|
|
09-28-2017, 10:52 PM
|
#61
|
Grinding at a Poker Table
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,902
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Track Collector...your sentence in red is false.
|
OK. Thanks for correcting my understanding!
|
|
|
09-28-2017, 11:51 PM
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Collector
As I understand it, under the older law the 300-1 and $5000 were OR parameters with regard to withholding. If either condition was met, tax was withheld on the spot....T
|
Your understanding of the old law is incorrect. It has always been " and" and not " or". The same is true for signers at the $600 level.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 12:20 AM
|
#63
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
In short the only change is that the total bet is considered as the amount of the wager and not just the winning bet as was the previous practice.
|
Agreed, this is why I posted the lengthy rules explanation, previously:
(ii) Amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and
jai alai. In the case of a wagering transaction with respect to horse
races, dog races, or jai alai, all wagers placed in a single parimutuel
pool and represented on a single ticket are aggregated and treated as a
single wager for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. A
ticket in the case of horse races, dog races, or jai alai is a written
or electronic record that the payee must present to collect proceeds
from a wager or wagers.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 12:31 AM
|
#64
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
Your understanding of the old law is incorrect. It has always been "and" and not "or". The same is true for signers at the $600 level.
|
There was a loophole for the dime wager...if the dime super was hit for $599...no reporting. They figured the base wager at $2... I guess. $2 times 300-1=$600. Wondering if this stays the same under new rules...?
Last edited by VigorsTheGrey; 09-29-2017 at 12:34 AM.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 12:56 AM
|
#65
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
So if a dime Superfecta is hit that pays up to $4999.99, there will be no reporting nor withholding required..provided that "X" number of combinations are wagered in the pool....what is the fill-in answer for "X"
Last edited by VigorsTheGrey; 09-29-2017 at 01:00 AM.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:09 AM
|
#66
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
So if a dime Superfecta is hit that pays up to $4999.99, there will be no reporting nor withholding required..provided that "X" number of combinations are wagered in the pool....what is the fill-in answer for "X"
|
about a $167
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:14 AM
|
#67
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by showonly
about a $167
|
Funny, that is what I came up with also $166.67....But I thought I must be insane and didn't want to let everyone here know yet...
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:16 AM
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 114
|
10 cent super
It would be nice to see .10 supers and .50 trifectas eliminated but I guess I am being greedy. The reporting changes are very helpful.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:17 AM
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,943
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
There was a loophole for the dime wager...if the dime super was hit for $599...no reporting. They figured the base wager at $2... I guess. $2 times 300-1=$600. Wondering if this stays the same under new rules...?
|
There never was any reporting for anything under $600, regardless of bet size.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:20 AM
|
#70
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
Funny, that is what I came up with also $166.67....But I thought I must be insane and didn't want to let everyone here know yet...
|
Any bet size that keeps your maximum return at below 300-1 eliminates the need for to reporting.
it maybe 300 for 1, not 300 to 1
Last edited by showonly; 09-29-2017 at 01:24 AM.
Reason: additional thought
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:27 AM
|
#71
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultracapper
There never was any reporting for anything under $600, regardless of bet size.
|
Right, and that is not going to change. If I bet one dime super combination only, cold, and it pays $601, then I am going to be reporting right? Or do the new rules bump the $600 threshold to $5000..if I have enough dimes on it....for reporting?
Last edited by VigorsTheGrey; 09-29-2017 at 01:32 AM.
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:48 AM
|
#72
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
Right, and that is not going to change. If I bet one dime super combination only, cold, and it pays $601, then I am going to be reporting right? Or do the new rules bump the $600 threshold to $5000..if I have enough dimes on it....for reporting?
|
It used to be that it made sense to bet the dime super as opposed to the buck or 2 buck super because when hit it would remain under the $600 threshold more often...should that method still be followed...? or is there an optimum number of dime combinations (amounts, ticket size) to maximize return without crossing the $5000 threshold...?
I thinking $5000 divided by 300 (for 300-1) divided by .10 (dime) gives me 166.66667 (somethings) But I don't know what this represents..? Can anybody help me figure out what I'm trying to do here...?
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 01:49 AM
|
#73
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 45
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
So if a dime Superfecta is hit that pays up to $4999.99, there will be no reporting nor withholding required..provided that "X" number of combinations are wagered in the pool....what is the fill-in answer for "X"
|
4999.99 divided by 300 = $16.60 ticket or 166 combinations
I'm not sure if it matters if the payout was over $5000, as long as the payout paid 300-1 or less on the aggregate ticket. Anyone know the answer to this?
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 02:08 AM
|
#74
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafecs
4999.99 divided by 300 = $16.60 ticket or 166 combinations
I'm not sure if it matters if the payout was over $5000, as long as the payout paid 300-1 or less on the aggregate ticket. Anyone know the answer to this?
|
Yep, that is what I'm thinking but I need someone smarter than me to explain it clearly...I thinking this $16.60 (166 combination dime ticket) is optimal somehow...
|
|
|
09-29-2017, 02:38 AM
|
#75
|
Mike Schultz
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,234
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafecs
4999.99 divided by 300 = $16.60 ticket or 166 combinations
I'm not sure if it matters if the payout was over $5000, as long as the payout paid 300-1 or less on the aggregate ticket. Anyone know the answer to this?
|
If any of the 166 combinations in this example pays more than $5000 it will be a signer. If it were 166 combos @ .20 then it would be a signer for any combo paying over $9,960.
__________________
I attract money, I attract money...
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|