KsvSmNVx

1 Originally Posted by sawseech View Post
21. Distinguishing Between Business and Hobby
3
4· A hobby may give rise to receipts, but these will not be taxable.
5
6· To be a business, at least the following elements are required; otherwise it may be a hobby:
7
8(a) Time, labour, organization;
9
10(b) Reasonable expectation of profit; and
11
12(c) Regular, recurring receipts.
13
14time means regular hours; playing when you "feel like it" does not count
15labour means concerted _definably skilled_ effort in a _trade_.
16poker has not been classified as a trade in canada.
17organization means you need to instigate the moneymaking ie solicit, house, administrate. firing up pokerstars does not count.
18
19reasonable expectation of profit means from an outsider's view, can you be reasonably be expected to win, not whether or not YOU expect to win. tyson was reasonably expected to win vs that fat white guy in his comeback fight. every time i sit down at a table i lose 46% of the time. i can lose 20 mtts in a row. i can lose 20 buyins over 10k hands.
20
21regular recurring receipts follows from organized effort from dedicated time. see above.
22
23now, let me be clear on what constitutes "organizing effort"
24having a PT database is not organizing effort; we as hobbyists maintained thorough databases and analyze player actions, timings, weaknesses etc.
25this is analagous to a sportsbettor or a birdwatcher.
26
27now, MNR v Morden is the applicable precedent. Morden owned a stable, and bet on horseracing. he had done this for 20 years, assessing his and his opponents' stables, putting jockeys on specific horses in specific situations, anaylzing the weaknesses of specific jockey's on other horses. he then claimed that his betting winnings were not taxable:
28
29
30(a) Time, labour, organization;
31
32[x] owns and operates a stable. [x] has done so for 20 years. [x] GG.
33
34(b) Reasonable expectation of profit;
35
36[x] expert on horses. [x] expert on jockeys. [x] expert on wagering systems and calulating marginal outcomes based on lines.
37
38(c) Regular, recurring receipts.
39
40[x] never loses and always wins.
41
42running an underground poker game and maintaining books and playing in it is organizing effort
43
44playing in poker tournaments is not
45
46joining a team of poker players and playing on a shared bankroll and exchanging tactics, knowledge about the opposition, arranging to sit together in the same games, entering no-loss arrangements with each other, exchanging equity in tournaments, colluding; altogether this is organizing effort
47
48playing on a shared bankroll and exchanging knowledge is not nor is sitting in the same games (this in fact hurts your equity unless you collude in which case you'll get caught one day and zero'd)
49
50MNR vs Morden is the only applicable precedent and it does not apply to a poker player unless they run a continually running home game and are a provable expert.
51
52if they apply MNR vs Morden to a simgle poker player, then all gambling losses are deductible (hospital lotteries, lottery tickets), just as all gambling winnings are income. all registered gambling entities in canada would then need to issue receipts, for everything.
53
54firing up pokerstars is not organizing effort.
55
56//
57
58things that should concern a winning player:
59
60being part owner or an operator of a major poker site/affilate/publication
61being sponsored by a major site
62winning a major tournament, and then winning another one, and then writing detailed articles for a major poker publication which demonstrate considerable expertise while also showing no legit income.
63being involved in fed indictable criminal activities (drugs, washing)
64
65//
66
67//i had planned to post this in parts. i do not have the time. enjoy and GL at sc2.
68
69
70when people talk about the US military, they don't talk about US predator drones, or US submarines, or US stealth fighters, or US ground n pound. they talk about the military.
71
72why does the US have the most powerful military on earth? because of the economy.
73
74do you consciously seperate US nuclear arms from the marine corp from the navy from the airforce? no. military is military. or, as applies to sc, army is army.
75
76as per clausewitz, army exists to fight if needed to continue our stated aims (the concession and/or elimination of our opponent) by other means. in this case, diplomacy is dominated by fighting, so we train army specifically to fight.
77
78
79timing attacks.
80
81a timing attack allows us to predict the exact timing at which we will be attacked and to play relative to that exact timing.
82
83it is strong play to see a timing development, play relative to that exact timing, and to have precisely the army needed at that timing to crush that attack.
84
85in turn, we can simulate a timing attack but refrain from a single, expensive part of that development specifically to cause our opponent to prepare army to fight it. if we then turn our development completely towards eco we can hold with defenders advantage and create an advantage that is large (but not as large as successfully attacking).
