I guess I'm pretty much a part-time bonus whore so I thought I'd add some perspective on the rakeback vs. bonus whoring issue. I have a fulltime job that I like and pays well so I only play 2-4 hours a day (no variance and excellent benefits makes the pregnant wife happy).

Because my time is limited anyway I just play bonuses on the sites where I already like to play (poker network skins mostly and party during a reload). With some of the new massive and recurring reload bonuses out there (essentially the sites cutting the affiliates out of the rakeabck scheme. Wave of the future?)I'm never playing at less than about %50 equivalent non-contributed rakeback and many bonuses are %100 rakeback or better. Bottom line is that bonuses are almost always better than rakeback while they last unless of course you can get both at the same time.

I've read that some people make a living playing as many tables as possible 8-10 hours a day or more hoping to play a bit better than break even poker and relying on rakeback for the bulk of their profits. One figure I've seen is that this earns them 50k a year. Well I don't make 50k a year in salary yet but THAT seems like a grind to me and there's no paid vacation (though earning a living in my underwear does have a certain appeal).

Over the last month I've made about 4k playing solid aggressive poker and clearing a few bonuses while only playing 2-4 hours a day. These results aren't necessarily typical for me but I've always won long term (I did only break even this month at Pokerstars, some good players there).

I stick to 2-3 tables at a time so I get to enjoy the strategy of poker by outplaying (and occasionally outdrawing) my opponents but not get bored. I do have to get up every day at 6:00 AM to get to work and I have to wear a tie, but I'm pretty happy just being a part time whore. The rakeback vs. bonus thing just boils down to how much you play, how you play, and what you're happy doing for a living.