#1
|
|||
|
|||
pokershare rakeback question?
I have read from 2 different major affiliates conflicting ways of how they calculate rake? One states that it is taken from contributed pots, while another says it is figured in the same manner as party. Laslty is it possible for 2 affiliates to be figuring rakeback differently for the same site?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: pokershare rakeback question?
anyone?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: pokershare rakeback question?
I've seen it in multiple places as contributed because of the share % given back to the players already.
Basically, if the pot is $40, you bet $10 of it and $2 in rake is taken. Your contribution was 25% of the pot so you rake contribution is the same % which is $.50. Then you get the % that the rakeback company is giving you of that value. Hope this clears it up. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: pokershare rakeback question?
UB/PokerShare is Involved Rake, like Party/Empire. This is your share of the rake on every hand you are dealt cards.
[ QUOTE ] R = Gross Revenue. Gross Revenue is the sum total of all an affiliate's Players' contributions to rake while playing for a single payment period. A Player's contribution to the "rake" shall be determined by dividing the actual amount of rake generated during a hand by the number of players who were dealt cards during that hand. [/ QUOTE ] Terms and conditions. So many people get the terminology wrong, that I try not to even use Involved or Theoretical/contributed rake or Involved/dealt in, unless it is paired with the description. [ QUOTE ] 1.7 "Theoretical Rake" is the quotient obtained when multiplying the total amount of the rake taken from the pot by the percentage of money the player had contributed to the pot. For example, if the pot is $100 and you contributed $10 of that pot then your percentage is 10%. Therefore, if the rake taken from that hand was $10 then your theoretical rake would have been $1. [/ QUOTE ] PokerWorld This is from the PokerWorld affiliate terms and conditions. Heaven only knows where they rake a pot $10.00, but that is their example |
|
|