Which is Better??? Bonus Whoring or RakeBack?

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
micros = bonuses
small stakes = rakeback with a few good monthly bonuses
mid/high = rakeback and maybe the occasioanl party skin reload

[/ QUOTE ]

When you make the same or more than $100+ in rakeback in a single day, bonuses on sites you don't play at aren't worth it.

[Reef]

This can depend on the limits you play, but I'd like to think the answer is just about always bonus whoring

[MarkL444]

if you play 1/2 or lower id say bonuses. once you get to about 5/10 youll practically stop caring about bonuses.

[Chiron]

I'm pretty sure the party 5/7x bonuses are still more profitable than 5/10 sh rakeback. From my experience 500 hands yields a little more than $30 in rakeback, and the bonus is obviously worth more. I don't bother with anything other than party skins these days though.

[sfwusc]

I dont play $5/$10 much, but bonus is better than rake back.

6% win rate
10BB pots
$3 rake
30% would be worth 5-6c a hand.

A bonus is worth more than that.

SFWUSC

$.14 a raked hand in 7x bonus.

[Talk2BigSteve]

I am very surprised that the vote is still very close, I thought it would be bonuses by a landslide but then again I am just a .5/1 and 1/2 player, So as stated above, I still fall in the bonus catagory.

Big Steve [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[playersare]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very surprised that the vote is still very close, I thought it would be bonuses by a landslide but then again I am just a .5/1 and 1/2 player, So as stated above, I still fall in the bonus catagory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think for some reason, some zoo members associate some sort of prestige with saying that they play under rakeback vs. bonus, even if it doesn't make them more money on a net basis.

as alluded by other posters in this thread, you need to hit the $3 max rake on each hand, AND play shorthanded for rakeback to be worth more than 10 cents per hand (which it the minimum standard rate for bonus whoring). so most people would have to play at least $5/10 (or $2/5 NL) in order to just be on even keel as the typical $1/2 bonus grinder. especially on a BB/100 basis, bonuses are a much superior return on your action.

the key to having rakeback be the logical choice over bonus whoring is the desire to remain on a particular site for reasons that go beyond pure per-raked hand earnings capability. factors like limit selection, PT/GT compatibility, soft players, game speed. just because you play $10/20 limit doesn't automatically mean that rakeback is better - especially when some bonuses still pay 14-20 cents compared to the max theo rakeback rate of 12.5 cents. however, because the number of sites that spread juicy $10/20 games is limited, such a player will likely settle on one site w/rakeback and continue earning past any bonuses deducted from MGR. this also assumes that the player already has a firm positive win rate where rakeback of 0.375-0.625BB/100 is actually significant. for a lot less investment, a novice bonus whore playing $1/2 can achieve a very similar arithmetic hourly earnings rate of $5-10/hr * table, adjusted to a full 5-10BB/100 compared to the $10/20 player.

so I would say the Universal Theorem of Rakeback is as follows:
"the gross income you generate in actual play on a specific site with rakeback, on a per-hand basis, exceeds the combined bonus opportunities of going to other sites"

[Talk2BigSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
so I would say the Universal Theorem of Rakeback is as follows:
"the gross income you generate in actual play on a specific site with rakeback, on a per-hand basis, exceeds the combined bonus opportunities of going to other sites"


[/ QUOTE ]

Sound good to me!

Big Steve [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[chesspain]

Does anyone else think this poll is stupid? It's not like one can't have accounts on multiple sites.

[Piers]

Be flexible.

If you are a losing player stick to micro limit bonus whoring.

The better you are and the larger your bankroll, the more likely you are to find rakeback deals worthwhile.

I would never recommend sticking to just one site. Why restrict your options in such an arbitrary manner.