Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: Definition of advantage gambling

  1. #1
    Starting new thread to discuss accountinquestion saying I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win.

    Firstly he claims I trick the casinos into believing I am making a wager I am not. Therefore not only do I not gamble but I commit a crime.

    It took me a moment to realize he is referring to my "card pulling"!

    To be clear I agree that tricking the casino into seeing wagers not made is criminal. Past posting for example, where you wait till the outcome is known then trick the casino into believing you made the wager.

    But card pulling is the polar opposite. I ACTUALLY MAKE A WAGER, then trick the casino into believing I didn't!

    But I am always making a wager!!!

    Is it illegal? Hell no. The casinos give the player the option of using a player card or not. How can choosing not to use a card be illegal especially when quite a few players do it?

    And there are no gambling regs I am aware of that state when a player must choose to insert or remove their players card.

    In fact making wagers but hiding wins is really more "rat-holing digitally" but stuffing chips into your pocket is certainly not illegal either (except perhaps roulette chips with intent to falsify value later).

    Or making a large initial wager, then playing lower amounts while slow playing a crowded table so that hourly risk guesses by the pit bosses are misconstrued.

    Which brings us back to definition of an advantage gambler. Accountinquestion surmises I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win, therefore there is no real gamble.

    Hmmm! Technically AP means Advantage PLAYING. Note we don't call ourselves AG (Advantage Gamblers). In one sense I am inclined to agree.

    Casinos don't gamble either. "The house always wins"? True because they have an advantage. Variance creates ups and downs but over time the casinos always win. That means they aren't gambling by any sense of the word.

    An advantage Player simply switches who has the advantage. A perfect card counter KNOWS he is going to win even in the downward slumps. Therefore even a card counter isn't gambling.

    So I will accept that I am not an advantage gambler. However only if one accepts that there is no such thing to begin with. There are negative expectation GAMBLERS and advantage PLAYERS!
    Last edited by Darkoz; 10-05-2020 at 07:10 AM.

  2. #2
    All you "wokes" beware. The first to the revolution are the second to the guillotine.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Darkoz View Post
    Starting new thread to discuss accountinquestion saying I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win.

    Firstly he claims I trick the casinos into believing I am making a wager I am not. Therefore not only do I not gamble but I commit a crime.

    It took me a moment to realize he is referring to my "card pulling"!

    To be clear I agree that tricking the casino into seeing wagers not made is criminal. Past posting for example, where you wait till the outcome is known then trick the casino into believing you made the wager.

    But card pulling is the polar opposite. I ACTUALLY MAKE A WAGER, then trick the casino into believing I didn't!

    But I am always making a wager!!!

    Is it illegal? Hell no. The casinos give the player the option of using a player card or not. How can choosing not to use a card be illegal especially when quite a few players do it?

    And there are no gambling regs I am aware of that state when a player must choose to insert or remove their players card.

    In fact making wagers but hiding wins is really more "rat-holing digitally" but stuffing chips into your pocket is certainly not illegal either (except perhaps roulette chips with intent to falsify value later).

    Or making a large initial wager, then playing lower amounts while slow playing a crowded table so that hourly risk guesses by the pit bosses are misconstrued.

    Which brings us back to definition of an advantage gambler. Accountinquestion surmises I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win, therefore there is no real gamble.

    Hmmm! Technically AP means Advantage PLAYING. Note we don't call ourselves AG (Advantage Gamblers). In one sense I am inclined to agree.

    Casinos don't gamble either. "The house always wins"? True because they have an advantage. Variance creates ups and downs but over time the casinos always win. That means they aren't gambling by any sense of the word.

    An advantage Player simply switches who has the advantage. A perfect card counter KNOWS he is going to win even in the downward slumps. Therefore even a card counter isn't gambling.

    So I will accept that I am not an advantage gambler. However only if one accepts that there is no such thing to begin with. There are negative expectation GAMBLERS and advantage PLAYERS!
    Why would you want to make a bet then trick the casino into believing you didn't make a bet?

