is this a terrible idea?

That is a good quote, but the reality is, very few have the talent of Warren Buffet. Diversification reduces risk, (the blackjack equivelant of standard deviation, wouldnt you reduce SD on a percentage basis as low as you could for an equivelant return?).
Warren Buffet didnt need diversification, but most of us do. What it all comes down to is Risk vs Return and how risk tolerant you are(yes more of that "suspect" finance education:) ). If I can obtain 80% of the return for 20% of the risk (just an example here, dont ask me for calculations), which I can by diversifying my investments, IE, not going COMPLETELY into BJ earnings, and not going completely in the stock market, I am going to do that. Perhaps you are more of a "gambler", in which case you and Warren Buffet would not need to diversifiy. What I do know, is that if/when I go pro, I will bee DIVERSIFIED so that when I go through a bad run in BJ, I will have other means by which to live. Think about that:)

D

"Come on SunRunner, you can't be that straight and narrow."
Yes I can be, and it's a bitch, believe you me. Very tiring. :)

"Do you tell the casinos that you are a cardcounter when you sit down at the BJ table?"
With all due respect, I don't see the connection.

Do I work my taxes hard to pay the very least possible? Yes.
Have I fudged a deduction or two? Yes.
Have I made a net positive dollar playing BJ and forgotten to pay tax on some it? Maybe. :)
Have I ever pirated copyrighted materials? Yes. (forgive me Norm, I don't anymore.)
Can I justify it all? Of course.

It's just that when confronted face to face with the idea that I am personally subsidizing, as are you, the BSS's interest on his student loan so he can play BJ on the principal -it pisses me off.

And it should you also. The Fed's are effectively reaching straight in to your pocket, taking a small bit of your cash, and giving it to his bank, to pay the interest on money he borrowed, to play BJ.

Now, I just hope he's a decent player and doesn�t lose his BR and default on his loan, that you and I guaranteed his bank we would pay if he does not.

Your tax dollars at work.

what about all of the kids out there that I am paying for to go to school and not a one of them is mine? What about the welfare programs that I am paying for? What about social security that I pay A TON into and will probably never collect? These are all programs that I pay into and will not collect on, this is one that I do. You said you can justify all of your cheats, such as on your taxes, but I must say that is probably because that is you, and not me. Double standard my friend, no matter how you look at it.

Furthermore, I did not say you pay the interest on my loan. HALF of the loan is subsidised, the half that I am ACUTALLY using to go to school. The further amount I borrow, I am responsible for the interest on that even while my payments are deferred. How much I borrow makes no difference to your tax dollar, since if I borrowed just enough for my schooling and books, I would be able to subsidize the same amount.

Sun, I have seen some of your postings and will not refute that you know alot about BJ. Dont assume you know that much about everything, because you are making it quite clear that you do not.

D

PS...A..I am a good player and will not lose in the long run. B..I have a solid job that I will use to repay my loans in the event something goes south...C...even if I did default, the govt will come after me and garnishes my wages....again...know what you know, but also know what you dont and admit to that. Its ok to not know everything:)

"Do you tell the casinos that you are a cardcounter when you sit down at the BJ table?"
With all due respect, I don't see the connection.

I was just trying to make a point about legally beating the system. Cardcounting is legal, but no counter in his right mind would disclose to the Pit Boss that he is a counter. Why would BSS disclose the true reasons for using the loan? If you feel that strongly about it you should write your congressman and tell him to close the loophole that allows students to borrow more money than they really need for school.

I do understand your points and agree with you. It is a shame the way our hard earned taxed dollars are pissed away. This issue is miniscule IMO compared to everything else those clowns in Congress do.
I just read an article this morning about the Republicans complaining because the Demoncrats are exploiting the Campaign Finance laws by using 527's to raise more money. Funny how things work out isn't it? Wasn't it the Demoncrats and that RINO McCain pushing for Campaign finance reform?

I started to be a smart-ass, but I really would rather be serious and make the following remarks ..

"Sun, I have seen some of your postings and will not refute that you know alot about BJ."

You give me to much credit. Let's just say I'm not confident enough in my game to borrow money to play it.

" .. I am a good player and will not lose in the long run."

Really? Pride goeth before the fall my friend. You quoted Wong, I'll leap out and quote Snyder (he and I are buddies) .. "You won't win." And the fact is, no kidding, some will not win. I don't care how strong your game is, I don't care how long you play .. some will not win in the long run. That is a fact. Paraphrasing Snyder this time, a few unfortunate souls will, through no fault of their own, land out in that cold dark place far to the left of the positive EV. And it might be you. I truly hope it is not, but it might be. It's going to be somebody and it won't be because they did not prepare.

