Getting a rakeback or not?

[mcozzy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Buy another monitor and play 4 rakeback and 4 bonus tables at all times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Please. The world needs more 8 tabling 2+2ers.

[playersare]

the approximate ceiling of rackback earnings potential is about 12.5 cents per hand. this is calculated by taking a maximum $3 rake from a pot worth at least $60, divided by a short-handed table of 6 players for 50 cents gross revenue per player. then 25% rakeback on 50 cents is worth 12.5 cents per max raked hand. at the higher limits required to induce $3 max rate consistently, rakeback value caps out between 0.5-1.0BB/100. under this particular scenario of heavy play, rakeback is obviously worthwhile in the long run.

however, compare this to a typical party skin reload bonus where a player can earn a little over 14 cents per hand ($1 divided by 7x ratio), by playing limits as low as 50c/$1. The minimum rake revenue share at that level is 50c divided by 10 players, so 5 cents of revenue, and rakeback earnings of 1.25 cents per hand. in this scenario, rakeback is still only worth about 1BB/100, but the bonus is worth 14BB/100.

i am working on a chart which will list comparitive BB/100 earnings levels of rakeback vs. bonuses for all betting levels, and will post it soon.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
$100 bonus for 700 hands = $.14 per hand

To equal that in 25% rakeback you would have to pay in $.56 of rake so if you're at a full table the rake would have to be $5.60 which ain't gonna happen like you said.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is approximately correct, and since most rakes top out at $3 per hand (there are exceptions, but obviously, you shouldn't play those unless they are really fishtastic), even at very high stakes you still do better with a reasonable bonus like the one in the example than with rakeback. Of course, this assumes that the games you play while clearing bonus are at least as profitable as the games you would play for rakeback. If that's not true, then you might be better off skipping the bonus.

[bobbyi]

Sorry to ask such a basic question, but why isn't it possible to get both rakeback and reload bonuses? Rakeback means that when you sign up, you do so with an affiliate who kicks back to you some of what they get by being your affiliate, which is a percentage of the rake that you pay (yes?). And reload bonuses are that when you add more money to your account, at certain times they give you extra money provided you play enough hands (right?). So how are these in conflict? I don't see why you can't have both. If you sign up with an affiliate are you not eligible for reload bonuses and such? Also, people on this thread are talking about having only one site where you have rakeback. Is there a reason you can't sign up with a rakeback affiliate on all sites that you play? Is it that you only get rakeback if you play some minimum number of raked hands, so you need to concentrate your play on one site? Thanks for any help.

[limodude]

Well. When I made the original post I was posing the question to the following. Lets say I have a rakeback deal at a Party skin and I pretty much play that exclusively. Then Paradise comes out with a reload bonus like the one this weekend which is 200 bucks for 2000 hands. Would I be better off playing those same 2000 hands on my Party skin with a rakeback or taking the paradise bonus. And at which stakes level does it tip the scale. Hope that claifies my question.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say I have a rakeback deal at a Party skin and I pretty much play that exclusively. Then Paradise comes out with a reload bonus like the one this weekend which is 200 bucks for 2000 hands. Would I be better off playing those same 2000 hands on my Party skin with a rakeback or taking the paradise bonus.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. My confusion is: Couldn't you also set up a rakeback deal on Paradise? Then, while you are playing on Paradise you would be getting both the reload bonus and your rakeback, rather than just the rakeback that you would get if you wer playing your Party skin. Does that not work? What I don't understand is why you ever have to trade away your rakeback for something else. Is it because rakeback is not possible for all sites? Is it because they won't let you get both affiliate bonuses and reload bonuses at the same time? Something else? Thanks.

[playersare]

yes you can have rakeback linked to your account even if you are mostly playing for bonuses (in fact there is certainly no reason NOT to), but the gross proceeds of the bonus you receive directly from the site are deducted from your MGR (monthly gross revenue) that your affiliate tracks in order to determine how much rakeback you have earned.

for low limit players who are primarily whoring bonuses and reloads from site to site every month, the rake revenue they generate from actual play will only be a fraction of the bonus amount required to be offset before the account becomes "rakeback positive". If a party skin 50c/$1 player on 10-max tables generates $35 of MGR playing 700 raked hands to earn a $100 bonus, then he will not be entitled to any net rakeback on top of that until he plays at least an additional 1300 raked hands. instead of continuing to grind on that site for that time of zero net earnings, he can go to another site with a similar bonus and start whoring again from scratch.

the general strategy for a micro to low limit recreational player is to pursue bonus play opportunities foremost, and then earn rakeback on a site which has few or no reloads which would offset his MGR earnings.

it's my opinion that a majority of posters who are inquiring about rakeback are players who are worried that they are "missing out" from earning additional rebates on top of existing bonus funds...generally not true as explained here. many people sign up for their favorite poker sites at the novice level, and as a result do not generally have any affiliate and/or rakeback in place when doing so. then they get overly concerned that they missed the boat and suddenly are willing to risk closing their existing account and then signing up again in order to reconfigure their rake scheme in a way which often times does not make any significant difference financially, if even at all.

if you have not signed up for a particular site before, by all means do it through rakeback if you want...I've never advocated otherwise (though alternately you can go with an affiliate which gives you cash up front or free merch - whatever you think is more valuable). but any sleep lost over not having rakeback on an existing low-limit and/or recreational account is generally not justified.

[craig r]

You don't get both the reload and rakeback at the same time, because your affiliate "pays" his/her share of your bonus. so, since your affiliate is not making any money off of you during this bonus time, he/she can't pay you. An example: You get $100 bonus at Empire. Your affiliate "pays" 25 of that.

craig

[kendal14]

Someone more knowledgeable can correct my answer to your post. You can do both... however, when you are clearing a bonus your rakeback earning is less. The rakeback your affiliate (whoever set you up with the rakeback) gets money for the hands that you play when you are clearing a bonus. Therefore you get less.

I do not think anyone says you cannot do both. I play at a site with a rakeback and reload bonuses every now and again. The rakeback calculation of what you get at the end of the month is just not as clear when you are clearing bonuses. That is what I think the answer is. But I could be dead wrong (ie. you do not earn any rakeback on hands you play when clearing bonuses).

[bobbyi]

Thanks a lot. I understand now.

I want to ask where I can find the best rakeback dealing in setting up a new account, but I fear that a discussion on that topic would violate the "no affiliate zone" policy since any recommendations would count as endorsing an affiliate. Yes?