    If you are making coin-in but covering up coin-out by pulling the card then you must be in a spot where freeplay is issued according to losses rather than wager and theoretical house advantage.

    And I still have a problem with you saying you have employee's. I don't think you do in the classical sense. And I don't understand why someone would work for somebody else when they could do the same thing themselves.
    All you "wokes" beware. The first to the revolution are the second to the guillotine.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Darkoz View Post
    Starting new thread to discuss accountinquestion saying I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win.

    Firstly he claims I trick the casinos into believing I am making a wager I am not. Therefore not only do I not gamble but I commit a crime.

    It took me a moment to realize he is referring to my "card pulling"!

    To be clear I agree that tricking the casino into seeing wagers not made is criminal. Past posting for example, where you wait till the outcome is known then trick the casino into believing you made the wager.

    But card pulling is the polar opposite. I ACTUALLY MAKE A WAGER, then trick the casino into believing I didn't!

    But I am always making a wager!!!

    Is it illegal? Hell no. The casinos give the player the option of using a player card or not. How can choosing not to use a card be illegal especially when quite a few players do it?

    And there are no gambling regs I am aware of that state when a player must choose to insert or remove their players card.

    In fact making wagers but hiding wins is really more "rat-holing digitally" but stuffing chips into your pocket is certainly not illegal either (except perhaps roulette chips with intent to falsify value later).

    Or making a large initial wager, then playing lower amounts while slow playing a crowded table so that hourly risk guesses by the pit bosses are misconstrued.

    Which brings us back to definition of an advantage gambler. Accountinquestion surmises I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win, therefore there is no real gamble.

    Hmmm! Technically AP means Advantage PLAYING. Note we don't call ourselves AG (Advantage Gamblers). In one sense I am inclined to agree.

    Casinos don't gamble either. "The house always wins"? True because they have an advantage. Variance creates ups and downs but over time the casinos always win. That means they aren't gambling by any sense of the word.

    An advantage Player simply switches who has the advantage. A perfect card counter KNOWS he is going to win even in the downward slumps. Therefore even a card counter isn't gambling.

    So I will accept that I am not an advantage gambler. However only if one accepts that there is no such thing to begin with. There are negative expectation GAMBLERS and advantage PLAYERS!
    Why would you want to make a bet then trick the casino into believing you didn't make a bet?

    If you are making coin-in but covering up coin-out by pulling the card then you must be in a spot where freeplay is issued according to losses rather than wager and theoretical house advantage.

    And I still have a problem with you saying you have employee's. I don't think you do in the classical sense. And I don't understand why someone would work for somebody else when they could do the same thing themselves.
    They can't do the same thing for themselves!

    I have compartmentalized much of what I do so fee of my "workers" (since you don't like calling them employees) only see bits and pieces.

    There are a select few I trust who know enough if not all that yes they could strike out on their own. I trained them precisely because I trust them not to screw me over.

    There are other mitigating factors. They may not have the bankroll. They may not have the confidence.

    And finally they don't have the analytical understanding. For example, they can do what I show them but as soon as the "play" ends and a new play has to worked out, they don't know how to so. A single thing changes with the play that suddenly turns it -ev and they don't know how to adapt and create a new Advantage.

    So that's why they don't strike out on their own
    Last edited by Darkoz; 10-05-2020 at 08:18 AM.

  5. #5
    So you recruit trustworthy retards is basically what you’re saying.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by mcap View Post
    So you recruit trustworthy retards is basically what you’re saying.
    Everyone has their strengths.

    I'm not capable of being a doctor. Guess I am a retard

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Darkoz View Post
    Starting new thread to discuss accountinquestion saying I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win.

    Firstly he claims I trick the casinos into believing I am making a wager I am not. Therefore not only do I not gamble but I commit a crime.

    It took me a moment to realize he is referring to my "card pulling"!

