Rake on pots you don't win

[pyroponic]

Technically you are still paying rake even on the hands you don't win? Meaning if the pot is $20 in $2/4, and you contributed $10 but the othe guy wins the pot, couldn't you say you paid a rake with respect to the % of money in the pot ($0.50)?

Everyone says the guy that scoops the pot pays the $1, but I think what really happened is the hand is being raked while it's being played, and so you are both paying the rake and the person who wins the pot simply takes the remaining money. Whether you win the pot or not, you are still paying an expense of playing the hand out, meaning your EV from winning the pot is automatically less by the % of the money contributed to the pot x the total amount of rake. I think this might be interesting with regards to tax purposes.

[Macdaddy Warsaw]

You only lose rake on the pots you win, though. If you put $10 into the pot, you lost $10, even if $.50 or $1 went to the rake. When you win a pot, you lose $2 off the win, but you still win $38 or whatever it might be.

I think you'd be better off to just sticking to the amount of rake you've lost from pots you've won.

[Gotmilk]

I don't think the IRS will take loss in EV as a deduction hehe. Anyways, it all evens out in the long run--Every person pays there own average rake based on their playing style (loose players pay a lot more rake than tight players) but whether you actually pay for it on this hand or the next hand you win all evens out.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this might be interesting with regards to tax purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake should be a non-issue for tax purposes because it's already factored into your win or loss. Dut to the rake, you win less that you otherwise would when you win a pot. The total you are up or down when you leave the table is already net of rake. If you mean that you think you might be able to argue that your contribution to the rake on hands you lost should give you a deduction, I strongly suspect the IRS wouldn't buy that.

[cardcounter0]

You are able to deduct gambling losses. So the $10 you lost in the pot you didn't win is a $10 loss. It doesn't matter that $1 went to house in rake, and $9 went to the other player, you can write off the whole $10 loss.

I'm sure the IRS would be more than happy for you to record each win and loss seperately rather than record summed session totals. Your Gross Income would become so inflated the Alternative Minimum Tax would quickly kick in.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the IRS would be more than happy for you to record each win and loss seperately rather than record summed session totals. Your Gross Income would become so inflated the Alternative Minimum Tax would quickly kick in.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was just noticing that if you play a lot and/or for moderately high stakes but don't file as a pro, it's quite possible to have so much "gambling winnings" that you lose your exemptions even though your net might be very modest or even negative. We really need to get the tax rules on gambling income changed to allow reporting net results, although I don't hold out a lot of hope since we don't have a powerful lobby . [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]