86
87a good player timing attacks. a great player tears it apart. a fantastic player refrains from training units for the last 2 cycles of that timing and expands twice.
88
89
90marginal gain:
91
92the game starts. you send workers 1, 2, 3 and 4 to mine. worker # 5 is trained at a cost of 50, with a supply cost of 0 (your initial hall is free). worker 5 increases your collection rate by 20%, less relative travel time to specific mineral patches, assuming 5 or more mineral patches. this is profit realized in 7 mining cycles, or approx. 40 seconds. worker 5 also takes 12 seconds to build. since minerals are gained incrementally in mining cycles and we deduct the final cycle to determine our costs we can see that for roughly 34+12 seconds, we are in the red. after the completion of the final mining cycle at T=52, we are gaining eco. if we expect the game to end within the next 51 seconds, we should not train worker # 5. for each subsequent worker added, we simply add 12 seconds to the count, and if our worker count is in excess of our number of available mineral patches, we addon an additional fraction of 12 representative of the diminished collection rate of the successive workers.
93
94from the moment you begin to train a worker until the moment that it has increased your income by more than its actual cost as compared to what you would have gathered without spending the minerals and allocated supply cost on that worker, you are losing eco.
95
96from the moment that it has gathered in excess of what you would have gathered without having trained that worker (50 minerals + 1/8th of supply cost), you are gaining eco.
97
98the greatest advantage is to have eco while your opponent has none. the second is to gain eco as your opponent loses it. the third is to maintain eco as your opponent loses it. the fourth is to lose eco, but less slowly than your opponent. the fifth is to have greater ease than your opponent in any form of eco manipulation.
99
100adding 5 workers: (51+(12*5))(1.05) = 116.55 = 1.9 minutes
101adding 35 workers: (())(1.25) = 588.75 = 9.8 minutes
102adding 196 workers: (1.6) = 3844.8 = 64.1 minutes
103
104
105assume that we are 5 minutes into the game, and are at maximum 29 supply. our worker count is in excess of the number of mineral patches available. we must also begin to train army in order to present legitamite offensive potential which, incidentally, is how we win. in turn, our supply cost from this point forward is amplified with regards to continued expansion of eco. if we must train army and also workers, the cost of each portion of available supply dedicated to workers increases in relation to the rate at which we must add supply capacity dedicated to army.
106
107if both we and our opponent stand at exactly 29 supply worth of workers and we spend 5/8ths of our future supply capacity on workers and our opponent spends 7/8ths, we will be losing unless our army is able to diminish his capacity to realize that gain within the span of time it takes for his additional workers to create precisely that amount of eco in excess of ours. this is because supply cost is fixed at 100; if we spend 100 minerals worth of supply allocation on 5 workers while he spends it on 7, we are only winning for as long as it takes his two additional workers to gain eco in excess of ours. from that point forward to the point where he reaches maximum collection from his available mineral patches, given identical immediate resource availability, we are losing.
108
109given that these worker growth rates are now relative as opposed to absolute as they were in the initial game state, we can see that simply accounting for travel time in combination with defenders advantage allows a player to arbitrarily improve his economy in relation to his opponent.
110
111within this framework, economically perfect play is to have exactly minimal defense at all times.
112
113however, it must be noted that an opponent cannot be defeated with defense or minerals or workers. army is our map presence and army is what wins games.
114
115maximum income:
116
117the maximum possible income is to have 200/200 workers, distributed over exactly 200 mineral patches. well, it's possible to have more, but to do that we need an AI to micro workers to the nearest possible mineral patches while adjusting for the rate at which those minerals deplete, and to then adjust for travel time to alternate nodes. with protoss, we can then mind control the opposition's worker, and thereby increase our capacity to 400/400.
118
119in practise, we look to gather 800/300 per base with full saturation.
120
121in reality, we generally gather 600/280 on 3 bases given typical army requirements and worker count. 1800/840 buys alot of army, but in order to create army we must first have infrastructure.
122
123infrastructure:
124
125if our income is 1800/840 but we lack the infrastructure to convert all 1800/840 into army, we are army-incomplete. meaning that, if we are attacked in force by an opponent with identical income but complete infrastructure and that attack is sustained, we will lose because our effective income as converted to army is lesser than his and remains so for as long as we are army-incomplete.
126
127we should then seek to complete our infrastructure at a timing which coincides with the completion of our target eco. this timing should be in advance of our opponent's, so that we may selectively engage at the time and place of our choosing.