    To be clear I agree that tricking the casino into seeing wagers not made is criminal. Past posting for example, where you wait till the outcome is known then trick the casino into believing you made the wager.

    But card pulling is the polar opposite. I ACTUALLY MAKE A WAGER, then trick the casino into believing I didn't!

    But I am always making a wager!!!

    Is it illegal? Hell no. The casinos give the player the option of using a player card or not. How can choosing not to use a card be illegal especially when quite a few players do it?

    And there are no gambling regs I am aware of that state when a player must choose to insert or remove their players card.

    In fact making wagers but hiding wins is really more "rat-holing digitally" but stuffing chips into your pocket is certainly not illegal either (except perhaps roulette chips with intent to falsify value later).

    Or making a large initial wager, then playing lower amounts while slow playing a crowded table so that hourly risk guesses by the pit bosses are misconstrued.

    Which brings us back to definition of an advantage gambler. Accountinquestion surmises I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win, therefore there is no real gamble.

    Hmmm! Technically AP means Advantage PLAYING. Note we don't call ourselves AG (Advantage Gamblers). In one sense I am inclined to agree.

    Casinos don't gamble either. "The house always wins"? True because they have an advantage. Variance creates ups and downs but over time the casinos always win. That means they aren't gambling by any sense of the word.

    An advantage Player simply switches who has the advantage. A perfect card counter KNOWS he is going to win even in the downward slumps. Therefore even a card counter isn't gambling.

    So I will accept that I am not an advantage gambler. However only if one accepts that there is no such thing to begin with. There are negative expectation GAMBLERS and advantage PLAYERS!

    This was a really good answer. I am going to borrow some of the language, with DarkOz as referenced source.

    I am reminded of a famous bookmaker in Pennsylvania. He always argued that he was actually gambling, not bookmaking, because he took a position on every game and wasn't really concerned with balancing book on any given game. Of course, we argued with him that he had an edge and he wasn't gambling. His counter-argument was he had an edge only if he was right a certain percent of the time (47.6% not counting parlay bets, for example).

    He fought tooth and nail to define himself as a gambler, while I argued that he was actually an advantage player as a bookmaker. But because bookmaking is a game of opinion, he had a point. Unless he took opinion out of it and simply flipped a coin, in which case he was clearly an advantage player and not a gambler.

    As with most things, definitions are crucial and underappreciated.

    By the way, he recently served some time in the same location as Michael Douglas' son and got to meet Douglas and Zeta-Jones

  8. #8
    Legitimate what in the fuck.

    I argued Darkoz is not a crook without really really stretching the argument. I pointed out using someone else's card might be against some rule and thus could make one seemingly a crook, but that this would be a stretch.

    I don't recall making any judgement about whether he was a gambler. I did say he was an AP and so I think that means he is a gambler. Can't be a player without being a gambler? Anyway, who cares. These semantic arguments are so stupid.

    I said nothing about anything else nor do I talk about stuff like what was mentioned as it does no one who is using these tactics any good.

    Darkoz is confused as fuck I believe.
    Grandpa Newell is the GOAT

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Legitimate what in the fuck.

    I argued Darkoz is not a crook without really really stretching the argument. I pointed out using someone else's card might be against some rule and thus could make one seemingly a crook, but that this would be a stretch.

    I don't recall making any judgement about whether he was a gambler. I did say he was an AP and so I think that means he is a gambler. Can't be a player without being a gambler? Anyway, who cares. These semantic arguments are so stupid.

    I said nothing about anything else nor do I talk about stuff like what was mentioned as it does no one who is using these tactics any good.

    Darkoz is confused as fuck I believe.
    Apologies accountinquestion. You are right.

    Mickeycriminal said it but I saw your name above his when you quoted him in the earlier thread.

    Less confusied and more like bad eyesight. Again please accept the apolgy

    My bad

  10. #10
    lolz you fell for Mickey's trap !
    Grandpa Newell is the GOAT

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Darkoz View Post
    Starting new thread to discuss accountinquestion saying I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win.

