Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerRon247
Personally I don't see how rakeback isn't just part of the effective rake. You pay some rake, and you get some of that back, leading to a net rake value. In other words rake = rake paid - rakeback.
If you take that as the case, then anybody that is profiting after rakeback is beating the games. They are beating the other players and they are beating the net rake, even if they are not beating the immediate rake charged in-game.
This is probably a whole other arugment tho....
my point is, that some players made a decision, to play a game they couldn't beat (b/f RB), because they calculated, it's EV for them. e.g. mass grind with net loss & get bonus > grind less with net profit.
personally i think it's an "abuse" (maybe sounds too harsh, i'm no native speaker, so my vocabulary is limited) of the bonus system in general. but like i said previously. they saw an opportunity and poker is about maximizing your EV. so i don't blame anyone. actually the opposite case, they made the correct decision.
nevertheless rakeback is a promotion, which means, it's not everlasting. this implies, that relying on RB as a steady income is some sort of false thinking.
so i stick to my point, they couldn't beat the games. it's not meant in a deprecatory way, b/c they knew exactly what they do.
anyway, i don't want to derail much more. basically i just think this posting
Quote:
Originally Posted by elendil200
Unreal how so many people dont understand how rakeback works. In a Zero rake enviroment, all the winning"rakeback grinders" would be profitable. Its not not like they are nett losers after rake and are getting some sort of magical stimulus.
is wrong. Not in every case, but there are plenty of 'losing players', who just aimed for the RB.