"Dont assume you know that much about everything, because you are making it quite clear that you do not."

Really? Damn. The charade is over. I've been found out.

Again, good luck. (But I guess you won't be needing any of that.)

Blue I appreciate your help

I am strongly considering continuing my education and would probably not have to pay for school at all due to grants and scholarships

I have never found school difficult at all and really dont work hard at all at in unless I find the class interesting

I think I am done with AC, Im glad ive made some money there and basically gotten some experience
Early on I was a lot more ocmbative when somebody questioned a play I made or bitched if I spread to two hands where as now I will wait till the dealer pulls a good hand and then switch to two hands to "change the flow"

Im definatly ready for real game but with my current bankroll i really can not justify travel costs however with a larger bankroll I definatly could

Do you know what the max amount of money I could take out in loans for a school year? (for first year in a graduate program)

Is this based on the amount of graduate credits?

Im assuming that the checks would not be sent out until the fall 2004 semester- is this assumtion correct?

As lonf as I stay disiplined I really dont see this as any different than an investment witha lot of hard work that i really do enjoy

I am by no means saying that I am an expert as I am learning new things about this game all of the time but I am definatly confident in my ability to get a long term advantage

Hey lefty...

"Do you know what the max amount of money I could take out in loans for a school year? (for first year in a graduate program)"

Generally the max amount any grad student can borrow is 18.5K (it doesnt vary by grade level as it does with undergrad). From what I understand (grants and scholorships have never been anything I had to worry about) grants and scholorships do not affect the total amount you can borrow, but more the amount that will have subsidized interest (the "only tax breaks for me" lynch gang will be happy about that). So you may not be able to have any of this subsidized due to your grants, but you should be able to borrow the max.

As a side note, the final determination of how much you can borrow of the 18.5K is up to the sole discretion of the school. Although I have heard stories about people having issues with community colleges limiting the amount borrowed (just because they are so damn cheap here in CA, something like $10 a credit) I have never heard such stories when dealing with a "real" school, especially on the graduate level. However, it is possible, and once the school makes that determination, you have no more recourse, their decision is final. So although a masters degree is very important, and since you have a great academic record you will probably not want to settle for less then the best, it is probably still better to check around and if you are deciding between two schools, all else being equal, pick the one that has the reptuation for lending that is on the side of more liberal.

If all else fails, you can ask their financial aid office point blank how much you can borrow (be sure to give them the info about your grants/scholorships so they can give you a good rough estimate. Since, as stated above, the school does make the final determination. So although the govt doesnt limit the amt you can borrow with grants/loans, the school may). The ones that are less liberal will say things like "well it depends on your Expected Family Contribution", etc. The ones that are more liberal will simply say "18.5K".

"Is this based on the amount of graduate credits?"

I thought that it did vary depending on the number of credits you take, since that was a big thing with the previous school where I obtained my first masters degree. However, with the degree I am just starting, the school simply stated that you have to have continuous enrollment with at least one class per session(I am doing a fast track thing that goes 12 months). This of course is a huge benefit to the borrower, since that means less of the borrowing amount actually going for school tuition per year and more for, investments. :)

This also makes me further convinced that the school financial aid rules are whats important. It appears the government simply set up the total annual max, and the schools have their individual rules on how to disburse it/limit it. I figure I have one or two more degrees after the one Im in now before I hit the lifetime max (maybe a doctorate next time).

"Im assuming that the checks would not be sent out until the fall 2004 semester- is this assumtion correct?"

This one is definitely going to vary by school. With a 12 month program it is usually about two months for your first disbursement and six months (from the start of your school year) for the second disbursement. When I went to a traditional university, the disbursement usually came about halfway through each semester, so about October, and March.

"As lonf as I stay disiplined I really dont see this as any different than an investment witha lot of hard work that i really do enjoy"

I couldnt agree more! That is my view, Wong's view (from what I have gathered in Professional Blackjack), and many others who invest in BJ for a living (not that I do, just yet, although it is getting hard to do the 9-5 grind when I know there is a better way). At any rate, best of luck to you and keep in touch, let me know how you do. davcu@hotmail.com

D

Taxpayers get screwed when student loans are abused.

Here is the catch about student loans: The banks make the profits when students honor the loans. However, Uncle Sam (or us, taxpayers) gets stiffed with the losses when students default or abuse the system.

Student loans are the sure-bets for banks. Student loans are guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Profitable interest rates are also guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Banks can not lose, except for us, the taxpayers.

Who foots the bills when the student loans are abused? Taxpayers! It's like a government contractor who sells the defense department a $500 toilet seat...who foots the bills when someone cheats the government? Taxpayers!

Davcu, please be nice to Cardkountr. He can help you to "connect" with great Advantage Players if you stick around here long enough.