    Firstly he claims I trick the casinos into believing I am making a wager I am not. Therefore not only do I not gamble but I commit a crime.

    It took me a moment to realize he is referring to my "card pulling"!

    To be clear I agree that tricking the casino into seeing wagers not made is criminal. Past posting for example, where you wait till the outcome is known then trick the casino into believing you made the wager.

    But card pulling is the polar opposite. I ACTUALLY MAKE A WAGER, then trick the casino into believing I didn't!

    But I am always making a wager!!!

    Is it illegal? Hell no. The casinos give the player the option of using a player card or not. How can choosing not to use a card be illegal especially when quite a few players do it?

    And there are no gambling regs I am aware of that state when a player must choose to insert or remove their players card.

    In fact making wagers but hiding wins is really more "rat-holing digitally" but stuffing chips into your pocket is certainly not illegal either (except perhaps roulette chips with intent to falsify value later).

    Or making a large initial wager, then playing lower amounts while slow playing a crowded table so that hourly risk guesses by the pit bosses are misconstrued.

    Which brings us back to definition of an advantage gambler. Accountinquestion surmises I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win, therefore there is no real gamble.

    Hmmm! Technically AP means Advantage PLAYING. Note we don't call ourselves AG (Advantage Gamblers). In one sense I am inclined to agree.

    Casinos don't gamble either. "The house always wins"? True because they have an advantage. Variance creates ups and downs but over time the casinos always win. That means they aren't gambling by any sense of the word.

    An advantage Player simply switches who has the advantage. A perfect card counter KNOWS he is going to win even in the downward slumps. Therefore even a card counter isn't gambling.

    So I will accept that I am not an advantage gambler. However only if one accepts that there is no such thing to begin with. There are negative expectation GAMBLERS and advantage PLAYERS!
    I want to start off by saying I like you and I do believe you're making money and doing okay for yourself, all things considered.

    BUT... You're an idiot because your want for attention and self-esteem is so f****** fragile(Napoleon complex) you talk about stuff you shouldn't, you just can't resist the urge because... You want people to think you are something special, smarter, making more money, more organized and more AP clever than you actually are. You want other people to believe things you know are not true about yourself.

  12. #12
    What a sad pathetic group you AP’s appear to be. Imagine going through your live always living on the edge of that slippery slope between right and wrong or win or loose.

    Any person that need to work for people like Darkoz would have to be desperate, a drug or alcohol attic, a compulsive gambler, a empty headed BLM or Antifa member, or just one plain simple dumb asshole. Or at least dumb enough not being able to get a real job, or believe in the genie in the bottle.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    What a sad pathetic group you AP’s appear to be. Imagine going through your live always living on the edge of that slippery slope between right and wrong or win or loose.

    Any person that need to work for people like Darkoz would have to be desperate, a drug or alcohol attic, a compulsive gambler, a empty headed BLM or Antifa member, or just one plain simple dumb asshole. Or at least dumb enough not being able to get a real job, or believe in the genie in the bottle.
    Your retarded ass doesn't know the difference between lose/loose and attic/addict. lmao.

    Give me your address and I'll have a nice mirror sent your way. Hell I'll pitch in a dictionary too.
    Grandpa Newell is the GOAT

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Your retarded ass doesn't know the difference between lose/loose and attic/addict. lmao.

    Give me your address and I'll have a nice mirror sent your way. Hell I'll pitch in a dictionary too.
    At my age we are entitled to such obvious errors. Hell, I could get confused trying to remember where I was or what I did two weeks ago.

    The majority of my generation was one of the last hard-working bunch that believed in the American Dream and found it. When I graduated high school, I got a job, my own place and never looked back or counted on my mom or dad again for anything. In fact, I always made their lives way more comfortable especially making sure they enjoyed their senior years. You should be ashamed of yourself at your age still living in your parent’s basement, leaching off their hard work.

