Will they adjust pay tables in 2026?

[smurgerburger]

Why can't 90% of your losses be more than your W2G total?

Isn't that typically the case for most players?

If what he were saying were true it would be great for most forms of AP, because outside of VP grinding and very high limit slot hustling w2gs are a small percentage of your income, and according to slap you have no tax obligation for non-w2g income because the IRS doesn't "know" about it.

It is true. This is why many "professionals" are talking about doing very little gambling this year or retiring from it all together...

If you are playing table games like blackjack or poker... you basically report your net win for the year, otherwise you could never deposit into a bank account / get a mortgage / autoloan etc...

The main issue is with taxable wins like W2G's ($2000 or greater slot win / $5000 or greater poker tournament score / sports betting wins however those are reported). You can only write off 90% of those taxable wins, regardless of your total net loss or win for the year....

it is terrible...

So you are conceeding that taxable income from gambling is not limited to w2g amounts? Then why would offsetable losses be so limited?

[coach belly]

You can only write off 90% of those taxable wins, regardless of your total net loss or win for the year

I'm not at all familiar with the concept of writing off income, my understanding is that expenses are what is written-off.

Writing something off on your taxes is an informal term for claiming an expense as a tax deduction. This reduces your taxable income, thereby lowering the amount of tax you owe. The core idea is that certain costs you incur in generating income are subtracted from your total earnings before your final tax liability is calculated.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

If what he were saying were true it would be great for most forms of AP, because outside of VP grinding and very high limit slot hustling w2gs are a small percentage of your income, and according to slap you have no tax obligation for non-w2g income because the IRS doesn't "know" about it.

It is true. This is why many "professionals" are talking about doing very little gambling this year or retiring from it all together...

If you are playing table games like blackjack or poker... you basically report your net win for the year, otherwise you could never deposit into a bank account / get a mortgage / autoloan etc...

The main issue is with taxable wins like W2G's ($2000 or greater slot win / $5000 or greater poker tournament score / sports betting wins however those are reported). You can only write off 90% of those taxable wins, regardless of your total net loss or win for the year....

it is terrible...

So you are conceeding that taxable income from gambling is not limited to w2g amounts? Then why would offsetable losses be so limited?

Of course you can have other gambling incoming that is not on a W2G. If you want to report that, that is all you...

W2G are reported no matter what...

if you want to report non reportable play be my guest...

[DGenBen]

When a W2G is reported, that shows as "INCOME"... however, as gamblers, we know that we make other bets before making that "win or W2G Income"... Now, you can only write off 90% of that "win" regardless of how much it actually cost you to hit that...

Why can't 90% of your losses be more than your W2G total?

Isn't that typically the case for most players?

In the gambling world, at least from the 25 years I've been filing taxes, you can't write off more than you have lost.

Heres the crux of all the confusion right here.

Yes you can’t write off more losses than what you won.

So do you apply 90% to your losses before you cap your losses at your winnings or after you cap your losses at your winnings?

Actually the IRS has not issued official guidance on this yet due to staffing shortages so technically it could go either way.

But tax experts agree unanimously, as far as I can tell, that you apply the 90% cap to your actual losses first, then you can write off this amount up to your winnings.

So in other words, the change will have no effect on most gamblers.

[coach belly]

if you want to report non reportable play be my guest...

Sounds like a back-handed attempt at being consistent.

You suggested earlier that the alternative would not offer optimal life opportunities....

If you are playing table games like blackjack or poker... you basically report your net win for the year, otherwise you could never deposit into a bank account / get a mortgage / autoloan etc...

[smurgerburger]

It is true. This is why many "professionals" are talking about doing very little gambling this year or retiring from it all together...

If you are playing table games like blackjack or poker... you basically report your net win for the year, otherwise you could never deposit into a bank account / get a mortgage / autoloan etc...

The main issue is with taxable wins like W2G's ($2000 or greater slot win / $5000 or greater poker tournament score / sports betting wins however those are reported). You can only write off 90% of those taxable wins, regardless of your total net loss or win for the year....

it is terrible...

So you are conceeding that taxable income from gambling is not limited to w2g amounts? Then why would offsetable losses be so limited?

Of course you can have other gambling incoming that is not on a W2G. If you want to report that, that is all you...

W2G are reported no matter what...

if you want to report non reportable play be my guest...

So if someone is a card counter and makes $200k a year with zero w2gs, in your view their income is "unreportable' and there is no practical reason why they would report any income at all?

[smurgerburger]

I think the issue here is that recreational gamblers follow the strategy of declaring their w2g total as wins and then declaring an equal amount of losses, to ensure that they have no gambling tax burden (which they typically wouldn't have even if they reported more accurately because usually they have a losing year).

