Originally Posted by zachvac
Agreed, never understood why sites used other methods. If you win the pot you pay the rake so you should get the rakeback.
this is only due to convention - in a live game, the rake is removed between winning the pot and passing it to the winner. this could be due to some advanced calculation, but it's probably just for simplicity. casinos don't offer rewards based on rake paid, so it doesn't really make sense to follow this model in designing an online rakeback system. consider that the simplest way to offer rakeback under this model is simply to...reduce the rake.
that isn't to say that this way couldn't be correct. it's just to say that it should be considered further before implementing it online.
regardless of who pays rake, the value of individual players to sites is becoming better known. there are players who never create action and merely flock to it. why subsidize these players? on the other hand, there are others who either create games (contributing regs) or others who are the catalysts for games (fish). it seems that these players should get the bulk of the rewards.
rather than simply collecting the rake, hanging onto it for a bit and then paying it back equally, the sites should continue tweaking their formulas to create the best games and the best viability for themselves.