    Then you have the balls to come on here and trash me for spelling. Your stupid response here was nothing but an effort to convince people how clever and smart you must be. That’s what losers do. (I got that loser right) Any mature person realizes the spelling was a mistake and will just leave it be. After all this is a degenerate gambling forum, not some online college course. You’re not the first asshole to do this stupid nonsense here.

    You demonstrated the exact definition of a confirmed DUMD FUCKING CUNT.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    What a sad pathetic group you APís appear to be. Imagine going through your live always living on the edge of that slippery slope between right and wrong or win or loose.

    Any person that need to work for people like Darkoz would have to be desperate, a drug or alcohol attic, a compulsive gambler, a empty headed BLM or Antifa member, or just one plain simple dumb asshole. Or at least dumb enough not being able to get a real job, or believe in the genie in the bottle.
    It kind of depends on what you consider an employee. Is he counting people who he recruits to get cards as employees? Is he counting people recruit people to get cards for him as an employee? Is he counting people who do pickups for him as an employee?
    He better have solid people doing pickups for him or I can guarantee you there's going to be a leakage and major problems. If they're solid enough people, more likely than not they're either going to branch out on their own(like he did) or eventually move on to something else, unless they are getting a pretty big chunk or become somewhat of a partner. I have Hired people and the solid ones either want to become a partner get paid a significant amount, if not, eventually they move on to something else. There's going to be problems with some of the people who get you cards as well, some of those problems can get very serious real quick.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Your retarded ass doesn't know the difference between lose/loose and attic/addict. lmao.

    Give me your address and I'll have a nice mirror sent your way. Hell I'll pitch in a dictionary too.
    At my age we are entitled to such obvious errors. Hell, I could get confused trying to remember where I was or what I did two weeks ago.

    The majority of my generation was one of the last hard-working bunch that believed in the American Dream and found it. When I graduated high school, I got a job, my own place and never looked back or counted on my mom or dad again for anything. In fact, I always made their lives way more comfortable especially making sure they enjoyed their senior years. You should be ashamed of yourself at your age still living in your parentís basement, leaching off their hard work.

    Then you have the balls to come on here and trash me for spelling. Your stupid response here was nothing but an effort to convince people how clever and smart you must be. Thatís what losers do. (I got that loser right) Any mature person realizes the spelling was a mistake and will just leave it be. After all this is a degenerate gambling forum, not some online college course. Youíre not the first asshole to do this stupid nonsense here.

    You demonstrated the exact definition of a confirmed DUMD FUCKING CUNT.
    I love this "back when I was a kid, we worked hard". Thats why they got off the gold standard and started fractional reserves and all the other shit that takes money out of future tax-payers. Hell even when I went to college it was far far cheaper (not counting inflation) Entitlement beyond belief then endless projection otherwise. Fuck off with your nonsense. You can look at so many different statistics and realize how much better 50's - 70's had it.

    I'm not trying to make myself look smart, I'm pointing out you're a retard. You're the one who came through and attacked a whole group of people over the flimsiest reasons then someone says something and you say they're a loser for it ! lmao.

    I get the spelling was a mistake. (Drooling Shit for brains - how could it not be ?) but attic and addict etc is pretty fucking humorous.
    Grandpa Newell is the GOAT

  17. #17

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    What a sad pathetic group you APís appear to be. Imagine going through your live always living on the edge of that slippery slope between right and wrong or win or loose.

    Any person that need to work for people like Darkoz would have to be desperate, a drug or alcohol attic, a compulsive gambler, a empty headed BLM or Antifa member, or just one plain simple dumb asshole. Or at least dumb enough not being able to get a real job, or believe in the genie in the bottle.
    It kind of depends on what you consider an employee. Is he counting people who he recruits to get cards as employees? Is he counting people recruit people to get cards for him as an employee? Is he counting people who do pickups for him as an employee?
    He better have solid people doing pickups for him or I can guarantee you there's going to be a leakage and major problems. If they're solid enough people, more likely than not they're either going to branch out on their own(like he did) or eventually move on to something else, unless they are getting a pretty big chunk or become somewhat of a partner. I have Hired people and the solid ones either want to become a partner get paid a significant amount, if not, eventually they move on to something else. There's going to be problems with some of the people who get you cards as well, some of those problems can get very serious real quick.

