Casino Won/Loss Credibility

Blackhole's persistence got me thinking about credibility and all that.

So I was sitting here, thinking about the Guys and Dolls lines regarding the Jack of Spades spitting cider in one's ear, and I began wondering about the inestimable MDawg's challenge regarding his casino won/loss statements.

Now I realize the challenge is silly on the face of it, because he could play at 30 casinos and choose which won/loss statements he shows anyone, but I decided to look up why the won/loss statements are not considered good enough for the IRS.

I checked a tax law site and read, "the 'disclaimer' language states that the information contained in the casino won/loss statement is not reliable or accurate."

Well, that means nobody providing won/loss statements to a player is on the hook for them being accurate in any way. There's no regs or laws regarding that. Huh, well that is wild. That opens all kinds of faux won/loss statement opportunities.

And it also turns out that the IRS "does not regulate the format or time of delivery of won/loss statements." So if, say, a big player wanted his statements provided particular times and not provided particular times depending on casino and results, he could undoubtedly negotiate that. So he could honestly report that he hadn't gotten statements from Casinos A, B, and C and had from D, E, and F by, say, January or March or July.

So anyone trying to set up wagers regarding their casino won/loss statements could very well be running a pure financial scam, a la the strudel vs. cheesecake wager in Guys and Dolls.

Probably a real bad thing for a site owner to allow those kinds of "challenges" on his site, I would say. Reeks of a financial scam.

Redietz,

We have had some PM discourse and I mostly tend to like you, but have you ever thought about not being an insufferable cunt when it comes to all things WoV?

I want you to think about this for a second, from a legal perspective: What do you think is better for WoV and affiliated sites---that they make an effort to arbit/regulate/control wagers that are discussed on the site, or that they do not? It's a bet between the participants that just so happens to be being orchestrated on the site.

You know and I know that the same bet proposition between two people on, say, Facebook, would go completely unnoticed. Does Facebook, "Reek of a financial scam," for, "Allowing the challenge?"

Therefore, my suggestion is that you quit behaving like a cunt. I like you, so it's really unappealing to see that.

Here's the best way to guarantee you do not lose a proposition bet/wager with someone: Decline all wager/bet propositions. Do not make the bet. If you wish, state that you would never make a bet. 0% probability of losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Redietz,

We have had some PM discourse and I mostly tend to like you, but have you ever thought about not being an insufferable cunt when it comes to all things WoV?

I want you to think about this for a second, from a legal perspective: What do you think is better for WoV and affiliated sites---that they make an effort to arbit/regulate/control wagers that are discussed on the site, or that they do not? It's a bet between the participants that just so happens to be being orchestrated on the site.

You know and I know that the same bet proposition between two people on, say, Facebook, would go completely unnoticed. Does Facebook, "Reek of a financial scam," for, "Allowing the challenge?"

Therefore, my suggestion is that you quit behaving like a cunt. I like you, so it's really unappealing to see that.

Here's the best way to guarantee you do not lose a proposition bet/wager with someone: Decline all wager/bet propositions. Do not make the bet. If you wish, state that you would never make a bet. 0% probability of losing.

---

Sounds like I hit a sore spot.

You let me know what I got wrong, Mission. Spell it out with your usual patience.

The fact is, if WoV had propped up somebody making sports betting claims like MDawg's baccarat claims, I would have already done a mass email lambasting WoV and Shackleford. It would have gone out to every newspaper, radio and television station, every gambling website. I understand it's not your job, as you see it, to make a call about what's right or wrong in the gambling claims world. And that's fine. You're an amateur with loyalties to this and that. I'm not.

So let me know what I got factually wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Redietz,

We have had some PM discourse and I mostly tend to like you, but have you ever thought about not being an insufferable cunt when it comes to all things WoV?

I want you to think about this for a second, from a legal perspective: What do you think is better for WoV and affiliated sites---that they make an effort to arbit/regulate/control wagers that are discussed on the site, or that they do not? It's a bet between the participants that just so happens to be being orchestrated on the site.

You know and I know that the same bet proposition between two people on, say, Facebook, would go completely unnoticed. Does Facebook, "Reek of a financial scam," for, "Allowing the challenge?"

Therefore, my suggestion is that you quit behaving like a cunt. I like you, so it's really unappealing to see that.

Here's the best way to guarantee you do not lose a proposition bet/wager with someone: Decline all wager/bet propositions. Do not make the bet. If you wish, state that you would never make a bet. 0% probability of losing.