From the point of view of such a player there is no reason to declare losses beyond w2g totals, because you're just going to zero it out regardless.

What slap doesn't appreciate, I think, is that many APs have net gambling incomes far in excess of their w2gs, so if they followed slaps method they would be commiting a possibly very risky tax evasion. They will need to declare both wins and losses higher than their w2g amounts, even if they're not being scrupulously accurate.

And even if they're more toward the VP grinder end of the spectrum and have net income far below their w2g amounts, they still need to declare something roughly consistent with their lifestyle if they are being prudent (and therefore not just zeroing out their w2g total as slap would do).

[DGenBen]

I think the issue here is that recreational gamblers follow the strategy of declaring their w2g total as wins and then declaring an equal amount of losses, to ensure that they have no gambling tax burden (which they typically wouldn't have even if they reported more accurately because usually they have a losing year).

From the point of view of such a player there is no reason to declare losses beyond w2g totals, because you're just going to zero it out regardless.

What slap doesn't appreciate, I think, is that many APs have net gambling incomes far in excess of their w2gs, so if they followed slaps method they would be commiting a possibly very risky tax evasion. They will need to declare both wins and losses higher than their w2g amounts, even if they're not being scrupulously accurate.

And even if they're more toward the VP grinder end of the spectrum and have net income far below their w2g amounts, they still need to declare something roughly consistent with their lifestyle if they are being prudent (and therefore not just zeroing out their w2g total as slap would do).

Bingo

[coach belly]

But tax experts agree unanimously, as far as I can tell, that you apply the 90% cap to your actual losses first, then you can write off this amount up to your winnings.

The filing instructions for the lines on Schedule C will ultimately prevail,
but here is what AI says...

For the 2026 tax year and beyond: Under the One Big Beautiful Bipartisan Act (OBBBA), loss deductions are limited to 90% of winnings. This means even if you break even or have a net loss overall, you will still have to report the remaining 10% of your winnings as taxable "phantom income".

[DGenBen]

But tax experts agree unanimously, as far as I can tell, that you apply the 90% cap to your actual losses first, then you can write off this amount up to your winnings.

The filing instructions for the lines on Schedule C will ultimately prevail,
but here is what AI says...

For the 2026 tax year and beyond: Under the One Big Beautiful Bipartisan Act (OBBBA), loss deductions are limited to 90% of winnings. This means even if you break even or have a net loss overall, you will still have to report the remaining 10% of your winnings as taxable "phantom income".

Yes I’ve seen that language from AI too but depending which AI you use & how you ask the question you can also get the answer that you apply 90% to your losses first & then that amount can only be written off up to your winnings.

[MisterV]

So...clarification is required.

[kewlJ]

KJ hangs the welcome sign:

Welcome "home" to card counting and other table game advantage play, boys!

[DGenBen]

So...clarification is required.

Yes. No one will know with 100% certainty until either the IRS issues guidance, or the 2026 tax season is over & the IRS starts either accepting or rejecting returns.

In the meantime personally I will go with what all the tax experts say & assume the 90% haircut is on all actual losses and then that amount is capped by the amount of total winnings.

Others obviously can interpret it any way they want.

[kewlJ]

While running some errands this morning, I was thinking about this new tax 'penalty'. I am expecting pushback from the casino industry and their lobby. But so far it has been almost non-existant. There is pushback from analysts and such in the industry speculating some negatives, and from lawmakers representing Las Vegas and Nevada, but really not much from the industry itself. You would think they would be up in arms.

So I was thinking what if the actual casino industry is on board with this bill? Maybe they think it as a way to fight back against advantage players? In the last 10 years or so there has been an explosion of machine type advantage play. You went from poker advantage play which has been around far long than 10 years, to different advantage play with all the newer type machines. There was the multi-carding period, to now the slot AP that mickey and others are doing is very big,

The industry has been slow to come up with ways to combat some of these advantage play methods and about the time they figure something out some new AP thing pops up. Maybe this new law which they are secretly or silently on board with is their way to combat the whole growing machine advantage play problem they have faced for a decade or more.

I mean we know these game protection groups and consultants feed the casinos and industry over-inflated numbers about how much advantage play is hurting their bottom line.

Personally, I think it would be a stupid move because it is going to hurt them far more driving down, just your regular gamblers. Kind of a cut off your nose to spite your face scenario. Would it surprise me if the industry made a bad decision like that? absolutely not. Anyway, just trying to figure why we haven't seen much push back from the actual casinos and casino industry. THAT is the part that doesn't make sense. (Bad) ulterior motive?

