Q: Why does the definition of a "session" matter for tax purposes??

[jively]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If some of the tables were NL50 and others NL100, you can still combine them.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. These games are not the same stake. That's why almost all posts in this forum regarding tax advice are completely worthless. Even the "experts" commonly contradict each other on very fundamental issues in this debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with the expert in my previous link?

[ QUOTE ]
[...]let’s look at a useful analogy – a blackjack player. Our hypothetical player enters a casino, buys $1000 in chips, and starts playing at Table BJ-7 betting $5 per hand. After an hour he has lost $100. He decides he doesn’t like the dealer, moves to Table BJ-8 and now bets $10 per hand. After an hour he has won $500 at this table. He cashes out at the cashier’s cage with a net win of $400. In my view, the blackjack player has played one continuous session for two hours at two different tables. If he were to come back later that day and play more blackjack he would be starting a new session.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is considered one session, how about his example B of the player who plays $3/6 Omaha/8 and moves to $6/12 Omaha/8 when his seat opens up?

-Tom