Will they adjust pay tables in 2026?

[kewlJ]

Dawg, I gave you exactly what you wanted. A chance to continue telling your ridiculous story without me, a real player, pointing out all the absurdities. I gave you the free "stage". And you are so obsessed with me, you couldn't do it. You couldn't resist talking about me, what I do and how I play.

[MDawg]

That you are your own worst enemy has rarely been more clear.

[MisterV]

Come on MrV. This isn't a court of law. I don't need a ruling as to which would or wouldn't stand in a court of law. On this forum, I am basically the only BJ player that describes his play in terms of amounts, betting levels, exiting the table without coloring up ect. And Mdawg worked all that into his post, very thinly veiled about me.

Dan said: "I have grown tired of MDawg spamming every thread with old quotes about kewlJ every time he sees kewlJ posting in a thread.

It clutters the thread and turns it into an endless fight between the two of them.

I am now disallowing this on the forum. I'm sick of seeing it.

If MDawg has a relevant criticism of kewlJ, and he needs to quote an old post, he can do so and explain why he's quoting the post. But this should be occasional at most, and if I see the spam continuing, I'm just going to ban MDawg."

The post you object to, which you think targets you, is an appropriate post for this thread; not only did he not mention you, but it actually is of value.

It may be that the behavior he describes mimics your own: if so, as they say, "If the shoe fits, wear it."

I don't see that he broke "the truce" or violated Dan's mandate.

[kewlJ]

I don't see that he broke "the truce" or violated Dan's mandate.

I didn't say a word about breaking Dan's "mandate". he did not do that in this post. But we will have to agree to disagree about him breaking the truce agreed to. Particularly the no thinly veiled remarks, which this was.

Doesn't matter, I will still be honoring my agreement. I have no more I need to say about him and his "story" that hasn't been said.

[MDawg]

I’ve tested the limits of what the cage will cash without identifying myself. I’ve also sent friends in to cash chips for me.

When I do it it’s because most casinos will temp shut down (anywhere from 48 hours to a full week) a credit line if you cash too many chips. The reason being that they don’t want you to “walk” with too much funds they want you to keep it in action so that it may more easily be lost. And if they see too many winning chips cashed they temp close the line and ask that you play for a while with just your winnings.

In the process of cashing as much as I can under the radar, I’ve learned what may be tolerated.

[Rob.Singer]

Kew always wonders why it's so easy to spot him lying. Here's yet another reason from right here in this thread.

He claims to have had an audit. Then he makes his usual mistake almost immediately. He claims that "professional gamblers keep a wad in their safe" so Singer is making up his withdrawal and deposits every week claim, and that it would automatically trigger an audit.Typical fabrication from an uneducated & phony "professional gambler".

Those withdrawal and re-deposits along with complete records of having done them, and the fact that they exactly matched the entries on my contemporaneous gambling log, impressed the hell out of, as previously mentioned, the 2 auditors and 2 assistants or trainees or whatever they were (and not a "roomful of auditors" as kew made up). And I read this straight from the IRS manual my son-in-law loaned me when I became a professional.

Kew made his BS up about this because that's the way HE wants it to have been--just like every claim he makes up about those who have him pegged. And if he REALLY played as much vp with his dead fat-ass "partner" as he wants everyone to believe prior to being evicted from sugar daddy's house, he'd have known this stuff from his so-called audit that he never had because he's never had the money to play with.

He should've read up on that half as much as he reads up and dreams about playing mid-high level bj.

[Rob.Singer]

There is no need to comment further when UNKewlJ makes the point himself.

Honestly though, how do you even function? as in anywhere. Walking around with the weight of the world heaped on use narrow shoulders must be quite a chore.

Now this is funny! The more kew posts the more lies he spins, the more tales he tells, the more he puts his foot in his mouth, the more trouble he gets in (because as we know, this stuff CONTROLS kew's bitter and worthless life) and the more he gets laughed at!

We want MORE!!

[kewlJ]

Those withdrawal and re-deposits along with complete records of having done them, and the fact that they exactly matched the entries on my contemporaneous gambling log, impressed the hell out of....