Please explain how the taxpayers get screwed when I default, since the govt will come after me and garnish my wages if necessary?

Furthermore, as Ive stated many times, who says Im even going to default? I have a great job, and the ability to pay it back in the event that the BJ thing doesnt work out. I fail to see how the taxpayers are footing any kind of bill here, the only thing I have gotten in response to my statements on this issue is people who are either ignoring (intentionally or otherwise) the points I make.

Furthermore, even IF what you say is correct and the taxpayers have to foot *some* of the bill, there are many programs (as Ive stated multiple times in other posts above) that I do not get to use, yet pay for. We cant all use all of the programs available, what I am using in the "abuse" of student loans, as you call it, is far offset by the money I put in for programs that other people use, yet I do not or can not. I still have not seen anybody address this point, only people ignoring it and continue whining about how they are being cheated....

D

No one is ignoring you.

Any program sponsored by the federal government is a net loser to the taxpayer, in terms of dollars. The student loan progran is no exception. It dosen't take endless posts discussing the cost of subsidized/deferred interest, below market interest rates, costs of administration, costs of collecting the defaulted loans, etc to make that point. Financially, it is a social program that costs the taxpaying public money to provide -even if all the loans were to get paid back as agreed -which they do not. Surely they taught you that in school.

It's a net financial loser. It's overhead. It's part of the New Deal, whatever. Do the rewards from the backside of the program more than beat the cost of providing it. Probably. But that is not what this is about.

So please don't continue to whine that you are not sucking off the public tit even when you pay back your loans in full. You are.

Furthermore, like all federal aid, the original intent of the program was good. It was set in place to give people who otherwise might not be able to afford to go to school an opportunity to do so.

You do not seem to be one of those people. You seem to be quite bright and resourceful; in fact you keep referring to the fact that you really don't need the loans anyway as you have a good job, excess cash, and investments.

In your first post, you even admit to starting "your second Masters degree partly because you want to and partly for the 'bank'."

Congratulations.

At the end of the day, the rest of us are helping you borrow cheap money to play blackjack. You admit it yourself. And it's not cost free to the public no matter how bad you would like to think it so.

Some of us don't like it. Get over it.

Sun,

This is specifically to you. And not to worry, this is the last time I will waste my time covering this point, since it is obvious it is either beyond your understanding, or you simply refuse to accept it.

First of all, student loans were intended for ANYBODY. OTHERWISE, the government would place income restrictions on the amount one could borrow. They go through the process of collecting all of your tax return data, so this would not be a difficult step, if that was the intention. It is not...

Secondly, I will admit that there PROBABLY is SOME DEGREE of indirect taxpayer expense. I did not say that the student loan program does not cost taxpayers money. (Paying the salary for people who review the FAFSAs alone must cost a fortune). What I am saying, and please try to grasp this, is that the ADDITIONAL money that I am borrowing for my investing, is not a significant taxpayer expense.

AND in the event that it is (**please pay special close attention to this pargraph, since this is the one you particularly seem to ignore**) EVERYBODY pays taxes. Including me! Yes me too!
EVERYBODY benefits from this in some way shape or form. EVERY individual benefits in their own way. MY tax dollars are used for programs that I will never benefit from. That costs me money. I have accepted that, because that is the NATURE of a FEDERAL TAX PROGRAM. This one program that I do benefit from, IS FAR OUTWEIGHTED by ALL of the programs that I pay for and yet do not or am not able to use. As intelligent of a person as you are (not sarcastic there) you dont seem to be able to grasp this concept. Or, perhaps more accurately, you refuse to grasp this concept due to the fact that it will negate your whole arguement:)

AT any rate, I am done discussing this. You can whine all you want. You can complain all you want. What you are stating is incorrect, as is your original statement that it is NEVER correct to borrow for a bankroll. However, I am done discussing that with you as well:) I look forward to your future posts involving the actual game of BJ, since they are generally worth reading.

Best of "luck"..(in quotes for ref to another post..haha)

D

I'm sure everyone made sure to file their winnings. Of course we did....

"First of all, student loans were intended for ANYBODY. OTHERWISE, the government would place income restrictions on the amount one could borrow."

They are intended for anybody to use for education, but not for a blackjack bankroll.

"Secondly, I will admit that there PROBABLY is SOME DEGREE of indirect taxpayer expense...What I am saying, and please try to grasp this, is that the ADDITIONAL money that I am borrowing for my investing, is not a significant taxpayer expense."

You are admitting others are right, that it is a taxpayer expense. Who are you to decide what is a "significant" amount? Multiply the amount you are costing taxpayers times the number of outstanding student loans and I bet most of us would consider the amount to be VERY significant if everyone were to do what you're doing.