    Iíve been busy and havenít posted much but did see this tonight. Not taking sides but there isnít many options when talking about legal ďemployeesĒ.

    Either they work for you, get a weekly paycheck based on an agreed upon wage and hours worked. Then you as the employer match their social security wages you withhold, and deduct their federal tax, state tax (if in a state that has one like NY & NJ) and local tax. You then pay the withholdings to the government weekly, monthly or quarterly based on the amount.

    The other option is employees you consider independent contractors. The legal ruling are narrow on these but many try to use it to avoid matching SS taxes on their employees. In this case you provide the individual with a 1099 at the end of the year that states their total earnings. You then file a copy with the IRS so that the employee or sub contractor cannot forget to report these earnings.

    These are the legal options for calling anyone an employee. Unless of course you are paying individuals cash in what many call ďunder the tableĒ. But I donít think many doing this would be dumb enough to admit it and call anyone they are paying cash employees.

    Matching 7.65% of someone wages toward their future retirement and collecting their other taxes owed isnít hard and is the right thing to do in my opinion. But everyone has their justification.
    Raise you hand if you actually believed KJ would quit WoV like he claimed. Bonus points for knowing how many times he has Quit the forums.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Darkoz View Post
    Starting new thread to discuss accountinquestion saying I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win.

    Firstly he claims I trick the casinos into believing I am making a wager I am not. Therefore not only do I not gamble but I commit a crime.

    It took me a moment to realize he is referring to my "card pulling"!

    To be clear I agree that tricking the casino into seeing wagers not made is criminal. Past posting for example, where you wait till the outcome is known then trick the casino into believing you made the wager.

    But card pulling is the polar opposite. I ACTUALLY MAKE A WAGER, then trick the casino into believing I didn't!

    But I am always making a wager!!!

    Is it illegal? Hell no. The casinos give the player the option of using a player card or not. How can choosing not to use a card be illegal especially when quite a few players do it?

    And there are no gambling regs I am aware of that state when a player must choose to insert or remove their players card.

    In fact making wagers but hiding wins is really more "rat-holing digitally" but stuffing chips into your pocket is certainly not illegal either (except perhaps roulette chips with intent to falsify value later).

    Or making a large initial wager, then playing lower amounts while slow playing a crowded table so that hourly risk guesses by the pit bosses are misconstrued.

    Which brings us back to definition of an advantage gambler. Accountinquestion surmises I am not a gambler because I know I am going to win, therefore there is no real gamble.

    Hmmm! Technically AP means Advantage PLAYING. Note we don't call ourselves AG (Advantage Gamblers). In one sense I am inclined to agree.

    Casinos don't gamble either. "The house always wins"? True because they have an advantage. Variance creates ups and downs but over time the casinos always win. That means they aren't gambling by any sense of the word.

    An advantage Player simply switches who has the advantage. A perfect card counter KNOWS he is going to win even in the downward slumps. Therefore even a card counter isn't gambling.

    So I will accept that I am not an advantage gambler. However only if one accepts that there is no such thing to begin with. There are negative expectation GAMBLERS and advantage PLAYERS!

    This was a really good answer. I am going to borrow some of the language, with DarkOz as referenced source.

    I am reminded of a famous bookmaker in Pennsylvania. He always argued that he was actually gambling, not bookmaking, because he took a position on every game and wasn't really concerned with balancing book on any given game. Of course, we argued with him that he had an edge and he wasn't gambling. His counter-argument was he had an edge only if he was right a certain percent of the time (47.6% not counting parlay bets, for example).