What a doofus you are, old man. Lots of unnecessary withdrawals and deposit will trigger SARs because to bank people it looks like the exact same behavior as drug dealers and others laundering money. Now you are correct that SARs and the deposits/withdrawals are easily explainable with matching gambling records. BUT here is the part where your idiocy comes in. Is it better to have all these SARs, get drug in for an audit and be able to explain them? Or is it better to not make those unnecessary deposits and withdrawals and avoid the whole situation? Gee, I wonder?

Let me ask you this: With all the money you have won with the DU bug, progressive betting systems and phony jackpots, why can't your daughter afford to pay for elder care to babysit you? Why does she just lock you in your room with the WIFI password instead?

[mickeycrimm]

AI Overview
The IRS requires gamblers who want to deduct their losses to keep a
contemporaneous gambling log or diary, which is a detailed, day-by-day record of all gambling activity. There is no official "IRS log book" form, but the documentation must contain specific information to be accepted during an audit.
Required Information for Your Gambling Log
According to the IRS, an accurate diary or similar record should include at least the following information for each gambling session:

The date and type of your specific wager or wagering activity (e.g., slot machines, poker, sports betting).
The name and address or location of the gambling establishment.
The names of other persons present with you at the gambling establishment (this helps establish credibility in case of an audit).
The amount(s) you won or lost during that session

Additional Documentation
In addition to the log, you should retain supporting documentation for your winnings and losses:

Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings, issued by the casino or other payer.
Form 5754, Statement by Person(s) Receiving Gambling Winnings (if applicable).
Receipts, tickets, and payment slips from the sports book or casino.
Bank records and withdrawal slips.
Player's card printouts from casinos that track your activity (though these may not always be sufficient on their own).

Key Considerations

Contemporaneous is critical: The log must be maintained as the gambling occurs, not created later from memory or bank statements. A log constructed after the fact holds little weight in court.

Losses only offset winnings: You can only deduct your total losses up to the amount of your total winnings, and only if you itemize your deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040). You must report all winnings as income, even if you have a net loss for the year.

Session-based tracking: The IRS generally allows for netting wins and losses within a single, continuous "session" of play. A session begins when you place your first wager on a specific type of game and ends when you make your last wager on that same game before the end of the day or changing locations/games.

[mickeycrimm]

AI Overview

Reporting on Your Tax Return
The session method is crucial for accurate reporting because:

You must report the full amount of your gross winnings as income on Form 1040, Schedule 1.
You can only deduct losses if you itemize deductions on Schedule A, and your losses cannot exceed your winnings.

By using the session method, you only report the net gain from winning sessions as your gross winnings, and then list the net losses from losing sessions as an itemized deduction up to the amount of those reported winnings. This generally results in less taxable income than recording every single winning wager individually without netting within a session.
For further details, you can consult IRS Publication 529, Miscellaneous Deductions or IRS Topic No. 419, Gambling Income and Losses.

________________________________

1) You report gross winnings as income. That would be the total of winning sessions.

2)Losing sessions have to be itemized and listed on a separate line. Only then can you subtract losses from winnings.

This means that in the logbook you have to keep separate columns for winning sessions and losing sessions. At the end of the year one adds up the winnings sessions and lists it as income. Then add up the losing sessions and list them as losses on a different line of the tax form.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

Of importance:
The issue always boils down to IF you are being audited, how competent and up-to-date are the IRS auditors handling your case? In my two audits as a professional gambler (not current; 2000-2009) I had to lead them by the hand--without letting them know I had read every IRS gambling income statute that my son-in-law (an IRS senior auditor) provided me prior to filing. And the fact that I treated everyone in the room with respect [and there were a couple very frustrating/very dense ones (as I was told to expect) in the group] I believe played an equal part in a successful conclusion to each audit.

My goal was not to get to a Tax Court. That's where all of these precedents, opinions, and sometimes contradicting/complex previous decisions arise. I controlled the audit room. That power disappears in a courtroom.

I don't agree... If you get a W2G, you can only write off 90% of its amount. So if you have $100,000 in W2G, and you say you have a $100,000 loss (which is perfectly reasonable, you will still have $10,000 of gambling "income" you need to pay taxes on now...

2025 and before, that was not the case... Now you pay in your "losses"...

[mickeycrimm]

So here's a math problem that we are going to apply to tax year 2025, take a look at the numbers, then apply it to 2026 and take a look at the numbers. For this problem we are excluding all variables like cashback/comp, fudging numbers, other income, theory, etc. We are just taking a look at real world numbers of a video poker play:

1)Joe Gambler played exclusively at Brand X Casino.

