NOTI wrote: I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the
tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular
bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win.
If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally
be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.
Bob wrote: "I strongly dislike that definition. It�s actually contrary
to Shack�s original quote."
I think you probably misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
Bob wrote: "Shack was referring to a good bet being one with positive
EV. NOTI is saying it doesn�t matter whether it has positive EV or not, it�s
whether you win or lose. And in particular, it�s whether you win or lose in the
current tax year."
I did say, more or less: "it's whether you win or lose in the current tax year." But it doesn't follow that therefore EV doesn't matter. EV does in fact matter, but so does variance, and likely some other considerations, such as days left in the current tax year and current running results for the current tax year.
Bob wrote: "Tax year considerations are important. And it certainly
makes for an interesting discussion about how your gambling strategy should
change near year end because of the asymmetric tax laws regarding wins and
losses. But most of what I consider to be a �good bet� has little to do with my
annual score."
That would imply that you don't let tax considerations affect your play, at least not significantly. And you consider ignoring tax considerations to be for the most part a "good bet"?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (18) |
