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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLaPiNFuNK

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

---

Of course. I have as well. But that doesn't mean it isn't technically structuring. Doubtful anyone would say or do too much. But putting it on the big marquee in front of the casino just seemed kind of "in your face". Maybe nothing came of it. I don't know. Just know a short time later it was gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

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.

---

You write of the "letter of the law" as if it were a mere metaphor and not something which you could easily learn yourself.

Here: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013

In particular:

4.26.13.2 (04-10-2020)
Overview
Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a specific pattern calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or IRC 6050I, Returns Relating to Cash received in Trade or Business, etc. (Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business)


Which does not cover w2gs as far as I care to look.

Furthermore the casino is under no obligation to make quads pay 25:1, just as you are under no obligation to continue playing when you are close to a 10k win. They are not structuring an existing transaction, they are offering odds on wagers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

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.

---

You write of the "letter of the law" as if it were a mere metaphor and not something which you could easily learn yourself.

Here: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013

In particular:

4.26.13.2 (04-10-2020)
Overview
Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a specific pattern calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or IRC 6050I, Returns Relating to Cash received in Trade or Business, etc. (Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business)


Which does not cover w2gs as far as I care to look.

Furthermore the casino is under no obligation to make quads pay 25:1, just as you are under no obligation to continue playing when you are close to a 10k win. They are not structuring an existing transaction, they are offering odds on wagers.

---

Correct. No casino is "structuring" when they offer a way for a player to keep from getting a signer via pay table changes. That's ridiculous. Casinos only do that to entice people who fear W2G's, to play. If the structuring nonsense were true then there wouldn't be an option for the player to play just a few credits less for the purpose of avoiding tax slips. And casinos like the Peppermill--where almost every vp machine offers betting between 1-25 credits on many denominations--would never be allowed such exploitable betting options.

Kew: wise up. You dont know a thing about how things "work"....or why.

It isn't structuring, as the coin in / out is registered. If you are self employed and get W2G's they count as income regardless of win / loss... So there is a big difference for me getting a W2G compared to someone else who gets a proper pay check, even though the results are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

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.

---

Easy mistake to make but you are mixing up W2Gs with CTRs and SARS (Suspicious Activity Reports) structuring crimes are about “structuring” deposits and withdrawals to avoid these specific forms CTRs & SARs being generated.

W2G events are under a completely different law than structuring & there was never any linkage between the two as they were both addressing completely different things.

Imagine my shock that kj would simp for the regime.

The vast majority of w2g recipients are pathetic losers, so this line of taxation is blatant theft, assuming it wasn't already obvious that taxation is theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

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.

---

Easy mistake to make but you are mixing up W2Gs with CTRs and SARS (Suspicious Activity Reports) structuring crimes are about “structuring” deposits and withdrawals to avoid these specific forms CTRs & SARs being generated.

W2G events are under a completely different law than structuring & there was never any linkage between the two as they were both addressing completely different things.

---

Bbbbbuuuutttt....Kew KNOWS how things work in Las Vegas. In fact, he's a bona fide expert, because he's a professional AP bj player!

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?

---

I didn't say they could or couldn't. I think it's pretty apparent they have been without issue. I don't know what the laws are surrounding that situation. My guess is that legally, they can do it

My only point is that they are trying to set up machines to come in just below thresholds that would normally be jackpots.
While it might not be the legal description of structuring, it is, in fact, an attempt at structuring their machines to avoid jackpot reporting. Meanwhile, guys who are actually not trying to structure are getting tagged for doing it, I believe a jury might look at the situation in favor of someone defending themselves against structuring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

I didn't say they could or couldn't. I think it's pretty apparent they have been without issue. I don't know what the laws are surrounding that situation. My guess is that legally, they can do it

My only point is that they are trying to set up machines to come in just below thresholds that would normally be jackpots.
While it might not be the legal description of structuring, it is, in fact, an attempt at structuring their machines to avoid jackpot reporting. Meanwhile, guys who are actually not trying to structure are getting tagged for doing it, I believe a jury might look at the situation in favor of someone defending themselves against structuring.

