They are no more or less likely to quit than an hourly wage earner. How many of them keep working when their shift is done? Your claims are so silly I can't believe I'm having this conversation with an adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Unfortunately I see going to a casino differently than you do. I think it should be strictly entertainment with no expectation of winning. Sure, it's great to win. But you play with an expectation of winning, and you are willing to set aside a prescribed amount of time in order to fulfill your expectation of winning. And I think that is what becomes addictive.
On the contrary, someone who plays only for "fun" and recreation has no requirement to play any amount of time. As soon as the fun stops, the recreational player leaves. However, the advantage player doesn't consider "fun" but instead is focused on theoretical or expected return.
Put an advantage player in front of a great expected return game and is there any reason in hell why they would close their eyes to sleep, stop to get a meal, or not use a urinal in their seat? No there isn't. And if that kind of behavior isn't addictive behavior, I don't know what is?
Alan-if all that anyone cared about were money, then you could say the same for any hourly paid worker. Why not just work 24/7 and never eat or sleep.
OOps-didnt see that arc essentially said the same thing above--sorry for repeat
Alan, do you understand anything about addiction? Serious question. From your comments it appears you do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Strawman ... and a silly one at that. Do you really believe that APers don't enjoy hitting good winners? Do you think they don't enjoy walking out of a casinos with extra cash? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well, you just described many situations I have played and yet I only played when I wanted to. And, it's not just me as I've sat next to many APers. None of them fit your silly description. I know you like to be argumentative, but making up ridiculous scenarios is just plain bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I admit I went off on a tangent and I said something that confuses my point. My point is this and it really was directed at redietz:
Recreational gamblers who will from time to time go to a casino, lose money within limits, but enjoyed their recreational time in the casino should not be called addicts. My point was they go to have fun with a controlled budget. But if you want to call anyone an addict then look at the "advantage players" who go to the casinos with a "war chest bankroll" and a plan that they think will beat the casinos.
Given the differences between a recreational player and an "advantage player" I think the "advantage player" has more signs of addiction than the recreational player who goes to a casino a few times a year.
Yes, Arc, I know what really makes for addictive behavior. I'm simply stating that all of the millions of people who go to casinos for a night out or to try their luck at a casino game are not addicts even if they don't mind losing their "fun money."
Alan, if a person only goes to a casino a couple a times a year at most then they certainly are not addicted. However, there are plenty of players that visit casinos on a regular basis that are not APers. In fact, these players far outnumber APers. Addiction is a compulsion to return. APers can be addicted just like anyone else. The big difference is winning players don't often suffer from the problems that can affect players who lose consistently.
Addiction is a response to stimulus. It has nothing to do with playing positive return games.
I pretty much agree with you, Arc, except for this: "winning players don't often suffer from the problems that can affect players who lose consistently." Winning players can also be addicts. Addiction is not measured by wins or losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You caught me, Alan. I admit it. I'm an addict. I live in Johnson City TN about 90 miles from Cherokee Casino, which Dancer visited in a recent column, and I'm horrified to confess that I've been there four times in 12 years. I know; it's terrible. And worse than that, I wasted almost 360 minutes playing video poker on those four trips! Imagine the things I could have done with those 360 minutes. And one time, don't tell anyone --please -- I stayed overnight!
It gets worse. About once every six to seven years, I have a losing year! I'm so glad Mom, God bless her soul, isn't alive to witness those years.
It gets even worse. I'm embarrassed to admit, the last time I went to Cherokee, I saw Billy Idol. So not only am I addicted to gambling, I'm addicted to rock-and-roll! Mom always said the devil would get me.
The horror, the horror....
Getting serious for a moment, does the "Doctor" come before or after Mendelson? What I'm asking is if you're an MD who treats addicts or a Ph.D. who researches addiction?
Setting aside for a moment the irresponsibility of someone opining on addiction who knows nothing about it, does it not strike you as odd that the guy who has lost almost every year for 30-something years has decided the guy who has won for 40 years "has a problem?"
Someone appears to be addicted to losing. It ain't me.
redietz, you lost me. What is your point?
Alan, did you even read my entire comment? I said "APers can be addicted just like anyone else." My point was when you are winning the actual gambling problems are likely to be less severe. You're not going to steal, you're not going to fall into serious debt, etc. While some less severe problems may come up it is different than someone losing lots of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, that reminds me of this line: I only have a gambling problem when I lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
There's a lot of truth in that quote. Keep in mind there is a big difference between addiction and having gambling problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I knew a few APers that openly admitted they were addicted. However, they seemed perfectly content with the situation. How many addicted, consistent losers do you see admitting their addiction?
I guess you could say I am addicted to my TV career. I can't imagine doing anything else, nor would I want to. And I am probably more addicted to being a TV news reporter and for the last 7 years that I have been doing Infomercials I have been going through "TV reporter withdrawal."
Yes, I came very close to reminding you of this joke, Alan. You mentioned it before on the forums. If winning is still a part of addiction, then does this mean the casinos themselves (and their shareholders) are the largest addicts of all since they rake in billion$ from players?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
In a similar vein, some people have seriously said that states are increasingly addicted to gambling revenues (Gov. Rendell in that "60 Minutes" clip is an example).
Yes, Count Room, and I am addicted to my paycheck.
Advantage players can be addicts, and it can actually be damaging.
This is because advantage players often have a very small advantage, and it requires a lot of play (often perfect) for this advantage to show.
So you could be an advantage player, run into bad luck at the beginning, and spend untold hours (and money) chasing that loss in order to get back to "expectation".
And even if you do catch up and finally get back positive, was it worth all of the time, stress, and effort you put in?
I also know advantage players who are addicted to the comps. So they put in crazy hours and effort into their play, just to squeeze out their edge through comped meals, hotel rooms, and freeplay.
Being an advantage playing addict typically isn't as damaging, unless you are playing beyond your bankroll, because you typically won't lose as much (if at all).
Oh, and Rob Singer is a fraud.
Get ready, Dan. You're in for a forum adventure. The Mendelson patrol may be coming along shortly with a stern warning about libel & defamation. Take cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Saying someone is a fraud differs from saying someone committed fraud. And in the context of the discussion about the tax laws I think the use of the word can stand. But generally no one should be accused of a crime without proof. In particular I don't like comments such as con artist or con man. Being a fraud could refer to outlandish claims.
OK, I am totally neutral and I'll simply say I am in a learning mode here. It would be good to know why Dan says Singer is a fraud. Something convinced him. What was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am not saying Rob Singer has committed any crimes. I am saying that his claims about himself are highly unlikely to be true.
I don't believe that he is a high roller, and clearly his "systems" show a poor understanding of mathematics, and there is no way this guy wins if he plays for any reasonable amount of time.
In general I don't like internet phonies, but they are especially unpalatable when they reek of condescension based upon their made-up status in life.
Back in the '90s, I used to frequent a certain chat room, and worked a job making about $70k/year.
A mysterious regular in the chat room pretended to be a multi-millionaire stock trader and real estate whiz, and constantly mocked me (and others) for being working stiffs and not as successful as they were.
When the truth finally came out, it turned out that the guy was unemployed, broke, and living in his elderly mother's back house.
Pretty close to Singer. He lived in a small apartment being supported by his wife. Now he lives in a trailer. I prefer the word phoney but fraud is also quite accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Dan, everyone's entitled to their anonymous opinions of anyone else's claims. I have no doubt from reading what he writes, that Dancer is a near-total fraud, and his divorce solidified that belief. With arci, he likes to continue on with his apt. claim about me, yet why is it he won't look for or post info on my homes that I sold in Phx. & Kona? Because it hurts. Same with the almost $600k RV he saw a picture of but rejects. It hurts. Why? Because of his Singer-hating agenda. He knows my wife and I thoroughly enjoy retirement that would have happened with or without my video poker success, but the fact that he's stuck in a going nowhere life because of a sick wife that ties him down, and it's all due to his forcing her into endless casino play when she could have long-postponed her suffering by living a much healthier lifestyle, he despises and envies me. Now he suffers, and I tingle over it. :)
As far as you're concerned, are you of the conspiracy theory mentality about me also? I came onto the scene in 1999. Are you saying that Gaming Today published false pics of my many, many $20k thru $100k jackpots just to make it appear as if they had a "hi-roller" as a columnist for ALMOST EIGHT YEARS?? And how'd I pull the wool over my BOOK publisher's eyes....twice? What about my appearance on ESPN and the Travel Channel? And all those radio shows? Is it possible you're saying I've completely outsmarted all these people and am still doing it with "fake" $1 thru $10 vp jackpot pictures on this forum to this day?
You know, that's the truth behind what REALLY gets under arci's skin about me. He either has to face that I'm a great & successful vp player--likely the best ever--or that I'm so much smarter than him that I've been able to figure out how to make all the people he sees as inferior, to seem stupid when he cannot, OR that his claim of being a "tested genius" is making him constantly think twice about it since he's heard of me.
So Dandy, understanding that I have as many or more degrees with math and statistics backgrounds than both arci and his idol Dancer, can you please expand on first, what you're reasoning is in believing I played or still do play at "low" levels, and please explain where I have not utilized mathematics in my overall strategies and play. And please try to do so before arci comes apart at the seams again with more hate, lies, and envy :)
I need to get some popcorn for whatever comes next.
I know I'm in the minority here, and it's because I don't buy into the mores of the internet, but people maintaining anonymity really shouldn't call non-anonymous people "frauds." Just man up and go toe-to-toe, as people do in academic journals.