2) He bet exactly $25 per hand video poker.

3) He played exactly 2000 hands per session.

4) He played exactly 100 sessions in the year.

5)After every session he dutifully made an entry in his logbook. If it was a winning session he listed it in Column A, Winning Sessions. If it was a losing session he listed it in Column B, Losing Sessions.

6) At the end of the year he added up the total of his winning sessions and the total of his losing sessions.

7)He booked exactly a $100,00 win for the year.
____________________________________________

From the above scenario is there anything we can deduce? Yep.

2000 hands per session times 100 sessions means he played exactly 200,000 hands in the year.

He played $25 per hand which means he ran exactly a $5,000,000 wager for the year.

Since he booked a 100K win for the year his winning sessions had to total to $2,550,000 and his losing sessions had to total to $2,450,000. These two numbers add up to the $5,000,000 wager.

If Joe played in 2025 or prior years he would owe tax on $100,000

But if Joe had this exact same result, under the new tax law, in 2026 what would the numbers look like?

Joe would have to deduct 10% off his losing sessions total. So $2,450,000 in losses become $2,205,000 in losses.

Subtacting $2,205,000 from the total of his winning $2,550,000 means Joe has to pay tax on $345,000. And this would also throw him into a higher tax bracket.

Joe book a 100K win. The tax burden would eat up all of that win. If he only made 50K he's in a world of hurt.

But the Bonaparte and Bright tax court decisions are throwing a wrench into the IRS's session method of gambling tax reporting which I will get to in a later post.

[mickeycrimm]

I don't agree... If you get a W2G, you can only write off 90% of its amount. So if you have $100,000 in W2G, and you say you have a $100,000 loss (which is perfectly reasonable, you will still have $10,000 of gambling "income" you need to pay taxes on now...

2025 and before, that was not the case... Now you pay in your "losses"...[/QUOTE]

No Certified Public Accountant in the United States does it the way you say. You write off losses against your net win. The session method is what the IRS wants. Google it. And another thing. You aren't going to be able to write off anything against that W2G unless you keep a logbook of your winning and losing sessions. The IRS will make you pay tax on the entire 100K if they audit you and you don't have a logbook.

[mickeycrimm]

One of pro gamblers' banes for decades has been the IRS heavy handedly not allowing the lumping of winning and losing sessions together. No sessions longer than one day. In Joe's case above, he made 100K for the year. But on his tax form he has to pencil in the total of his winning sessions, $2,550,000, as gross income on line 11A of 1040. The total of losing sessions is listed below the line and it's subtracted from Line 11A. But they are two separate entries. That's crazy.

But if you listened to GWAE's latest podcast with Gary Kondler, CPA, he is using the Bonaparte and Bright tax court decisions too vastly simplify gambling tax reporting.

Per Bonaparte and Bright, Kondler is using a full year as a session per casino. So our friend, Joe Gambler, the video poker player, who plays exclusively at Brand X casino would not have to list $2,550,000 as his gross income on the tax form. He would simply list what he won for the year in that casino, $100,000. Dancer unretired after Kondler explained this to him.

But what if Joe played in two casinos? Well, first thing is he would have to keep separate logbooks for each casino. But that casino would be a year long session too. And he won't get around the 90% losses rule. If he loses 50K in the 2nd casino he could write off only 45K of it.

The Bonaparte judge allowed allowed a gambler to do this with 14 casinos he played in that year.

The big question is what the IRS is going to do? A precedent has been set. Will they fight all this? I guess we will see.

[DGenBen]

It’s like talking to a brick wall,

You can explain every logical & legal reason why the IRS goes by sessions & total gambling wins vs. losses & he’ll still come back and say “But if you get a W2G you can only write off 90% of it”

Like trying convince a flat earther the world is round,

[Rob.Singer]

So here's a math problem that we are going to apply to tax year 2025, take a look at the numbers, then apply it to 2026 and take a look at the numbers. For this problem we are excluding all variables like cashback/comp, fudging numbers, other income, theory, etc. We are just taking a look at real world numbers of a video poker play:

1)Joe Gambler played exclusively at Brand X Casino.

