What is a 'Poker Pro'?

[Preedmaster]

Well if your income is made up from poker income supporting your house, family lifestyle then I feel you can call yourself pro. However if you have a full time job and play as a hobby, then all your winnings are tax free. If you are pro then your winnings are taxed as income. It is a thin line area, when can you call yourself or want to call yourself pro. If you check out websites like sharkscope you will see most people (90-95%) of people are in debt in sit and goes. This game is massive with many forms to it and I will be bold to say at the right level it is the new CHESS. However there are so many levels to the game, so luck does come into sometimes or all of the time. The question is when can you afford to jump and go pro?

[Jon MW]

... If you are pro then your winnings are taxed as income. ...

Not in the UK, but - just being pedantic, I don"t really have any point to make.

[Preedmaster]

I agree to a point, but if you have no other form of income and you are bringing in 50k pa plus from gaming and res in the UK. Then it will only be a matter of before the IR want their slice of the cake. If you know different then lease share this!!!

[Jon MW]

I agree to a point, but if you have no other form of income and you are bringing in 50k pa plus from gaming and res in the UK. Then it will only be a matter of before the IR want their slice of the cake. If you know different then lease share this!!!

I don"t think so.

As far as I"m aware taxing winnings has never been contemplated at any level by any government.

They get income by taxing the profit of the companies that provide it.

The economic reason why this is so is that the cost of the extra bureaucracy needed wouldn"t cover the extra revenue raised from it. The USA can do it because of the massive economies of scale that the size of the US generates when it comes to national matters.

There are some subtler political reasons why a British government is not likely to change their tune any time soon - but ultimately the economic argument will always win, and this isn"t likely change in the forseeable future.

[Preedmaster]

If your right then ace mate!

[Jon MW]

To be fair there have been political truisms in the past that have been discarded, but for now I don"t think it"s likely.

[kinboshi]

Yep - you can play poker in the UK and win millions, and not have to pay a penny in tax.

[Eck]

LOL at thinly veiled post that Dan thinks he has a friend  


BTW dont"t care who sits down at an APAT tourney it is a 75 quid freezout and if someone wants to play it please sit down.  

Oh happy new year to you all  

[Waz1892]

hasn"t it been like about 5 years since a "Pro" won the WSOP...so bring them on I say!!....hehe

my little point is that we (Royal APAT) don"t want the events being won by the same "pro"s"..after all it was set up as an amateur asscoation in the first place.   Could it be possible that word gets round the "circuit" that £75.00 freezeout every month is full of fishes like me...then they bring their rods and enjoy the scenery?

But like I say above, Pro"s aint that good in tourneys...lol..fishes like my getting more than a fair share of luck....so not against the idea..but caution should be the word!

[kinboshi]

LOL at thinly veiled post that Dan thinks he has a friend  

OK, someone I know - who speaks to me.

[monkeyman]

I personally couldn"t care less a few pros or wannabe pros turn up at APAT events. I can"t imagine that the likes of Dave Colclough and Marc Goodwin are going to cough up £75 for a 2 day freezeout and the difference in standard between a low-level pro and top amateur is marginal at best. Besides which, didn"t Roberto Romanello and John Tabatabai take part in last years Welsh event without winning it? That being the case, what is the fuss about?

[technolog]

I met Jon [Spinks] at Walsall and know of him through the EMS forum. Although I don"t know him that well I feel describing him as a pro is a bit over the top. He"s certainly a good player and may in time become what, in my opinion, constitutes a pro. I"m sure there are lots of members playing the same levels and buy-ins as Jon.

However, whilst I would love to sit down at a table with pro players, the problem with it is that it means less seats for amateur, recreational players.

But I think we"re worrying unnecessarily. Anyone who wants to sit and play for 2 days in a £75 freezeout (even with the sweetener of a GUKPT seat - surely it"d be easier and cheaper to satellite-in online?) does not match my idea of a poker pro.

[Swinebag]

But I think we"re worrying unnecessarily. Anyone who wants to sit and play for 2 days in a £75 freezeout (even with the sweetener of a GUKPT seat - surely it"d be easier and cheaper to satellite-in online?) does not match my idea of a poker pro.

X2

[pokertunities]

Interesting question as I"ve considered it myself over the last couple of months  Two things I came up with were the difference between a poker pro and a professional poker player.

A poker pro is definately some-one whose main source of income is derived out of poker - but that can involve internet sites, players who are authors, tournament organisers etc - in general those who have a full-time active involvement in the poker industry in a capacity other than just playing.  It may be that many of their non-playing activities help support their play therefore their play does have to be that good.

A professional player is likely to be someone who plays poker on a fulltime basis - probably cash games and/or has a sponsorship deal to play in a majority of the large media hyped tournaments.  After a time they will probably develop a business side to their game as a means of giving them long term secured income.  Level of play definately higher than your average joe.

[GiMac]

Yep - you can play poker in the UK and win millions, and not have to pay a penny in tax.

Sorry but this is innacurate.

If you are a self employed poker professional, then you will be taxed on any profits you make. Quite how they would quantify an assesment is beyond me but tax is the sole item in UK legislation where the burden of proof is on the individual, as opposed to HMRC.

Of course whilst everyone was jumping on the Gutshot case bandwagon last year, screaming "it"s a game of skill, not luck!!!", they were not contemplating the downside if Gutshot had won their case, which would have meant that the HMRC would have wanted their slice of the action.