|
|
#72
01-21-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
9,
Incorporating as a poker player typically avoids zero tax burden. There may be a small handful of additional deductions to be taken, but that's about it, and the person can quite likely end up having to pay MORE taxes based on certain double taxation scenarios one can get into. 
|
|
#73
01-21-2007, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
fsu and others,
Between guys like HEK posting about what sort of stuff are auto-triggers to gov't computers as well as recent events w/ Neteller which will likely lead to more direct cooperation w/ US govt, I'd highly advise any online poker players to quickly get paid up on all their taxes.
|
|
#74
01-21-2007, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
Durrrr is back at 100-200 NLHE on Full Tilt.
|
|
#75
01-21-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
[ QUOTE ]
9, Incorporating as a poker player typically avoids zero tax burden. There may be a small handful of additional deductions to be taken, but that's about it, and the person can quite likely end up having to pay MORE taxes based on certain double taxation scenarios one can get into. [/ QUOTE ] Generally yes, but if he incorporates and he ends up having a losing year, he can get some of those taxes he paid last year back and/or possibly carry some of the losses forward. I'm not sure how this would work on a quarterly basis though.
|
|
#76
01-21-2007, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
b,
Zero applicability on a quarterly basis. You are correct, however, that there may be some carryover benefits in the case of having a losing year. My error there, I had simply not even considered the possibility of an entire losing year for an online poker pro.
|
|
#77
01-21-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
[ QUOTE ]
actually, his arguements are nearly always better than whoever else is debating him, he just has the habit of supporting it with little tidbits and facts that make people upset. ie the brandi situation, he was certainly right, but could have used different examples and similies that would have been in 'better taste', while still getting his point across. [/ QUOTE ] Go dig through the ZJ thread and find where he pretty much wants to lynch curtains and shaniac for not running straight to the police when ZJ mentioned the possibility of multi-accounting to them. I agree he has good points sometimes, but that was way over the top.
|
|
#78
01-21-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 9, Incorporating as a poker player typically avoids zero tax burden. There may be a small handful of additional deductions to be taken, but that's about it, and the person can quite likely end up having to pay MORE taxes based on certain double taxation scenarios one can get into. [/ QUOTE ] Generally yes, but if he incorporates and he ends up having a losing year, he can get some of those taxes he paid last year back and/or possibly carry some of the losses forward. I'm not sure how this would work on a quarterly basis though. [/ QUOTE ] He just needs to be declaring as a pro to do this, he does not need to be incorporated.
|
|
#79
01-21-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 9, Incorporating as a poker player typically avoids zero tax burden. There may be a small handful of additional deductions to be taken, but that's about it, and the person can quite likely end up having to pay MORE taxes based on certain double taxation scenarios one can get into. [/ QUOTE ] Generally yes, but if he incorporates and he ends up having a losing year, he can get some of those taxes he paid last year back and/or possibly carry some of the losses forward. I'm not sure how this would work on a quarterly basis though. [/ QUOTE ] Pretty sure a pro poker player can write off losses from a losing year if he wins 2 of 3. Also, FSU, pretty sure that Durrr has tax $$$ put away as earned, so the loss shouldn;t really mean all that much in that respect. I know that's how I do it, ( via quarterly payments, in my case)
|
|
#80
01-21-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Durrrr playing 10-20nl
[ QUOTE ]
fsu he was 100% wrong in the big NVG thread discussing Durr's PLO strategy in a HU hand - despite being called out on it many times he has failed to admit he was totally wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Dean, You really are a tool with your continued assertions of that. I said I was done discussing that issue, so I am not going to revisit the substance of same. But let's clarify the issue. Various posters "called me out" on that, i.e. disagreed with my arguments, but NOT ONE offered a proof of same. NOT ONE. Now if you think you can do so, then go ahead, although we would have to agree on on a couple terms to frame the question properly, mainly regarding what was the opponent's *proper* 3 betting range. And note that for the record, I would agree that against the narrowest of ranges, i.e. only AA hands, that you could do better by seeing the flop first before deciding whether to stick the last 30% of the effective stacks in. But as I said in that thread, that only makes the play of either calling to 70% of the eff stacks or pushing, even more an egregious error. Thus there is an inverse relationship between the width of villain's 3-betting range, and the ability to correctly determine the equity of durrr's hand on a given flop. If you disagree, then prove me wrong *mathematically* and not just with a consensus of other posters equally unknowlegable as yourself.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
