Stu wrote: "I am certainly in that category where W-2Gs would significantly affect other benefits I get...so much so that I would basically lose 100% of my win! I still would not play a strategy other than max-EV. Instead, I play $1 single line until I hit one W-2G (which my finances can handle) and then switch to quarters for the rest of the year. Maybe not everyone's choice, but why would I want to give the casino any more money than I already am?"
That's certainly a very reasonable approach. The only capitalist reason you would want to give the casino more money would be if they offer better promotions for more money. If you can get the promotions just playing quarters, then just play quarters. On the other hand, if the promotions for more play are good enough (more than 1.6% total promotions for playing jacks) then you could "win more" by playing up. If your tax situation is such that you lose 100% of a taxable royal, then the real value of a royal to you is zero, and the appropriate strategy to play would be the strategy found by setting the royal to its real value for you, namely zero. I guess it tugs at the heart strings to think of a royal as having no value, but that is the cold hard capitalist truth, in some situations.
[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 (23) |