---

Sounds like I hit a sore spot.

You let me know what I got wrong, Mission. Spell it out with your usual patience.

The fact is, if WoV had propped up somebody making sports betting claims like MDawg's baccarat claims, I would have already done a mass email lambasting WoV and Shackleford. It would have gone out to every newspaper, radio and television station, every gambling website. I understand it's not your job, as you see it, to make a call about what's right or wrong in the gambling claims world. And that's fine. You're an amateur with loyalties to this and that. I'm not.

So let me know what I got factually wrong.

---

I already scored the only point I needed to win, but if you want more, here we go:

1.) Historically in its operations, WoV has taken a very Libertarian stance on gambling and it has always been this way.

Even when Wizard owned the sites outright, Bovada advertised on the sites. Bovada was not legal for all U.S. players, and while Bovada does not operate in all states, (this site specifically seems to stay away from sites with regulated/legalized commercial online casinos---probably with an eye towards entering the market later) they did operate in some states where playing there was technically illegal for the player.

Surprisingly, these states are actually relatively few in number. Most anti-gambling laws (other than state sanctioned forms of gambling) are focused on operators. As a practical matter, even with laws that apply to players, we can presume that enforcement efforts (as if that would ever happen) would not target mere online casino players and have not, as yet.

There's some speculation that the sites themselves are illegal. They are not. They are licensed in other jurisdictions---some of which the license itself has more value than toilet paper and others probably not. Even if they do operate illegally, they are out of a given state's jurisdictional reach.

The UIGEA was targeted towards United States based financial institutions not knowingly engaging in financial transactions with offshore casinos. Because most people are clueless fucking morons who do not know how to read, they took this to mean that online gambling was thereby illegal everywhere and that the mere act of depositing/playing at an online casino overseas is illegal for every player. It is not.

They also do not know, because they are idiots, that the Tenth Amendment and prior precedent leaves almost all non-interstate gambling matters for states to create their own laws. This is one of the reasons PASPA was overturned.

Whether or not it is illegal for a specific player depends on the laws of the player's state of residence. In some states, it is illegal to act as a player on an overseas online casino, in others, it is not. As a practical matter, I have never heard of any state laws that could theoretically target mere players actually being enforced. I mean, how would the state even come to know in the first place? The police don't come banging on your door at random demanding to search your Internet history. How would they get a warrant to search your computer for unlawful gambling (in the context of being a player), seems like it would be hella difficult to establish probable cause.

Not that they would ever care in the first place.

Libertarian because the stance is, "Research the law as it may apply to you and make your own decision whether you want to do it or not."

2.) WoV is for the discussion of gambling, and in gambling, sometimes people make proposition bets with one another. A bet is a contract. A contract contains offer, negotiation, agreement, acceptance...or whatever.

In its official capacity, if WoV is going to act as the arbiter for one bet, then it must act as the arbiter for all bets. Wizard has often acted as an arbiter, and though not explicitly stated, my assumption would be that he was doing so in his personal capacity.

The only thing that WoV has ever done in its official capacity is that it has banned a person for nonpayment of a bet in the past a decision which, by the way, I disagreed with because it established a precedent. That precedent, if you have anything to stand on whatsoever, is the ONLY thing you have to stand on when it comes to this.

Personally, I'd have seen it handled completely between the parties without anything that could be perceived as direct involvement. That's why, when someone seemingly made a bet with me---that I won---and refused to pay me (said he was not serious in accepting the bet) I let it go. Even if the precedent had been established at that point, and I don't believe it was, I would not have sought remedy because it's a stupid precedent---which I also said then.

Other than banning (Nuking) members for non-payment of bets, I have not seen WoV, in any official capacity, act as an arbiter of wagers otherwise between two people. Because WoV does not arbitrate wagers in its official capacity between its members, WoV would do well not to restrict any wagers between two of its members, because then, it may be taking an implied responsibility for all wagers that are or are not conducted between members of the site---which it should not do.

And, that's before you get into actual codified legalities that could become involved.

3.) My main point is that WoV serves as a medium of communication between folks. Other outlets do the same thing. If any affairs are conducted, whether legal or illegal, WoV is not responsible if it does not officially sanction them or participate in any way. You simply can't hold social media/communication type websites to such a high standard, or you will soon not have such websites. If a drug transaction is arranged via GMail, would Google be legally accountable for its happening? I don't think so.