2) He bet exactly $25 per hand video poker.

3) He played exactly 2000 hands per session.

4) He played exactly 100 sessions in the year.

5)After every session he dutifully made an entry in his logbook. If it was a winning session he listed it in Column A, Winning Sessions. If it was a losing session he listed it in Column B, Losing Sessions.

6) At the end of the year he added up the total of his winning sessions and the total of his losing sessions.

7)He booked exactly a $100,00 win for the year.
____________________________________________

From the above scenario is there anything we can deduce? Yep.

2000 hands per session times 100 sessions means he played exactly 200,000 hands in the year.

He played $25 per hand which means he ran exactly a $5,000,000 wager for the year.

Since he booked a 100K win for the year his winning sessions had to total to $2,550,000 and his losing sessions had to total to $2,450,000. These two numbers add up to the $5,000,000 wager.

If Joe played in 2025 or prior years he would owe tax on $100,000

But if Joe had this exact same result, under the new tax law, in 2026 what would the numbers look like?

Joe would have to deduct 10% off his losing sessions total. So $2,450,000 in losses become $2,205,000 in losses.

Subtacting $2,205,000 from the total of his winning $2,550,000 means Joe has to pay tax on $345,000. And this would also throw him into a higher tax bracket.

Joe book a 100K win. The tax burden would eat up all of that win. If he only made 50K he's in a world of hurt.

But the Bonaparte and Bright tax court decisions are throwing a wrench into the IRS's session method of gambling tax reporting which I will get to in a later post.

This post is the clearest, no-nonsense example yet of what gamblers are set to face, including what might also happen.

[Rob.Singer]

Of importance:
The issue always boils down to IF you are being audited, how competent and up-to-date are the IRS auditors handling your case? In my two audits as a professional gambler (not current; 2000-2009) I had to lead them by the hand--without letting them know I had read every IRS gambling income statute that my son-in-law (an IRS senior auditor) provided me prior to filing. And the fact that I treated everyone in the room with respect [and there were a couple very frustrating/very dense ones (as I was told to expect) in the group] I believe played an equal part in a successful conclusion to each audit.

My goal was not to get to a Tax Court. That's where all of these precedents, opinions, and sometimes contradicting/complex previous decisions arise. I controlled the audit room. That power disappears in a courtroom.

I don't agree... If you get a W2G, you can only write off 90% of its amount. So if you have $100,000 in W2G, and you say you have a $100,000 loss (which is perfectly reasonable, you will still have $10,000 of gambling "income" you need to pay taxes on now...

2025 and before, that was not the case... Now you pay in your "losses"...

I'm not disagreeing with that. But Tax Court cases sometimes affect audits.

[Rob.Singer]

Those withdrawal and re-deposits along with complete records of having done them, and the fact that they exactly matched the entries on my contemporaneous gambling log, impressed the hell out of....

What a doofus you are, old man. Lots of unnecessary withdrawals and deposit will trigger SARs because to bank people it looks like the exact same behavior as drug dealers and others laundering money. Now you are correct that SARs and the deposits/withdrawals are easily explainable with matching gambling records. BUT here is the part where your idiocy comes in. Is it better to have all these SARs, get drug in for an audit and be able to explain them? Or is it better to not make those unnecessary deposits and withdrawals and avoid the whole situation? Gee, I wonder?

Let me ask you this: With all the money you have won with the DU bug, progressive betting systems and phony jackpots, why can't your daughter afford to pay for elder care to babysit you? Why does she just lock you in your room with the WIFI password instead?

All you're doing is putting on your display of inexperience and ignorance for those you can't stand being laughed at by. All the SAR's I've completed were simply part of the process. If you're involved in anything nefarious then its just business as usual. You may have been able to understand that if you weren't a dropout.

Are you sure you didn't get aids from fatty? It doesn't only affect the body.....

[Rob.Singer]

In related news: I just saw where that cowardly, clown-like lying fool of a governor Tim Walz, is expected to escape his campaign for another term today, because he covered up the Somali fraud in order to keep them voting for corrupt democrats.

This idiot is as much a phony and liar in life as kew is in his fantasy life online here. Without a doubt, these are the two worst Americans ever to walk our streets. And one chose to be a queer.....

[Rob.Singer]

"NOT involved"

Kew will focus on that