Will they adjust pay tables in 2026?

Do we think they will adjust pay tables on certain games when the new gambling laws start in 2026?

They are changing the W2G threshold from $1200 to $2000.

I remember playing $5 Video Poker with my father and there were machines that paid 239 credits for 4OAK rather than 250 Credits. This paid $1195 rather than $1250 resulting in no hand pay / W2G. Yes it was a hit, but after tipping $10 for the $1250 win, in reality it was only a $45 hit and you didn't have to wait around for the handpay.

For 2026, with the W2G threshold at $2000, playing at the $5 level, rather than paying 400 credits for certain wins, will they adjust them to 399 credits resulting in a $1995 win? I would much rather take that $5 hit than get W2G paperwork / have to tip someone...

The edge will change ever so slightly:

On 8/5 Bonus for example. The only hand pay is 4-Aces @ 400 Credits / $2000 or a Royal Flush. If they reduced the 400 4-Aces to 399 / $1995 the results would be as follows:

8/5 w/ 400 Aces = 99.17%
8/5 w/ 399 Aces = 99.16%

Double Bonus rather than 4 x 2-4 being 400, move that down to 399

8/7 w/ 400 2-4 = 99.11%
8/7 w/ 399 2-4 = 99.10%

Double Double Bonus:

9/6 w/ 400 2-4 = 98.98%
9/6 w/ 399 2-4 = 98.97%
9/5 w/ 400 2-4 = 97.87%
9/5 w/ 399 2-4 = 97.87%

I'd be all for this... It would reduce W2G's, less handpays overall...


Also since now they are not allowing you to fully deduct your losses, will they force you to withhold 10% from taxable wins?

Silver7 Casino @ Flamino & Paradise (formerly Terribles) did something like that a few years back. I forget the exact circumstances, but I believe it was a slot machine where the top jackpot paid $400 for 1 coin, $800 for 2 coins and $1200 for 3 coins. They changed the top jackpot to $1199 and heavily advertised it on the Marquee out front for several months. And then it disappeared. I always thought someone may have contacted then suggesting that might be structuring. I'll leave it to the legal folks to debate whether it could have been or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLaPiNFuNK

Do we think they will adjust pay tables on certain games when the new gambling laws start in 2026?

They are changing the W2G threshold from $1200 to $2000.

I remember playing $5 Video Poker with my father and there were machines that paid 239 credits for 4OAK rather than 250 Credits. This paid $1195 rather than $1250 resulting in no hand pay / W2G. Yes it was a hit, but after tipping $10 for the $1250 win, in reality it was only a $45 hit and you didn't have to wait around for the handpay.

For 2026, with the W2G threshold at $2000, playing at the $5 level, rather than paying 400 credits for certain wins, will they adjust them to 399 credits resulting in a $1995 win? I would much rather take that $5 hit than get W2G paperwork / have to tip someone...

The edge will change ever so slightly:

On 8/5 Bonus for example. The only hand pay is 4-Aces @ 400 Credits / $2000 or a Royal Flush. If they reduced the 400 4-Aces to 399 / $1995 the results would be as follows:

8/5 w/ 400 Aces = 99.17%
8/5 w/ 399 Aces = 99.16%

Double Bonus rather than 4 x 2-4 being 400, move that down to 399

8/7 w/ 400 2-4 = 99.11%
8/7 w/ 399 2-4 = 99.10%

Double Double Bonus:

9/6 w/ 400 2-4 = 98.98%
9/6 w/ 399 2-4 = 98.97%
9/5 w/ 400 2-4 = 97.87%
9/5 w/ 399 2-4 = 97.87%

I'd be all for this... It would reduce W2G's, less handpays overall...


Also since now they are not allowing you to fully deduct your losses, will they force you to withhold 10% from taxable wins?

---

They will probably change it at some point.

But I really doubt it would happen right away. It would be a low priority item for the casino to change as it would cost them time & money & not give them any additional revenue. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some places never change it until they order new machines.

Doubt anyone will force you to withhold 10% from taxable wins.

The 90% cap on deducting losses is for the total annual losses against total annual wins.

It has nothing to do with individual jackpots that trigger a W2G.

Most people who get W2Gs lose a lot more than they win each year, so the change will have no effect on most gamblers.

And for the people the change does affect the amount is unlikely to be closely related to their W2Gs since you can win a lot & constantly be under the W2G threshold or get a ton of W2Gs and still have losses.

Few casinos bothered lowering the $5 quad payouts to eliminate W2G's, so not many will bother lowering payouts to just below $2000. Too much work, and less handpays = less tips from the easily intimidated weaklings. It never seemed to be a priority. Besides, isnt that new $2k threshold going to be rising each year based on inflation or something?

Doubt it. If for no other reason than when those changes were made VP was more popular, and casinos also cared more about VP players.

Many if not most casinos now VP is a complete afterthought nor do some give any thought to VP players who don't play slots, they'd prefer for it to just go away and play other things just like 3/2 BJ. The industry isn't going to give this much thought or care about the players that complain about it to want to do anything to cater to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Silver7 Casino @ Flamino & Paradise (formerly Terribles) did something like that a few years back. I forget the exact circumstances, but I believe it was a slot machine where the top jackpot paid $400 for 1 coin, $800 for 2 coins and $1200 for 3 coins. They changed the top jackpot to $1199 and heavily advertised it on the Marquee out front for several months. And then it disappeared. I always thought someone may have contacted then suggesting that might be structuring. I'll leave it to the legal folks to debate whether it could have been or not.

---

Structuring has nothing to do with w2gs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLaPiNFuNK

They are changing the W2G threshold from $1200 to $2000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

I'd like to see further confirmation of that.

---

Legislation is often written ambiguously, and then some bureaucrat has to issue an interpretation.

I thought we were still waiting on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Structuring has nothing to do with w2gs.

---

Looking back at vpfree2 comments, Silver Sevens had many quarter games with the royal flush paying $1199. Then they changed to $1077.

I think the only logical conclusion is that some goons from the Treasury Department visited the Affinity Gaming executive suite and threatened to break their legs.

There was that Willie Nelson slot and like the top payout was 1199 or such. Had an outlaw theme. Actually I guess the top jackpot isn't 1199 but one of the main features is. The "outlaw jackpot".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Doubt it. If for no other reason than when those changes were made VP was more popular, and casinos also cared more about VP players.

Many if not most casinos now VP is a complete afterthought nor do some give any thought to VP players who don't play slots, they'd prefer for it to just go away and play other things just like 3/2 BJ. The industry isn't going to give this much thought or care about the players that complain about it to want to do anything to cater to them.

---

VP being an afterthought today is true. At Atlantis Reno where I'm a top tier player (and I only play summers) I was told there's very few players at my level who play VP, and Im the only one they could think of who plays VP exclusively. Most play the slots and they of course there's others who play hi-limit tables. I expect vp to disappear almost entirely 10 years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Doubt it. If for no other reason than when those changes were made VP was more popular, and casinos also cared more about VP players.

Many if not most casinos now VP is a complete afterthought nor do some give any thought to VP players who don't play slots, they'd prefer for it to just go away and play other things just like 3/2 BJ. The industry isn't going to give this much thought or care about the players that complain about it to want to do anything to cater to them.

---

VP being an afterthought today is true. At Atlantis Reno where I'm a top tier player (and I only play summers) I was told there's very few players at my level who play VP, and Im the only one they could think of who plays VP exclusively. Most play the slots and they of course there's others who play hi-limit tables. I expect vp to disappear almost entirely 10 years from now.

---

Agreed, except instead of getting rid of it, most places are going with the multi-game machines that have slots & VP on the same machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

. I always thought someone may have contacted then, suggesting that might be structuring. I'll leave it to the legal folks to debate whether it could have been or not.

---

I mentioned this in a few of my posts. Quick details. Money was confiscated from sports books with an accusation of structuring. There was absolutely no intended structuring. It was just a matter of moving around money so new bets could be made. It could have been 4k, 5k, 6k, 7k, 8k or whatever was needed at the time to move money for new bets, either to another account or to get cash to make an in-person bet.

As part of an argument being made was the fact that casinos are the ones purposely and obviously trying to structure by lowering their pay tables so certain payoffs would be just under the W2G amount.

The case was eventually settled, but of course, the casinos have made out better as they were unfairly able to keep some of the money in the settlement. It certainly wasn't worth fighting cuz it wasn't only about the money, it was also about criminal charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Doubt it. If for no other reason than when those changes were made VP was more popular, and casinos also cared more about VP players.

Many if not most casinos now VP is a complete afterthought nor do some give any thought to VP players who don't play slots, they'd prefer for it to just go away and play other things just like 3/2 BJ. The industry isn't going to give this much thought or care about the players that complain about it to want to do anything to cater to them.

---

VP being an afterthought today is true. At Atlantis Reno where I'm a top tier player (and I only play summers) I was told there's very few players at my level who play VP, and Im the only one they could think of who plays VP exclusively. Most play the slots and they of course there's others who play hi-limit tables. I expect vp to disappear almost entirely 10 years from now.