---

There should not be the whole W2 thing hand pays for machine play. If a player hits something that takes him above the threshold and he remains above the threshold when he is done playing, he should take his ticket to the cage to cash out. If he is required to sign something at that time....so be it.

But handpays and multiple people coming over like they are doing you some favor, while they all but beg for a tip, and then the whole "show" of counting out your money right there on the casino floor, where anyone with bad intentions can see, is for the birds. They are actually placing the player in harms way with that shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

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?

---

I didn't say they could or couldn't. I think it's pretty apparent they have been without issue. I don't know what the laws are surrounding that situation. My guess is that legally, they can do it

My only point is that they are trying to set up machines to come in just below thresholds that would normally be jackpots.
While it might not be the legal description of structuring, it is, in fact, an attempt at structuring their machines to avoid jackpot reporting. Meanwhile, guys who are actually not trying to structure are getting tagged for doing it, I believe a jury might look at the situation in favor of someone defending themselves against structuring.

---

I was asking KJ in reference to his last line.

And "structuring" in this context refers to a specific law that does not apply to w2gs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

I was asking KJ in reference to his last line.

And "structuring" in this context refers to a specific law that does not apply to w2gs.

---

Ok fine! Maybe it is not structuring. But it is an attempt to get around a threshold that requires additional reporting. If "structuring" is not the word that applies to that, it has to be something that you would think would be illegal.

But I don't really care. the sign at S7 was for a lower payout on a slot machine which I don't play. I just found it interesting that they chose to make that such a big marketing ploy, to the point of placing it on the big marquee billboard and a short time later it was gone as if someone said "hey you can't do that".

Sue me smurgerburger! Or file for a warrant for my arrest why don't ya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I can prove at least 18 of your stories are pure lies but I don't want these psychos on here knowing who you are. You always say no one can prove but I *CAN* prove it. I know who you are. I have the proofs. I just don't want to dox it so I let you continue with your lies.

---

BUT he couldn't prove it. Not a single one! Do you really want to rub it in his face how thoroughly humiliated he was today?

The only "proof" AIQ can muster up is in the 750 ml bottle of Sazerac Taaka Vodka he sucks down to give him the "courage" to tangle with forum posters.

CTRs & SARs get reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) not to the IRS. This is where structuring crimes come in.

Obviously the IRS can view them and regularly does, but usually only if something initiates it, like a tax evasion investigation.

W2Gs only get reported to the IRS. FinCEN can view these also as both FinCEN & the IRS are agencies of the US Treasury Department, but there is less overlap here than with the CTRs & SARs because FinCENs job is to investigate financial crimes & money laundering while the IRSes job is revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

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.

---

You write of the "letter of the law" as if it were a mere metaphor and not something which you could easily learn yourself.

Here: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013

In particular:

4.26.13.2 (04-10-2020)
Overview
Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a specific pattern calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or IRC 6050I, Returns Relating to Cash received in Trade or Business, etc. (Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business)


Which does not cover w2gs as far as I care to look.

Furthermore the casino is under no obligation to make quads pay 25:1, just as you are under no obligation to continue playing when you are close to a 10k win. They are not structuring an existing transaction, they are offering odds on wagers.

---

Correct. No casino is "structuring" when they offer a way for a player to keep from getting a signer via pay table changes. That's ridiculous. Casinos only do that to entice people who fear W2G's, to play. If the structuring nonsense were true then there wouldn't be an option for the player to play just a few credits less for the purpose of avoiding tax slips. And casinos like the Peppermill--where almost every vp machine offers betting between 1-25 credits on many denominations--would never be allowed such exploitable betting options.

Kew: wise up. You dont know a thing about how things "work"....or why.

---

My only royal not on 100 play VP was $1 x 4 specifically so I didn't hit 4k and get a w2g.

I guess that was structuring?

To be clear for MisterV - I'm mostly kidding. I don't feel it was structuring to the extent I ran afoul of a statute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

I was asking KJ in reference to his last line.

