rakeback or nothing

[thrash1294]

I have come to the conclusion for myself being a ring game player if the site does not give rake back Its not worth playing .For 2 weeks I have played only
even poker. but with rake back I am still a winner

If you play a site with rakeback I like to hear which site and what % of rake you get back

thanks

[Penguinfan]

Full Tilt, 27%

Paid to my poker account each month

[PShabi]

Hmmm,

In the past, I've played at

Interpoker 30%
UB 30%? I think
Prima 40% (like 150 hands)
Full Tilt 27%

Now, it's just Party for an undisclosed amount.

[thrash1294]

I would be intersted in party rakeback

dang at full tilt i only get18% I am getting ripped

[PShabi]

The 27% was a while ago, I think they've dropped everywhere. That said, 18% is a rip.

[Robbie Robb]

This seems like as good as place as any to bring this up. I just don't understand really what the big deal about rakeback is. Maybe it's showing off my naivete regarding online poker.

YES, I do realize that rakeback is obviously going to increase your profit but is it really such a big deal that you (and by 'you' I mean anyone, not specifically Thrash) won't play at a site without rakeback.

I've just started playing over at Party and was playing .50/1 limit and $25NL and was doing pretty good - especially at the NL tables. I've since started playing the $11 Speed SNGs. MAN those things are great. But when I was playing the cash games, I don't think I really paid that much in rake. I just went to PT to check and I see that of all the hands I've played there was $137.90 paid in rake. Now, this isn't only hands that I've won or necessarily even had any part of. I don't see an easy way (I may be missing it) to pull out only hands where I won the pot where rake was paid in PT.

If anyone out there wants to take the time to educate me on the horrible evils of rake and the benefits of rakeback, I'm more than willing to learn!

[thrash1294]

For me being primarily a ring game player it makes a world of diiference If you are doing good then add rakeback
then it adds another 10% ON TOP OF THAT... But for a ring game player you pay much more in rake than a tourney player right?

I get my rake back every monday and usually cash my winnings out every 10 days then start over with my rakeback bankroll . For me that about $40 a week And I play only $25 nl and $10 nl which is nothing .I figured If I was playing $100 that would about $150 a week or $7800 a year

[Boobie Lover]

You can and should play without rakeback if you expect your winrate to be greater than that of a site with rakeback. Rakeback and bonuses are more important the lower the stakes you play since rake takes out a higher % of the pot. Although you probably don't play a high enough volume of hands, if you were to ever play bundles of hands in a month, you would notice the benefits.

For the sites that I have rakeback at and I play at...

UB - 28%
World Poker Exchange - 100%
CD Poker - 35%


Sites that I play at only when I have a bonus going

Bodog
Full Tilt (which is 42% rakeback with a bonus going)

[Penguinfan]

You are absolutly missing the point, you don't just get rakeback on the hands you win.

Rakeback is calculated like this:

Total rake of the pot divided by the number of people dealt cards weather they see the flop or not, you just have to be dealt cards.

Say the pot is raked $2.00 at a 10-handed table, your share of the rake paid is $0.20 and say you get 25% rakeback, even if you fold you would have got $.05 rakeback.

Doesn't seem like much, but if you play 1000 hands a month you would get $50 even if you folded them all.

Get it?

[Robbie Robb]

Ooooohhhh....that's pretty...

Thanks for explaining it - I've never really been bothered learning about it. Probably because when I first started playing, I was mostly playing SNGs/MTTs and never really played much at the cash games. Now I'm playing a fair amount of $25NL at Party. Definitely seems like something to look into...

[Talking Poker]

Rakeback is good if:
-You are playing a LOT of hands
-You are beating the game where you are getting the RB more than you can beat any other game

Rakeback is pointless if:
-You aren't playing many hands
-You are playing on a site that is costing you MORE RAKE than a site without RB
-You are playing in tougher games than you could be elsewhere without RB

Alternatively, look at it like this: Instead of focusing on the RB number, focus on the R-RB number (how much they are still taking). The key is to make THAT number go down. In other words, if Site A is costing you $1000 in Rake per month and you are getting $400 back (wow - 40% RB!), that still a net of $600 you paid in Rake, which is worse than Site B that costs you $500 per month and gives you 0% RB... ESPECIALLY if you are breaking even at Site A and winning $1000 at Site B.

I'm just making up numbers, but you see my point.

That said, believe it or not, I don't have a single rakeback account. Stupid? Maybe. But I set up all my accounts before I even knew RB existed, and I've never bothered to close/reopen them and jump through all the other hoops I need to jump through to get it going. If I played more, it would probably be worth my while, but lately, I don't know that I've been enerating enough for it to be worthwhile.

Lastly: Very soon, I will be able to offer Rake Back on a few different sites for you guys. I can't name them all here for various reasons, but I will tell you that PKR (that new 3D site everyone is talking about) is one of them... and the best part of that is it's completely automated, with them paying you directly, etc, etc, etc. I'm hoping to have that set up for you guys within a week.

[Penguinfan]

Thats good news TP, let us know ASAP on that.

As far as what you said about rakeback vs somewhere that doesn't cost you as much rake to begin with, I'd like to understand that farther. I play at Full Tilt with rakeback and they take 5% up to $3.00, isn't that pretty much stadard everywhere?

I still think it is worth it even if you are just a SNG player, say you play 10 $10+1 sng's (again standard fee everywhere) each day for a month and contribute $300 in rake that way, you get $75 rakeback, or just under 7 buy-ins. I still think that is definatly worth it reguardless.

The downside to rakeback at FT is I have no where near the cash game selection that players at Stars have, though that my be a good thing for me since I just can't play cash games for some reason (all the lessons in the world can't teach a cat to bark).

[Nikita]

I've never used rakeback either. I've considered it, but like TP said it would be a hassle to go back and close and then recreate all new accounts at the sites I play at.

[Talking Poker]

A couple of things:First, while the "big sites" rakes are pretty much standard, they definitely aren't all the same everywhere (don't forget about Party and their new "Monster" rake, for example). Doesn't one of the big sites charge 5+1 for SNGs while another charges 5+.50? I've never played a $5 SNG, but I remember that used to be the case. Anyway, that is a HUGE difference (twice the rake). So if THAT is your game of coice, you would be making a mistake by playing at the 5+1 site, even if you were getting 49% RakeBack (speaking purely mathematically).Also, lots of the other, smaller sites don't rake the same as the big ones... ESPECIALLY these sites that offer you 40% rakeback automatically, etc, etc... Be sure to check out what they are taking from each pot you play, because it's often a good bit more than "normal," making that 40% pretty much useless.As for your specific example, yes, 10+1 = 10+1. But if your ROI is twice as high at Party as it is at Full Tilt, it's stupid for you to be playing at Full Tilt just to get a piece of your Rake Back. It's all about the bottom line.

[Tony Cheval]

Not if you live in the USA.

[Talking Poker]

Huh?

[Tony Cheval]

They sent me an email the other day, they decided not to allow US players to play for real money due to the bill in Congress. They did say they would keep monitoring the situation, meaning reversing that if the bill dies I imagine.

[Talking Poker]

Wow... I hadn't heard that. What a horrible decision.

[JDMcNugent7]

not the best sign.