Playing just for rake

[xPuns1her]

I thought the rake that goes toward your rakeback is: lets say 10 people at a table, $3 in rake, so its .30 cents thats your rake toward your rakeback?

[Professor Frink]

Ok, my first post wasn't to clear (everything makes sense in my head [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]). Take two

One of my friends has been playing poker full time for about 18 months now, with no other income source. In the last 2 months he has gone through an extended bad run and has basically survived (pay bills expenses) due to the fact that he received rake payments from his afilliate/s.

Although income received from rebates is small compared to his "average" win rate, the rate per hour derived from rake is still quite good (in my eyes anyway compared to some jobs).

Therefore i wondered if people derived a majority of their income from rebates, and if so they may (or not) decide that pushing marginal situations may be bad because they would prefer having a relatively more stable bankroll at the expense of the higher win rate over the long run taking marginal situations that increase variance in the short run.

I'm not saying try to play at 0 bb/100 to do this cause thats stupid, obviously still need to be a winning player and should still be looking to improve, but what i meant by all this was did people people just use the income from rebate to pay for whatever and let any winnings build up in their tank to move up limits or whatever.

That make sense?

[Professor Frink]

Also then wondered if people played at higher limits/ more tables to recieve higher rake at the expense of playing lower limits less tables for higher winrate (bb/100) as they may prefer the consistancy of the rake income.

[Blarg]

There wouldn't be any point in moving up if rakeback was a significant part of your profit. It would take very few bad sessions for you to suffer a significant financial setback.