    He fought tooth and nail to define himself as a gambler, while I argued that he was actually an advantage player as a bookmaker. But because bookmaking is a game of opinion, he had a point. Unless he took opinion out of it and simply flipped a coin, in which case he was clearly an advantage player and not a gambler.

    As with most things, definitions are crucial and underappreciated.

    By the way, he recently served some time in the same location as Michael Douglas' son and got to meet Douglas and Zeta-Jones
    Whether a person is gambling with an advantage or not , or if you want to call it "playing with an advantage" is irrelevant to the issue of whether the person is gambling. The state of Nevada has a definition for gambling. Gambling involves the elements of chance, consideration and remuneration. That means uncertain outcome, money bet and a winner is paid.

    Redietz, what your bookie was doing fits the definition of gambling. That he is guaranteed to make money in the long run because of net edge and volume has no bearing on whether each individual bet meets the definition of gambling. If the result of each individual wager is uncertain then it is gambling.
    All you "wokes" beware. The first to the revolution are the second to the guillotine.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    What a sad pathetic group you APís appear to be. Imagine going through your live always living on the edge of that slippery slope between right and wrong or win or loose.

    Any person that need to work for people like Darkoz would have to be desperate, a drug or alcohol attic, a compulsive gambler, a empty headed BLM or Antifa member, or just one plain simple dumb asshole. Or at least dumb enough not being able to get a real job, or believe in the genie in the bottle.
    It kind of depends on what you consider an employee. Is he counting people who he recruits to get cards as employees? Is he counting people recruit people to get cards for him as an employee? Is he counting people who do pickups for him as an employee?
    He better have solid people doing pickups for him or I can guarantee you there's going to be a leakage and major problems. If they're solid enough people, more likely than not they're either going to branch out on their own(like he did) or eventually move on to something else, unless they are getting a pretty big chunk or become somewhat of a partner. I have Hired people and the solid ones either want to become a partner get paid a significant amount, if not, eventually they move on to something else. There's going to be problems with some of the people who get you cards as well, some of those problems can get very serious real quick.

    Iíve been busy and havenít posted much but did see this tonight. Not taking sides but there isnít many options when talking about legal ďemployeesĒ.

    Either they work for you, get a weekly paycheck based on an agreed upon wage and hours worked. Then you as the employer match their social security wages you withhold, and deduct their federal tax, state tax (if in a state that has one like NY & NJ) and local tax. You then pay the withholdings to the government weekly, monthly or quarterly based on the amount.

    The other option is employees you consider independent contractors. The legal ruling are narrow on these but many try to use it to avoid matching SS taxes on their employees. In this case you provide the individual with a 1099 at the end of the year that states their total earnings. You then file a copy with the IRS so that the employee or sub contractor cannot forget to report these earnings.

    These are the legal options for calling anyone an employee. Unless of course you are paying individuals cash in what many call ďunder the tableĒ. But I donít think many doing this would be dumb enough to admit it and call anyone they are paying cash employees.

    Matching 7.65% of someone wages toward their future retirement and collecting their other taxes owed isnít hard and is the right thing to do in my opinion. But everyone has their justification.
    Given they're going to be handing Darkoz money and such, it is fairly hard to make them into employees. Not sure how that'd work. Contractors seems far more appropriate since the payment depends on what they win and such.

    So basically you guys are pissed because someone not calling his cohorts "under the tablers". The fact is employees has a legal definition and a broader definition. How do we refer to employees in other countries that do not fall under US laws? They're employees! Give me a break with the moralizing.
    Grandpa Newell is the GOAT

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New game with potential advantage.
    By The Boz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-11-2020, 03:47 PM
  2. What is your advantage play? All the details.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 04:23 PM
  3. Your definition of a VP addict
    By spojoey in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 09:57 AM
  4. Definition of Full Pay
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-25-2014, 10:15 AM
  5. Is this the "advatnage players definition of winning"??
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 06-03-2012, 10:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •