Rake Back Programs

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
As an example: Today I cleared the Carribean Sun $40 bonus and I generated $77.75 in rake. If I had rakeback I would've had to subtract $40 from my rakeback bringing this down to $37.75. Assuming a 25% deal I would've recieved $9.43 in rakeback instead of a $40 bonus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different sites/affiliates might handle it differently, and I might be wrong here, but generally I think the bonus reduces your rakeback, but you still get both.

So, bonus + reduced rakeback is still greater than bonus + nothing.

In the description you quoted from a rakeback site, the player clearing the bonus with rakeback would receive $100 bonus + $92 rakeback for $192 total.

The player without the bonus would receive $115 for rakeback.

The player without rakeback would receive $100 for the bonus.

[iMcompliKted]

I'm suprised this is even being discussed. If you hit a bonus and your rake becomes negative you will not be charged anything for it. Rakeback is in addition to bonuses. If you never receive any than the only ones hurting are the casinos and affiliates, not you. Your only risk is having your account closed for this reason, which happens very rarely.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Would I have received the $40 and $9.43?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. You get the bonus from the site, not the affiliate. Getting the $40 bonus would reduce your rakeback by much less than $40, so bonus+rakeback is better than either alone.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, I'm pissed at all those bonuswhore guys.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you just misunderstood what they said.

Rakeback isn't significant at lower stakes. It's more important to focus on finding good bonuses and improving your game than finding a good rakeback deal.

When you play for high stakes, rakeback can be more important than bonuses. It may be a bad idea to switch away from your main site to clear a bonus on a site where you do not have rakeback. On the other hand, when you play for high stakes, the softness of the games is far more important than rakeback.

By the way, for stakes from $0.50-$1 to $3-$6, it is also more important to play at a site with a good rake structure than to get rakeback. I believe PokerRoom's recent rake increase means that even with rakeback, you pay more rake at those stakes than on other many sites without rakeback.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
Rakeback isn't significant at lower stakes. It's more important to focus on finding good bonuses and improving your game than finding a good rakeback deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it is important to note that if you sign up at a site to get a bonus -- and you don't get rakeback when you sign up -- it will be difficult to ever get rakeback at that site without doing something shady.

So, even though a low limit player benefits more from bonuses than rakeback, it is still important to take advantage of rakeback offers when registering for sites.

[aargh57]

Well I guess I just kind of screwed myself on a good number of sites out there. I did sign up with Rakeback on Empire, Battlefield(Prima skin) and Absolute. I really wish I would've signed up at the Crypto's as I whore them each month. Most of the other's I'm not as concerned with as they don't do many reloads. I doubt it would've been worth the hassle to sign up just to whore a 200 hand reload at some of them. Damn, live and learn.