Such news would be welcome.

Clarification, changes, or such, with respect to poker staking, has been the goal.

"The Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, A.G. Burnett, has emailed pokerfuse to explain that the new laws will only apply to sports betting"

http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...g-safe-nevada/

Great. But all it would take is a new chairman re-interpreting the vague law and staking could be back at risk. I have no doubt that the NGC just wants this to be for sports betting, so all they have to do is clarify "future contingent events" means the same thing that it does in other areas of the NGC regulatory scheme or in other areas of the NRS. An easy fix of just a few words and then there isn't even a worry that this could become an issue doe the road if a new chairman doesn't see it the same way he does.

The U.S clearly remains the champion in ****ing up poker, France has no chance. They ban, they over-tax and now they ban even more.

Thanks for the report.

GCB Chairman Burnett deserves appreciation for cutting through clutter and addressing issues directly. (He has in the past made clear that the Board does pay attention to forums and social media).

I think the explanation given in the quoted email was extraordinarily candid and complete. The targeted concern was sports book betting, and, the Board/Commission are currently looking at non-sports betting opportunities for Nevada books. (Virtual events are on the agenda, for example.)

Chairman Burnett's clarification should suffice to give assurance to players and stakers alike that this Bill is not, as I feared, an unintended coverage into poker staking with respect to Nevada activities, such as the WSOP.

(As an aside, a clear distinction between staking/investing in a player's participation, and the actual betting or wagering, which IS the activity of the player, would have been useful. However, this particular hand is over, the GCB Chairman acted promptly. Good game.)

The atheists got ahold of it.

SB40 was passed on 5/13. I have been informed by one source that there is legislative history to establish expressly that the bill does not apply to poker ..... So, good result, ....

Now, if the WSOP/Caesars would just accept the appropriate IRS informational forms from backed players who win prizing, like the other tournament operators seem willing to do .... but that is another issue.

http://www.pokerlistings.com/poker-p...ris-moneymaker

Don't tell the government you're getting staked
Don't pay taxes
Don't give a ****

How does that work? If I sold action to a local friend then cash in vegas I can have them make a separate W2G to his name? Do I need his ssn and stuff?

This is covered in the US Taxes Sticky.

wow ... that's pretty sad, even for NVG

Although I wholly sympathize with this attitude, being a realist, I know it's impractical in that the ultimate result will be to end up incarcerated.

Is there any source or cite for the position that under US law a poker backer, who never touches a card or makes a bet/wager, is to be deemed a "gambler". Keep in mind that the staking and the playing are distinctly different. Indeed the playing in a Nevada casino poker tournament takes place in a regulated brick & mortar casino, with a strict one-player-to-a-hand policy. Caesars' recent statement regarding whether it considers a backer to be the "winner" may have tax implications for any WSOP backers of players who cash.

Generally analysis of poker staking assumes that, because a return to the backer and revenue is dependent upon the outcome of a poker tournament, it must be "gambling" revenue.

While such a position makes some sense if someone is betting, perhaps with a Nevada sportsbook, on whether player X will win a tournament, it seems the provision of a stake is not really gambling on the outcome as much as investing in human capital.

The player who is staked is soon engaged in playing poker, sure. However, the stake, unlike a simple wager on whether Player X wins a tournament, is fundamentally different. For one thing, the prize to be won in the wager on Player X is not going to be some huge multiple of the amount wagered, and the wager itself plays no role in whether or not Player X plays or whether or not the Tournament Prize pool is a certain size.

To reduce this to a basic point, Caesars will invest in tables, chairs, cards, tournament chips and dealers, among other requirements; it will receive fee revenue not determined by the outcome of the play itself. Is there an argument that a staker by funding an entry fee of $10K, similarly is investing in/providing one or more essential elements of the tournament. Does the upside, a return measured by the staked player's prize pool payout mean that the staker's return is gambling income ? (Caesars seems to believe the answer is "no", let's not be too hasty to ignore the tax implications of that analysis. What if Caesars is correct ?))

I have read Brad Polizzano's analysis of the tax implications of staking,

https://pokerfuse.com/features/in-de...king-activity/ , but my question is whether such analysis assumes away the issue.

Is a poker backer is either a lender or investor in the player; do lenders/investors in a casino receive gambling income if the casino has a net win ? (A distinction should be drawn as to poker tournament fees earned by an event provider, the analogy to be drawn is to casino win/loss which is outcome determined by gambling activity.)

I believe the issue of how to treat staking/poker generally did arise in the context of whether poker is a skill game, maybe in California, but do not recall if it was in the context of a tax dispute ....

Does Russ Fox, or Brad Polizzano have something to educate me on this ? (or anyone else have a tax dispute authority on this point ? (If I dig one up I will post it.)

I'm sure his friend backed out at the last minute and his father stepped in so he had travelling + pocket money etc but blew it on sports bets first day or smt

either way he sold action def to get there

You could compare this to horse racing. The person who owns the horse, pays the jockey, vet bills, etc. is a business operator, and purses won are business income. If someone puts up part of the money to make a wager on the race, their portion of the winnings is gambling income.

For a poker tournament, a backer is simply putting up a portion of what is considered the wager - the tournament buy-in - and taking a portion of any gambling winnings.

Perhaps the fundamental difference is where the money comes from. Does it come from what the house puts up as the winner's purse, or does it come as a payout directly from the wagering pool?

Couldnt find it in there.

Gzesh asks,

The issue relates to the US Tax Code (Title 26, USC) and the nature of wagering (gambling) income. I posted a full reply in the Legislation thread on this issue.

agree with limon in this thread

its gonna be better in poker without staking

Read the section "Q: How do taxes work if I am staked, or if I stake another player?" and links provided.