128
129this leads to a finding contrary to our eco finding. namely, that we should consciously limit our eco in order to pre-emptively complete our infrastructure so that we may enjoy greater tactical freedom in execution. in order to make this decision, we need to have the army necessary to operate with greater freedom than that presented by the precept of minimal defense.
130
131this circularity is at the heart of modern sc. if training workers, add production capacity. if given the choice between immediate army and capacity, choose capacity. if we are satisfied with our capacity, calculate our end supply size following army production and pre-emptively addon supply to that point.
132
133if our opponent is training workers, train army. if our opponent is training army, prepare minimal defense. if our opponent has prepared minimal defense, train workers.
134
135to do so and be attacked at this point and lose is bad.
136
137since we are in possession of workers in excess of the available mineral patches, each worker mines with diminished efficiency as compared to the one trained before as a result of travel time between occupied mineral patches and therefore takes longer to realize a gain in eco. at a certain number of workers per mineral patch this gain becomes 0, and any worker built after that point without an increase in available mineral patches constitute a total loss of supply dedication, minerals, and army capacity. this is the definition of failure.
138
139expansion:
140
141the best way to increase income is to expand. for the adjusted cost of 2.2 supply units, or 220 minerals, or even less in the case of zerg, we gain access to an additional resource node which enables us to greatly enhance our workers' mining efficiency. expansion is the best play in the game. it dominates infrastructure or army or workers. expansion is walking down the street and finding money.
142
143however, the act of expansion introduces the possibility of sunk costs.
144
145sunk costs:
146
1473x nexus probes for 1 minute to complete saturation nets an improvement of 100 minerals per base per minute at a cost of 950 minerals, disregarding the cost of additional supply and stated costs allocated to army. meaning that, the game will have to continue for at least three more minutes for you to recoup your sunk costs before you begin to show a benefit from your investment assuming that you will stay on 3 bases and, by the way, your main is about to run dry. in short, you need a 4th and a 5th is even better. with a 4th, you have 4 active bases for a very short time, and then three full bases. with a 5th, you will have 4 active bases for the foreseeable future.
148
149in order to adequately control our increased territory, we require more army and even with minimal defense, that is still alot of army. army requires infrastructure, and to be army-incomplete at this precise moment is extremely dangerous. especially against the zerg.
150
151present terran vs protoss strategy seeks to exploit minimal defense. one moment the protoss has minimal defense. the next he is subject to rape. the protoss must either advance his infrastructure or exploit his knowledge of the timing.
152
153exploitation:
154
155to know what an opponent is planning to do and to fall victim to it anyways is not satisfactory play.
156
157
158zurj:
159
160if a zerg's hatchery count is in excess of your hall count and he has a greater number of available resource nodes, you have a problem and should look to attack as soon as possible. he can train a worker every 12 seconds from each hatchery for as long as he has supply capacity. if he can allocate a greater proportion of supply to workers than you, he can rapidly exceed you in worker count and diminish your standing advantage in short order and with greater access to resource nodes, he can mine with greater efficiency as well. from there, it won't be long until he exceeds you - especially given his reduced relative cost of expanding and his reduced production cycle process demands - and nothing exceeds like excess.
161
162
163front loaded costs:
164
165supply costs are not incremental. if additional supply is needed, minerals are deducted immediately from our balance and the cost is not fully distributed until the capacity added by that cost is filled.
166
167for instance, we add supply and train one worker. we lose the game instantaneously. the worker cost is 150.
168
169
170the unless rule:
171
172if you develop towards an attack which seeks to exploit a weakness in your opponent and your opponent can choose to ignore the attack and advance on your front, and this can force you to concede, your development is flawed.
173
174do not attack unless you can survive an immediate counter attack.
175
176if the act of survival leaves you army-incomplete, your attack was flawed.
177
178if you are army-incomplete and your opponent is capable of adding additonal resource nodes, your attack was a disaster.
179
180
181what when why:
182
183if we cannot safely complete saturation on our nodes, cease worker production and build army. if we expect the game to continue for the forseeable future, resume worker production. if the game remains static, expand. if army-incomplete, build infrastructure. if safe, complete the infrastructure.
184
185the rule of three:
186
187if on three bases, look to harm your opponent's ability to use his eco to produce army (i.e. mug him). use the subsequent advantage to complete your infrastructure and go to 5 bases.