But the amount doesn't even matter. It's either right or wrong to do what you're doing. The dollar amount, how many others are doing it or not doing it, or what's happening within other programs has nothing to do with if it's right or wrong for you to do what you are doing.

"AND in the event that it is (**please pay special close attention to this pargraph, since this is the one you particularly seem to ignore**) EVERYBODY pays taxes. Including me! Yes me too!
EVERYBODY benefits from this in some way shape or form. EVERY individual benefits in their own way. MY tax dollars are used for programs that I will never benefit from. That costs me money. I have accepted that, because that is the NATURE of a FEDERAL TAX PROGRAM. This one program that I do benefit from, IS FAR OUTWEIGHTED by ALL of the programs that I pay for and yet do not or am not able to use. As intelligent of a person as you are (not sarcastic there) you dont seem to be able to grasp this concept. Or, perhaps more accurately, you refuse to grasp this concept due to the fact that it will negate your whole arguement:)"

Paying taxes does not make it right to abuse programs of your choice as you see fit. What if everyone took this approach? Our taxes would go up, some programs would have to be eliminated, and the government would still likely go broke. We all pay taxes for programs we don't use directly, but we usually still get some indirect benefits. Tax dollars spent on highways may seem like a waste to those that don't drive. They still benefit by being able to receive goods and services delivered over those highways.

Your main argument that it is right for you to abuse the student loan program because you help fund so many other programs you don't use is complete nonsense. How would you feel to find out that due to abuse in those other programs you will now have to pay in even more? And maybe some truly in need of the program might be denied because of shortage of funds due to abuse?

That's how we feel about your program. I don't need a student loan but don't mind paying in to the program. I still get some indirect benefit because educated people are less likely to drain even more tax dollars in welfare later, and educated people may provide me with better products & services later on. But I don't like seeing the program abused, possibly causing my taxes to go up to fund abuses, and possibly ruining the program down the road for those truly in need.

is that you are trying to enforce your idea of what is "right or wrong" on somebody else. I think its wrong that SR doesnt report all of his BJ winnings, which according to your theory, causes my taxes to go up(see above posts). I think its wrong that many of the tax benefits are for the sole purpose of the rich or for people who can afford to pay others to dig for loopholes. Again, according to your theory, this causes my taxes to go up. I dare say, yes there are things that even YOU do that cause me to pay more then I would otherwise have to pay. I just doubt that you have the balls to admit it on a public site. I only came forward because it is a benefit to students, and they should know about it.

Bottom line, I am saying its a give and take thing, which I dont see how you can honestly deny. As for if its right or wrong, well that depends on which side of the arguement you are on. Obviously, by me doing it, I dont agree. OF COURSE anybody who doesnt participate in the program is going to believe it is "wrong". I happen to think its "right". Either way, I intend to keep borrowing until I reach the lifetime limit. Im going to have alot of investments and a whole lot of degrees. Have a nice day:)

D

"Paying taxes does not make it right to abuse programs of your choice as you see fit." -Suth'n Gent

I could not have said it better.

...paying taxes doesnt give you the right to tell me not to "USE" the program (I do not agree that it is abuse) as I see fit.
Its within the law, I have the right.
Enough said.

What all of you are missing is this simple fact: The student loan program allows a student to borrow for Tuition, Books AND room and board. Regardless of how much money you make (that, again is proven because they do not restrict the amount you can borrow based on your income). With that being the case, I am fully acting within the INTENDED use of the student loan program, since my annual room and board expenses are well in excess of the 12K I am getting back in cash. Think of it as me using the 12K for room and board, and the additional free money I receive from not having to pay for room and board being used for "blackjack" if that really makes you feel any better. Regardless, I am acting within the intended use of the funds being disbursed to me, THUS it is not ABUSE as all of you love to put it. If that blind fact staring you in the face is not enough to convince you that it is not wrong, nor abuse, then so be it.

D

I am coming late to this thread, but I have some read some of the posts.
I have a question. What kinds of statements and representations do you have sign to obtain these student loans? Are copies of the forms available anyplace on the Web?

If there are no representations, other than that you are enrolled as a full-time student, then you may actually be just taking advantage of a legal loophole in the law.

But if there other certifications that you have to make, then you may be making willful misrepresentations on the loan. That is fraudulent and illegal activity; it would not surprise me if several felonies are committed by doing this.

Some people borrow money because they have negative net worth, in which you can say that they really playing on borrowed money.

There other people who have high net worth, but may happen to short of liquidity. For them, borrowing is just a business expense.

If I run low on ready cash, I would consider taking some money against my Home Equity Line. I would decided what made more financial sense. Borrowing it or selling stock. Tax considerations could play an important role.