Cogno wrote: "Setting it to zero is very lazy thinking."
noti wrote: This is probably true, but setting the royal to zero to generate a strategy is a bit of a sweet spot, since it optimizes the return of the non-royal hands. But one could certainly generate a strategy at say half a royal (400bets) and then ask the question: at what amount of promotion would this strategy be better than maxEV, and so on. Negative values are also plausible. One could imagine a scenario where hitting another W2G conflicts with SS or Medicare or an income based benefit and the result could easily be a strong net negative. Many people would choose to not gamble, but there may be an optimal strategy that allows one to continue gambling even when a W2G is a net negative after taxes.
My reply: Hard for me to imagine such a scenario. Even if a royal W-2G results in an increased Medicare Part B premium for the ensuing year (and a corresponding decrease in one's Soc Sec), the negative effect will most likely last one year. And the W-2G winnings will almost certainly cover the reduced SS income with a major portion of the winnings left over.
Pat Roach
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: roaches@austin.rr.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (25) |
