Erik Seidel Cuts Back as US Tax Rule Squeezes Poker Pros
The poker legend says the 90% loss deduction cap pushes him toward smaller buy-ins, even as he plans to keep showing up for marquee events.
Erik Seidel is cutting back on his tournament schedule as the new U.S. gambling tax rule makes high-volume poker grind less workable for him. The longtime pro says he is shifting toward smaller buy-ins and lower-stakes events, even though he still wants to stay visible in some marquee spots.
In April, CNBC reported that Seidel expected to play about a quarter of the tournaments he usually plays in 2026. He also said he planned to avoid virtually all high-roller events costing $25,000 or more, and that he had already been steering clear of $10,000 buy-in tournaments and above.
The change he is reacting to is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provision that allows gamblers to deduct only 90% of losses instead of 100%, starting in tax year 2026. That means gambling winnings are still treated as income, but losses cannot fully offset them, and the reporting around the law said the rule mainly hits high-roller players while having little effect on casual gamblers.
BNO News later reported that Seidel wants to cut his buy-in exposure sharply and focus on smaller tournaments with smaller entry fees. He still expects to appear in major events such as the WSOP Main Event, but plans to keep a lower profile in less media-heavy tournaments.
Seidel said the math gets too high when he can only deduct 90% of losses, and he warned that the rule could make elite tournament poker too expensive as a way to earn a living. He also said younger players who expect to grind tournaments could suddenly find themselves shut out, and that the rule could tempt some players into doing illegal things with their taxes.
The broader poker world has been sharply critical too. Doug Polk said the change skews the math against high-volume players, Russell Fox warned that the margins may be too thin, and Daniel Negreanu, Scott Seiver and Phil Hellmuth all denounced the provision in harsher terms. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Reps. Mark Amodei and Dina Titus have criticized the provision, while the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the rule would raise about $1.1 billion over eight years.
