Rakeback vs. no rakeback networks

[Wakke]

I have been lately thinking this issue. How much rakeback really yields?

For example iPoker is good example how good games turn into bad ones when they started to offer rakeback and rakeraces two years ago.

Personally I think networks that don't offer rakeback are much looser. So you would earn better at playing those no-rakeback sites.

My friend said that rake is about 4 BB and usually rakeback is around 35 % so you would get about 1.5 BB rakeback. I don't have any clue so I don't know. What do you think is this correct?

If you earn 1.5 BB more at those looser games then rakeback vs. no-rakeback networks have no difference.

[Winnergambling]

My friend said that rake is about 4 BB and usually rakeback is around 35 % so you would get about 1.5 BB rakeback. I don't have any clue so I don't know. What do you think is this correct?

This depends heavily on which buy-in level one plays on. On micro-levels you pay sometimes over 5ptBB/100 (=10 big blinds per 100 hands) as rake, so rakeback has really meaning there.

If one plays mid to high stakes, the meaning of rakeback/bonuses is neglible compared to the meaning of how good (=loose) the games are. But on micro-levels to small-stakes rakeback/bonuses should mean something on your decision where to play at.

[barto85]

Rakeback and bonuses can have a big effect. especially omaha hi/lo games and mid stakes limit holdem in cryptologic network are very tight. This is because they have quite good bonus+rakeback and dealt method when calculating rake. Everybody plays very tight and only wants to collect FPP:s.

at least this was the case last autumn when I played there.

[pokerseeker]

Regarding on the rakebacks, it depends on a lot of different factors. By choosing the rakeback options you have 2 options: the rakeback percent (%) and the rakeback generated. If you want to calculate roughly on how much you generate and subsequently how much rakeback you are entitled to.