No rakeback profitable?

[davegrohl]

Can it be profitable to play cash game poker without receiving rakeback? There are rooms that don't have rakeback, instead offer neverending bonuses and/or game softness (as they don't attract as many sharks).

What do you think?

[sarbox68]

Yup. If the bonuses are attainable at the stakes you play and perpetually refilled, then you can count this as an alternative to rake. I don't play at PokerStars, but my understanding is this is pretty much how people work their frequent player point system. You just gotta figure out the math to see what you're really taking home... I used to play UB w/ no rakeback (not that you can't get it... I couldn't get it...) ... it was profitable until they changed their bonus payout to make it d@mn near impossible to earn.

[Muzzard]

of course it can! Unless your playing super high volume or high stakes there isn't much point to playing if you cant beat thew game for a good win rate. I suppose if ur a really high volume at low stakes, or a high stakes player you coudl be a break even player but still earn tonnes.

I play stars without rakeback, I can beat my current limit for a decent winrate. I just think the ffps is a bonus, currently I earn about 30-50k fpps a month. WHich depening on what i buy can equate upto about 45% rakeback.

[oskar]

I haven't gotten any rakeback for quite some time from PP. No interesting bonus offers either. It depends on your winrate. I'm 7,5bb/100 over the last 7000 hands and 5NL I'm not so sure how representative that is, or how many hours of play that includes. I'm only running the PokerTracker trial right now, and I'm still a little confused with the interface, but if I get this right, I paid about 500$ in rake, so rakeback would have been awesome anyway. But who knows. Maybe the rakeback sites are less fishy. (It's possible that it counts the rake for sng's too which is humongous at PP, and I still play with a profit at the end of the day - but a marginal one compared to cash games, so I stick to cash games most of the time)
The good thing is that you can be a break-even player and still make money with rakeback I guess.

[Jack Sawyer]

Yup. If the bonuses are attainable at the stakes you play and perpetually refilled, then you can count this as an alternative to rake. I don't play at PokerStars, but my understanding is this is pretty much how people work their frequent player point system. You just gotta figure out the math to see what you're really taking home... I used to play UB w/ no rakeback (not that you can't get it... I couldn't get it...) ... it was profitable until they changed their bonus payout to make it d@mn near impossible to earn.

have you gotten rakeback for UB yet? I used to not have neither, then I got a RB deal for my acc.

[sarbox68]

Yup. If the bonuses are attainable at the stakes you play and perpetually refilled, then you can count this as an alternative to rake. I don't play at PokerStars, but my understanding is this is pretty much how people work their frequent player point system. You just gotta figure out the math to see what you're really taking home... I used to play UB w/ no rakeback (not that you can't get it... I couldn't get it...) ... it was profitable until they changed their bonus payout to make it d@mn near impossible to earn.

have you gotten rakeback for UB yet? I used to not have neither, then I got a RB deal for my acc.

No. My problem is I f-d myself two years ago when I joined UB through an affiliate offer for free PokerTracker. 'Cause of that, they won't let me add a rakeback affiliate (or at least so raketherake has informed me...) So I did the math a few months ago (before I quit UB for good...) --

1. Free PokerTracker = $89
2. 2 years of lost Rakeback = $2,436
3. Confirming you were a douche......

[spoonitnow]

I have a sticky in the NL Strat forum that describes how PokerStar's bonuses work in terms of rakeback.