US Congress Reviews Poker Gambling Tax Repeal Push

Gambling tax repeal push reaches the House

The fight over the gambling tax provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is far from over. Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives are preparing to discuss whether the controversial rule should be rolled back, and that has major implications for poker players, tournament operators, and the wider gaming economy.

The core issue is simple but powerful: the new provision would allow gamblers to deduct only 90% of their losses for tax purposes. Under the previous framework, players could write off the full amount of losses. For anyone who plays poker professionally, or even semi-professionally, that difference can turn a normal year into a tax headache.

The debate is now moving from industry concern to actual legislative review, which is why players following the action in poker rooms and poker clubs are paying attention.

What the FULL HOUSE Act is trying to fix

The bipartisan FULL HOUSE Act was introduced in January by Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada and Rep. Max Miller of Ohio. Its name is long, but its purpose is straightforward: repeal the gambling tax provision that was added last year.

House Ways and Means Committee members are expected to take up the issue during the opening days of the fall congressional session. The proposal is being reviewed alongside other tax-related measures, including bills dealing with crypto taxation and health care.

That matters because poker is no longer being treated as a niche side issue. The fact that the committee is formally considering the bill means the discussion has reached a point where political pressure, economic arguments, and industry lobbying are all colliding.

Why poker pros are worried about the 90% deduction cap

For casual gamblers, the rule may sound like a technical adjustment. For poker professionals, it is a structural problem.

Poker is a high-variance game. A player can spend months grinding, posting swings, and still finish the year close to breakeven or slightly down after expenses. If only 90% of losses can be deducted, that player may still owe taxes despite not actually earning money.

That is why many in the industry have called the rule a phantom tax. It creates a tax burden on income that does not really exist, which can distort behavior at every level of the game.

• fewer entries in high-buy-in tournaments;
• reduced willingness to travel for major series;
• pressure on the poker ecosystem that feeds poker school students aiming to move up in stakes;
• more conservative bankroll and tax planning among regulars.

The political angle: bipartisan support and Nevada pressure

Rep. Horsford has been outspoken about the issue, arguing that people should not be taxed on money they never earned. His comments frame the repeal effort as a fairness issue, but also as an economic one for Nevada, where gaming and tourism are deeply tied to jobs and local businesses.

That framing is important. In Congress, tax changes often gain traction when lawmakers can present them as protections for workers, small businesses, and regional economies rather than as favors to a single industry.

Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada is also pushing repeal through a separate route. Her FAIR BET Act, first introduced in 2025, has had a stop-start path through Congress, including being removed from a defense spending bill in September 2025 and later excluded from another spending measure in January.

Her proposal is now attached to a tax package circulating in the House, which gives the repeal effort another possible path forward.

Expert analysis: what this means for poker players and the market

From a poker perspective, the most important takeaway is that lawmakers are beginning to confront the difference between gambling and poker as a skill-based, variance-heavy ecosystem.

• professionals may feel more comfortable maintaining full schedules at major series;
• tournament fields could stabilize if players no longer fear a tax bill on a breakeven year;
• the U.S. live and online market could become less hostile to long-term grinders.

If the rule stays in place, the market may respond defensively. Players could reduce volume, be more selective with high-variance events, or spend more time with tax planning than strategy study. In other words, a bad tax rule does not just hit wallets — it changes game selection and risk tolerance.

That is why this story matters beyond politics. A single line in the tax code can affect whether a player registers a $10,000 event, keeps a full schedule, or works with a poker agent to manage travel and entries more efficiently.

What happens next in Congress

Congress returns on Monday, and the committee process is still in its early stages. There is no guarantee either repeal proposal will make it to a full floor vote, and legislative momentum can change quickly.

Still, the fact that both the FULL HOUSE Act and Titus’s repeal effort are under consideration is meaningful. It suggests that the poker community’s concerns have made it into the mainstream policy conversation, not just industry chatter.

The OBBA gambling tax provision was first brought to wider attention by high-stakes players, and Poker Hall of Famer Erik Seidel said in April that he had reduced his playing schedule because of the tax implications.

For poker players, that is the key signal: this is no longer a theoretical issue. It is already influencing how top pros think about volume, risk, and the future of the game.

FAQ