Will they adjust pay tables in 2026?

[kewlJ]

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.

[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.

[Rob.Singer]

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.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

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.

[DGenBen]

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.

[Don Perignom]

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.

[Rob.Singer]

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!

[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. 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.

[kewlJ]

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.

[smurgerburger]

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. 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.

[kewlJ]

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?

[MDawg]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

[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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

[smurgerburger]

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.)