---

I don't think so. Traditional video poker might dwindle some more; however, they get pretty good action and make quite a bit on games like Ultimate X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Silver7 Casino @ Flamino & Paradise (formerly Terribles) did something like that a few years back. I forget the exact circumstances, but I believe it was a slot machine where the top jackpot paid $400 for 1 coin, $800 for 2 coins and $1200 for 3 coins. They changed the top jackpot to $1199 and heavily advertised it on the Marquee out front for several months. And then it disappeared. I always thought someone may have contacted then suggesting that might be structuring. I'll leave it to the legal folks to debate whether it could have been or not.

---

Structuring has nothing to do with w2gs.

---

Technically, perhaps not; however, they are adjusting the normal industry-wide paytables for the purpose of avoiding having to generate W2G's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Structuring has nothing to do with w2gs.

---

Technically, perhaps not; however, they are adjusting the normal industry-wide paytables for the purpose of avoiding having to generate W2G's.

---

Exactly. This specific incident didn't effect me or anything I do in any way. I just remember that when I saw it, I thought how blatant it was that they were intentionally avoiding the $1200 payout. Especially putting it on the big marquee out front. And then all of the sudden it was gone. :rolleyes: Just seems like someone told them "hey you can't do that".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Structuring has nothing to do with w2gs.

---

Technically, perhaps not; however, they are adjusting the normal industry-wide paytables for the purpose of avoiding having to generate W2G's.

---

Exactly. This specific incident didn't effect me or anything I do in any way. I just remember that when I saw it, I thought how blatant it was that they were intentionally avoiding the $1200 payout. Especially putting it on the big marquee out front. And then all of the sudden it was gone. :rolleyes: Just seems like someone told them "hey you can't do that".

---

Why can't they intentionally avoid w2g jackpots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Technically, perhaps not; however, they are adjusting the normal industry-wide paytables for the purpose of avoiding having to generate W2G's.

---

Exactly. This specific incident didn't effect me or anything I do in any way. I just remember that when I saw it, I thought how blatant it was that they were intentionally avoiding the $1200 payout. Especially putting it on the big marquee out front. And then all of the sudden it was gone. :rolleyes: Just seems like someone told them "hey you can't do that".

---

Why can't they intentionally avoid w2g jackpots?

---

Because THAT is what structuring is. Why can't a player only cash in part of his chip to remain below any threshold that requires additional reporting? It is structuring. It is the exact same thing. And structuring isn't just some casino rule or policy. It is a crime. I am guessing not enforced unless it is something blatant or big, but it is a crime. Advertisng that crime on the billboard out front of the casino doesn't seem like a bright idea. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Exactly. This specific incident didn't effect me or anything I do in any way. I just remember that when I saw it, I thought how blatant it was that they were intentionally avoiding the $1200 payout. Especially putting it on the big marquee out front. And then all of the sudden it was gone. :rolleyes: Just seems like someone told them "hey you can't do that".

---

Why can't they intentionally avoid w2g jackpots?

---

Because THAT is what structuring is. Why can't a player only cash in part of his chip to remain below any threshold that requires additional reporting? It is structuring. It is the exact same thing. And structuring isn't just some casino rule or policy. It is a crime. I am guessing not enforced unless it is something blatant or big, but it is a crime. Advertisng that crime on the billboard out front of the casino doesn't seem like a bright idea. :D

---

As far as I know the structuring law only applies to avoiding CTRs and some other more obscure filings, but even if it did apply to w2gs the casino is not structuring a 1200 payout (by for example letting you receive 1199 on the machine and then coming by a minute later and handing you a dollar). There is no 1200 payout (or transaction) in the first place.

In a casino if you cash 8k at one cage and then 3k at the other, that is structuring the 11k transaction to avoid a CTR.

I've seen many slot banks that advertise "Top Prize $1199"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

In a casino if you cash 8k at one cage and then 3k at the other, that is structuring the 11k transaction to avoid a CTR.

---

You are talking about attempting to avoid or circumvent a threshold that requires additional reporting. THAT is the very definition of structuring.

And there are actually legitimate reasons why a player would only cash out part. Lets say a player wins $11,000 but only cashes out $8000

1) Card counters like to keep a chip inventory for easy entrance into a game at a later time. So you are saving out $3000 towards that chip inventory.

2) maybe player is going to eat dinner and plans on playing after dinner, but doesn't want to have the entire amount of chips on him, in an attempt to limit losses. just wants to sit down with 3000-4000 to play with.

3) Maybe you want to lend someone you came with $3000 to gamble with, so you hold out $3000 in chips.

But guess what, none of these excuses really matter. It is still structuring by the letter of the law.