Anyway, I have my popcorn, so let's get the show on the road....
Arsenic may be a better option than popcorn for some of this stuff Red.
I still think having Alan take a camera crew to Rob's place (and Arci's place) to open up IRS envelopes and to review copies of past years' income tax returns would settle things once and for all. This was suggested a long time ago on the forums but it went nowhere. Maybe it's now even more appropriate given all the tax discussion these past few days?
Count, the tax returns won't do it because all arci would do is peel down another layer of the envy onion and claim how I went back and created an alternate set of returns that were never filed. And if Alan were to visit the arci's he better not look anything like Brutus, he'd have to wear a protective mask, and he'd have to prepare for a meal of poi, oatmeal, KFC smashed potatoes, and leftover bottles of Gablingers. It would not be a pretty site.
A person can actually request copies of their tax returns from the IRS. Rob and I could submit the requests and have them sent to a PO box that only Alan could access. Alan would need to sign a non-disclosure agreement for any information not related to gambling and we would have the answer. His cameras could zero in on opening the envelopes and checking the numbers.
Alan would also know the details of Singer's claimed deductions. wink, wink.
I'm game. Anyone want to bet on Singer's response?
Arc is correct about this. You can order past copies of tax returns direct from the IRS and they could be mailed directly to me. And yes, I could videotape the entire process and using various editing features I can safely block all personal info from the video which I could post directly to YouTube for the whole world to see and put it here. While I am not interested in the "amounts" of Rob's deductions for "groceries" I would certainly like to see the category on the tax return that it is listed under.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I wonder if Rob really put his groceries under "entertainment" and presented a log instead of actual receipts. And while he told the IRS it was dining to entertain a client, it was really his clever way of disguising his grocery bill? I suggest this because I cannot possibly imagine an IRS auditor (as Rob told us above) accepted "groceries" and eating at home as an entertainment/business expense. Can someone please help me out here?
I found a link to the form:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506.pdf
It allows a different address to be specified so it looks like everything is a go. All we need is Rob's agreement.
Alan, the groceries "in question" HERE, but have never been from the IRS, were business expenses and not whatever you mean by entertainment expenses. Put your thinking cap on. I wouldn't have tried if an IRS publication didn't allow for it under certain circumstances. There's a limitation formula, plus the taxpayer must reasonably show that taking such a deduction while conducting chat or video chat business over the Internet, saved a considerable amount in business expense compared to travel for a face-to-face meeting. You're probably giving up lots of deductions in your business. Many small business owners hire tax attorneys for this type of info. I was lucky to be able to ask my daughter's husband to actively help me with mine.
If this tax return review will make critics eat crow, then let's do it. I'm sure arci's are very simple, but mine are not due to Schedule C's, investments, several homes, etc. I'm going to request years 2001 thru 2007 because it says we can request up to 7 years and I want to rub salt in the wounds as much as possible. Arci, same year's please. I've already seen several of his more recent ones so this should be fun!
Before submitting, Alan you have to draw up the non-disclosure agreement if arci feels a need to do that. I don't. We'll need an address from Alan, and if you send me anything Alan then I'll text you my lot address in S. Dakota where I can get it forwarded to wherever I'll be.
Do we need anything else?
I just thought of something. My returns will prove we owned homes in two cities plus rented the apt. I think it's only fair that arci has a chance to "double down" on his claims here by us making a modest $5000 bet on the issue, and we can send the $$ to Alan for escrow until such time that the returns are received.
Agreed?
I've been self employed or s-corp all my life and never knew I could deduct my lunch! I'm gonna have to go back 40 years or so to amend all those returns, Could be worth some real dough.
Keep in mind that you can also file tax returns with deductions that are not allowed, and get away with it for years (or for your entire life) without being caught.
The IRS audits only a very small percentage of returns filed.
In addition, they only have 3 years to audit you, unless it's auditing for fraud.
Simply deducting something you shouldn't have doesn't qualify as fraud in most situations.
Furthermore, Rob's tax returns only indicate what he filed -- not any penalties he might have had to pay later.
I see. Now you're hoping that I took deductions that were not allowed and had to pay "penalties" (& interest, if you were being as thorough as you want to be seen as being). I can also request audit reports from the 5 years I went through full audits on as a professional gambler filer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Dan, you throw around a lot of assertions, and they obviously are radiating from under the safe cover of the Internet's greatest friend: anonymity. How about you come out of hiding and change your cowardice into courage. Let's make a modest wager that all 3 of my audit reports rendered no penalties for the infrequent grocery deductions--which I've claimed every year--or for any other deduction.
Alan, can you handle receiving these too, if they are also allowed to be sent to a 3rd party? I'll call my contact at the IRS in a few minutes to see if I can obtain them.