[DGenBen]

While running some errands this morning, I was thinking about this new tax 'penalty'. I am expecting pushback from the casino industry and their lobby. But so far it has been almost non-existant. There is pushback from analysts and such in the industry speculating some negatives, and from lawmakers representing Las Vegas and Nevada, but really not much from the industry itself. You would think they would be up in arms.

So I was thinking what if the actual casino industry is on board with this bill? Maybe they think it as a way to fight back against advantage players? In the last 10 years or so there has been an explosion of machine type advantage play. You went from poker advantage play which has been around far long than 10 years, to different advantage play with all the newer type machines. There was the multi-carding period, to now the slot AP that mickey and others are doing is very big,

The industry has been slow to come up with ways to combat some of these advantage play methods and about the time they figure something out some new AP thing pops up. Maybe this new law which they are secretly or silently on board with is their way to combat the whole growing machine advantage play problem they have faced for a decade or more.

Personally, I think it would be a stupid move because it is going to hurt them far more driving down, just your regular gamblers. Kind of a cut off your nose to spite your face scenario. Would it surprise me if the industry made a bad decision like that? absolutely not. Anyway, just trying to figure why we haven't seen much push back from the actual casinos and casino industry. THAT is the part that doesn't make sense. (Bad) ulterior motive?

I mean we know these game protection groups and consultants feed the casinos and industry over-inflated numbers about how much advantage play is hurting their bottom line.

Other people have this thought but it is doubtful.

As you mentioned it would have much more impact on high roller degen types who get a lot of W2Gs and are very profitable for the casinos than it would on advantage players.

It’s more likely the industry missed it because they were asleep at the switch.

[kewlJ]

It’s more likely the industry missed it because they were asleep at the switch.

See, THIS is actually the part I find hard to believe. Makes more sense to me that these gaming protection consultants and groups, in their own self- interest convinced the industry this isn't such a bad idea. That it would end all the advantage play.

I guess some of that is just me thinking not very highly of the industry and decision they make or have made over the last 20-25 years, and those making the decisions, which is about the time it has been since real casino people ran things. So many decisions over the last 20 years just have not been very sound decisions.

And just to be clear, I am not suggesting the industry was behind this bill. It is clearly the Mormons who are. But maybe the industry was erroneously convinced that this isn't such a bad thing.

[kewlJ]

The big beautiful bill passed in early July. And almost immediately people realized or it came to light that this 90% provision had been snuck in. By late July there were several different proposals and bills introduced to fix it, as everyone seemed to know that a fix needed to be made by the end of 2025. And then all just stalled and have gone nowhere. It just almost feels like after the initial uproar, that somebody (casino industry) said "hey maybe this isn't such a bad thing" and put the brakes on.

Just seems like the casino industry and it lobby are big and powerful enough that they could have gotten this "fixed" by now if they really wanted to.

I really believe they might think this the solution to the advantage player problem while at the same time, pretending to be sympathetig to regular gamblers, who they believe in the end will still gamble same as always, so won't affect anything.

[Rob.Singer]

Kew, you're looking at the issue just like you look at everything else: you don't understand what's going on, you never will, so you make ignorant comments about it.

NO ONE who gambles regularly or files as a professional gambler should be affected by this bill. If a competent gambler can't figure out a way around this 90% baloney they should visit churches instead of casinos. As a recreational gambler who knows how to use his head, I've already figured a workable loophole. And I'm expecting another several hundred thousand in W2G’s this year.

And kew--stick to making up nonsense about yourself.

[kewlJ]

Kew, you're looking at the issue just like you look at everything else: you don't understand what's going on, you never will, so you make ignorant comments about it.

NO ONE who gambles regularly or files as a professional gambler should be affected by this bill. If a competent gambler can't figure out a way around this 90% baloney they should visit churches instead of casinos. As a recreational gambler who knows how to use his head, I've already figured a workable loophole. And I'm expecting another several hundred thousand in W2G’s this year.

And kew--stick to making up nonsense about yourself.

Oh, hush Rob Singer. No one cares about your nonsense anymore. As soon as you say anything like "I'm expecting another several hundred thousand in W2G’s this year", you have crossed over from reality to your fantasy world. You are an OLD has-been of a degenerate gambler who now spends his retirement burdening his kids. Nothing more, you old fool.

[MisterV]

I find it, oh I don't know, the word "ironic " comes to mind, that the Mormons are behind this bill, given the fact that it was Mormon money that backed the bent noses to build casinos in sin city when nobody else would loan them money.

The so-called "morally pure" Mormons also had no qualms about working with the crooked Teamsters Pension Fund to help funnel money to build casinos.

Google "E. Parry Thomas" if you are unfamiliar with this.