> Posted by: "rob.singer1111@yahoo.com"
>
> I do not understand why so many people fear W2G's. The more
> the better and the more jackpots the better. Isn't that
> really the name of the game in video poker?
>
> More concerning to me would be playing for points & slot
> club status than playing for as many W2G's as possible.
>
First of all, your point is presumably that W2Gs represent the big hits (for most people) that make their game a winning game -- so you're assuming that the non-W2G events, both good and bad, come with expected frequency and the W2Gs come with expected frequency or better.
However, W2Gs themselves do not guarantee winning sessions, as most everyone on this list realizes -- they can easily be offset by a long run of the more common 5-card draws that pick up nothing, single high card draws that don't pair, low pairs that never hit a set, and flush and straight draws that just don't come -- or whatever the comparable common but bad events are in your particular game of choice -- I imagine some of us have had a run of that :)
So the answer to your comment and question, "The more the better and the more jackpots the better. Isn't that really the name of the game in video poker?" is in fact no -- the name of the game is winning, not getting W2Gs, and if you happen to do it by getting dealt a set every time, and nothing else, that can work just as well as the "more than your share" hits of quads, SFs, and royals. It can even work better, if your jackpots are NOT accompanied by "average or better" results the rest of the time.
You don't really "want" W2Gs, you just want to win as much as, or more than, expected - no matter how you get it. While it's certainly true that the "W2G events" are usually a part of that outcome, it's not mandatory.
I've had many stretches, and I'm quite certain I'm not alone, where a royal flush was not so much a wonderful event, as it was just a way to make up for some of what I'd already fed into the machine -- and sure, it was nice to get some of it back in a single hand, but I would have been just as happy to get it back any other way, particularly by not losing it in the first place. Not losing is an important part of winning.
As for why people usually "fear W2Gs" -- it's not because they don't want to win, but because they don't want to pay taxes -- and because they apparently report winnings associated with W2Gs, but in violation of tax law, they apparently do not report winnings that do not generate W2Gs.
Even if you comply with tax laws and report all winnings, there is a point where winning more at "gambling" (regardless of losses, unless you're filing as a professional gambler) creates a point in gross income that takes away certain tax deductions from "the rest of your life".
The assumption in the above sentence is that you have a "rest of your life" -- some do, some don't, and that may be the difference in the end, as to why some people "fear W2Gs".
But if you don't report all gambling income that you have from non-W2G sessions, then you certainly would prefer a big win without an associated W2G -- not as easy to do, of course, but better after-taxes for those who don't report non-W2G winnings in full, if at all.
I don't fully understand exactly how it works in every state, and sure don't know if filing as a professional gambler makes a difference, but I do know that if you're not filing as a professional gambler, states with gross income tax absolutely take away any long-term positive expectation after-taxes. You can win $1,000,000 in half your "sessions" and lose $950,000 in the rest of your "sessions", for a net of $50,000 before taxes, and then if you pay more than 5% in gross income tax, there goes your "net" - and perhaps a little more.
Which is why people want to have winnings that are not W2G events - it's easier to cheat on your taxes if you don't have W2Gs, and sometimes cheating on your taxes is the only way to win at video poker after-taxes. Best way to assure that is to play quarter machines, I guess; then you can deny that you ever play the game, and just hope that the evidence doesn't turn up somehow (for most people, it won't).
--BG