So, you stay out of personal dealings that people have with one another. Further, you leave it for the individual people actually involved to decide whether or not they are behaving lawfully.

In fact, I added and expanded upon my list of Disclaimers for my WoV Picks Game this year because of people like you. You get that? I have listed a bunch of disclaimers for a game in which I give away no less than $650 of my own personal money, in part, because of you. Thank you for that.

Mission146 = WoV Spy and or Informant

You caught me. I guess using the same handle and a writing style that, almost undeniably, comes from the same person wasn't the best espionage strategy.

Aside from this silly and dumb feminity laced argument going on between two overly sensitive WoVers, I'll address the jist of the subject matter.

In the early 2000's I had an IRS audit into my filing as being a professional gambler. During that audit I was told point blank that those casino won/loss statements were completely irrelevant, because there was no way to prove whether or not you had your play tracked whenever you played. (This turned out to be a valid criticism, because in my years putting down the DU play I only used a slot card in rare circumstances, and I'm sure others manipulate the use of a card based on their own personal needs). The one record the IRS does accept is your own personal contemporaneous gambling log, as long as it accurately reflects and tracks to any financial institutions deposits & withdrawal records accompanying it. This doesn't have to show 100% tracking across the board (since not all gambling sessions are products of withdrawals and deposits) but where appropriate there must be accurate tracking.

Not to detract from redietz' original sarcasm about casino won/loss records, but it is true they don't mean squat for several reasons if anyone thinks they're the end-all in any stupid internet challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Aside from this silly and dumb feminity laced argument going on between two overly sensitive WoVers, I'll address the jist of the subject matter.

In the early 2000's I had an IRS audit into my filing as being a professional gambler. During that audit I was told point blank that those casino won/loss statements were completely irrelevant, because there was no way to prove whether or not you had your play tracked whenever you played. (This turned out to be a valid criticism, because in my years putting down the DU play I only used a slot card in rare circumstances, and I'm sure others manipulate the use of a card based on their own personal needs). The one record the IRS does accept is your own personal contemporaneous gambling log, as long as it accurately reflects and tracks to any financial institutions deposits & withdrawal records accompanying it. This doesn't have to show 100% tracking across the board (since not all gambling sessions are products of withdrawals and deposits) but where appropriate there must be accurate tracking.

Not to detract from redietz' original sarcasm about casino won/loss records, but it is true they don't mean squat for several reasons if anyone thinks they're the end-all in any stupid internet challenge.

---

Nobody gives a shit; we're waiting for you to die (of natural causes). Tell your story walking, cunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Nobody gives a shit; we're waiting for you to die (of natural causes). Tell your story walking, cunt.

---

You've been posting a lot lately.
Take a break and breathe a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Nobody gives a shit; we're waiting for you to die (of natural causes). Tell your story walking, cunt.

---

You've been posting a lot lately.
Take a break and breathe a little.

---

I also noticed that Mission146 is posting a lot more than usual myself when he used to post more sporadically.... Reminds me of when I went from having about THREE posts on Pace Advantage, in about THREE years to having about 54 more within about a TWO week span. I was just using Pace Advantage during my Suspension on here and was planning to going back to posting sporadically as soon as my Suspension was up on here. I ended up being banned from Place Advantage after posting 53 posts within a two week span when I had only about THREE posts before my sudden huge rush of posts. I wonder if Mission is doing something similar? Using this board while he is on Suspension somewhere else? Hmm....

I'm not on Suspension anywhere; this is just how I roll. Give it another day, or three or five and you guys probably won't see me for a couple weeks or more.

I can't say exactly when that'll happen, but it always does sooner or later.

Its easy for machine players to manipulate the coin-in/coin-out tracking. An example would be playing a 13 on the 5X on the 15's. A 13 is playable on the 40/100/480 15's (a 93% overall game). So when it flips to 14 you know it will flip to 15 in 100 spins. On these games there is an average cost to spin the play off then the bonus makes up for it and more.

You pull the card at 98 spins. Even cash the ticket out to clear the card reader. Then reinsert money and make the last two spins without the card being in. The resulting credits in the free games won't be recorded by the coin-in/coin out tracker.

This can be done on a lot of exploitable machines.

If you don't know what the 15's are here's a vid:

https://youtu.be/iFrHZLgLeRA