And "structuring" in this context refers to a specific law that does not apply to w2gs.

---

Ok fine! Maybe it is not structuring. But it is an attempt to get around a threshold that requires additional reporting. If "structuring" is not the word that applies to that, it has to be something that you would think would be illegal.

But I don't really care. the sign at S7 was for a lower payout on a slot machine which I don't play. I just found it interesting that they chose to make that such a big marketing ploy, to the point of placing it on the big marquee billboard and a short time later it was gone as if someone said "hey you can't do that".

Sue me smurgerburger! Or file for a warrant for my arrest why don't ya?

---

No, one does not have to think that a casino offering a payout in an amount less than $1200 is a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

BUT he couldn't prove it. Not a single one! Do you really want to rub it in his face how thoroughly humiliated he was today?

---

I don't have to prove anything. Doh!

Get help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The only "proof" AIQ can muster up is in the 750 ml bottle of Sazerac Taaka Vodka he sucks down to give him the "courage" to tangle with forum posters.

---

Lol at knowing the distillery that makes Taaka. I mean every person who has spent much time in an average bar knows what Taaka is but few of them outside of Kentucky or whatever the fuck would know the specific distillery's name.

We finally found what MisterV uses his brain cells on. lol

Incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

CTRs & SARs get reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) not to the IRS. This is where structuring crimes come in.

Obviously the IRS can view them and regularly does, but usually only if something initiates it, like a tax evasion investigation.

W2Gs only get reported to the IRS. FinCEN can view these also as both FinCEN & the IRS are agencies of the US Treasury Department, but there is less overlap here than with the CTRs & SARs because FinCENs job is to investigate financial crimes & money laundering while the IRSes job is revenue.

---

Do people who get prosecuted for structuring usually start off being investigated for financial crimes and money laundering?

Or do they actually go after people purely for structuring in the first place? (I know that they can but I'm wondering if it actually works that way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The only "proof" AIQ can muster up is in the 750 ml bottle of Sazerac Taaka Vodka he sucks down to give him the "courage" to tangle with forum posters.

---

Lol at knowing the distillery that makes Taaka. I mean every person who has spent much time in an average bar knows what Taaka is but few of them outside of Kentucky or whatever the fuck would know the specific distillery's name.

We finally found what MisterV uses his brain cells on. lol.Incredible.

---

I'm a teetotaler, having not touched alcohol since last century.

Being out of the booze loop I googled up "cheapest vodka in Las Vegas" as I assumed that would be your poison: I'd never heard of this brand but boy is it cheap.

"Down the hatch and threw the gums...who the hell needs brain cells, anyway?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

CTRs & SARs get reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) not to the IRS. This is where structuring crimes come in.

Obviously the IRS can view them and regularly does, but usually only if something initiates it, like a tax evasion investigation.

W2Gs only get reported to the IRS. FinCEN can view these also as both FinCEN & the IRS are agencies of the US Treasury Department, but there is less overlap here than with the CTRs & SARs because FinCENs job is to investigate financial crimes & money laundering while the IRSes job is revenue.

---

Do people who get prosecuted for structuring usually start off being investigated for financial crimes and money laundering?

Or do they actually go after people purely for structuring in the first place? (I know that they can but I'm wondering if it actually works that way.)

---

They used to go after people purely for structuring but this caused a lot of problems.

Cash businesses would often have a limit from their insurance companies often around $10,000 or cash would no longer be covered so business owners would frequently deposit cash to keep from having $10,000 on hand in amounts of say $8,000 or $9,000 etc. regularly.

Also your everyday public is under the impression that something bad will happen to you if you try to deposit more than $10,000 & they get bad advice sometimes even from bank tellers themselves so they make multiple deposits just under $10,000 thinking it will help them avoid problems.

A few years back there were a lot of stories about the above happening and innocent people getting their money seized & having to fight criminal charges.

Around this time, someone high up in the government I don’t recall who, changed policy that these agencies were to no longer go after sole structuring crimes UNLESS there was some other type of underlying crime involved,