I am not anonymous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Look up "Dan Druff" on Wikipedia and you'll find me.
Why would I want to bet you that your returns generated no penalties?
It's easy to file your taxes with bogus deductions and not get penalized. That doesn't mean your deductions are legal. It just means you didn't get caught.
It's like me betting you that I can produce a video of me jaywalking and then prove that I never received a jaywalking ticket in my life.
This would prove I jaywalked with no consequence, but it wouldn't prove that jaywalking is legal.
Gonna need lots of popcorn.
I mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating.
"If a man comes up to you with a sealed deck of cards and offers to bet you that the Jack of Spades will jump out of the deck and spit cider in your ear, do not bet him, my son." -- from Guys and Dolls
Re-read what you wrote about what I filed, and how penalties may have had to have been paid later. That suggests a probability of being caught taking an illegitimate deduction and then having to pay it back--plus interest & penalties. I'm saying there's no chance of that while you want to be seen as if you're onto something. So man up and take the bet. Stop hiding behind your computer and most of all, stop scratching your head. Or else stop making up scenarios you think you can get away with. I'm no degenerate poker player, and I'm far more intelligent than the collection of stiffs who are addicted to on-line poker play.
Wise words red.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I thought I posted this earlier but I just want to say it again:
I think the tax issue is a separate issue, and frankly I don't care how Rob prepared his taxes or what discussions he had with the IRS. I think his tax matters are his personal business.
I am interested in finding out if indeed there are certain deductions that are available that I didn't know about before.
Whether or not Rob was able to deduct this or that, and whether or not the deductions were disallowed later really has no impact on the merits of his system or method of play. That's all I care about. Can Rob Singer's system or elements of his system, help me win?
When it comes to taxes, I follow what I believe to be is the law and I make various personal decisions about what I will deduct and what qualifies. Sure, I could go through the trouble of deducting the square footage of my desk as "office space." But it ain't worth the time or trouble to me... period. In my case, I have bigger deductions not to miss that are worth dollars so I will skip the pennies.
Frankly, I don't see how Rob's tax returns will have any impact on the efficacy of his system unless they also show that he never had the wins he claimed to have had. If he was able to offset all those wins then yes, I would like to know what he knows about the tax laws that the rest of us don't know. But I am not sure seeing his tax returns will tell us that.
Frankly Rob, what would be of more interest is any correspondence you received from the IRS explaining why they allowed these various deductions that are being questioned. Do you have any correspondence? Now that would be interesting and helpful because opinions from the IRS can help everyone to a certain degree.
Seeing your tax returns won't.
I don't believe my audit reports say anything about specific deductions because I've never had any of them disallowed. The 3 audits clearly focused on how a person in Az. could be a professional gambler who actually made money from the work. They tried and tried to get my professional/business status changed, but I had precedent as well as more knowledgeable auditors who were always consulted with in LV on my side. Yes they questioned why there was so many business expenses, but I made certain each year that I showed the absolute minimum profit allowed in order to be able to file as a business. There's a lot of variables involved, and other parts of our return in addition to my wife's work income made for a very complicated filing during each of my 11 years. But as we've all learned from GE, I just kept making pass after pass until I got it the way I wanted it.
Will the returns prove anything about my vp winnings? Arci thinks so, and he knows all--right? :)
Someone has to clarify this for me: if you have a profit to keep a business a business and not a hobby, how do you not pay tax on the profit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I mentioned many times that all you had to do was post the address of your old residence and it would be easy to verify. No bet needed. Just post the address and remove all doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
IIRC the law requires a profit for something like 3 out of every 5 years. Hence, you could go 2 years without a profit but would then need to show a profit for the next 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I understand that but if you offset the revenue to create "no profit" then it is a hobby, and if it's a hobby then you don't have the deductions to offset the revenue from the wins. So how do avoid paying the taxes, and keeping the business as a business?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The "three out of five" is not a hard and fast rule. Say you get audited after seven years, and you show a loss, but a progressively smaller loss, the first four years, followed by three years of increasing winning. That may indeed be enough to allow something to be classified as a business.
I don't know of any exceptions to the three out of five rule. I think a profit is a profit and a loss is a loss and declining losses or increasing profits doesn't matter. Either you have a profit or a loss. But I would like to hear from a tax expert on this one.
I have no interest in doing your work for you if you haven't already. You want to tell lies about me then you face up to the consequences. If not, then welcome to your worst nightmare--appearing the fool on a public forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I've said this many times over: where Rob lived has absolutely no bearing on anything to do with his video poker wins, losses, skills, strategy, system or anything. It's a non issue.
And if you want to say that his "address" determines his credibility then consider that according to public records I am homeless because I moved into my wife's home and my name does not appear on anything associated with her home. Technically, I am homeless. And since wives control the purse strings I am also technically broke.