Depending on affiliate deals and rakeback, some players will be incentivized to play wider ranges than people with no deals.

This makes me realize this may be unfair to no deal regs who are forced to be tighter.

If you're clearing a bonus, the situation is even more extreme. Imagine having an affiliate deal and a signup bonus (clearing at 12% for example). This probably cuts the rake by 2 to 3bb at 50NL or 100NL.

So you might end up with some 30VPIP regs with good deals in a sea of 22VPIP players. The 22VPIP players laughing, assuming 30VPIP dude is a rake machine. All the while the 30VPIP could be playing 35% more hands than them, and may be getting a similar/better winrate overall.

All this gets me thinking, do you share this view? Am I missing something?
Cheers

PS: Another possibility would be to not adjust your strategy, and freeroll paying less rake. But I have a feeling that's not optimal EV because less rake allows you to exploit preflop more often. Thoughts?

If this is a split-pot hi/lo game, or a limit game, then I agree.

However, for no-limit, the way you play post-flop and how many large pots and coin flips in which you participate is much more influenced by rake deals.

If the table is populated by regs who have tightened their range to account for rake, this is ideal for a LAG to run over, and the extra EV of all the overfolds from the regs more than pays the extra rake.

Your theory is sound, but the real world application is more complicated.

There's probably something in this, but I think it would actually be more profitable to play the "standard" (tighter) ranges and just add tables (if it's possible on the specific site). i.e. When a rake race is happening, there is more of an incentive to play 16 tables with "standard ranges" than play 12 tables as an aggrofish.
Unless the rake race is particularly rewarding (with "crazy" payouts for the heaviest rakers), it's usually the case that a grinder's income comes mostly from winning on the tables, so it would be a pretty odd system that enabled the splashiest players to make more money than the ones that actually beat them.
If the site only allows a maximum of 4 tables, however, then lagging it up might be the only option for a player trying to unlock a bonus. Again, however, playing looser to try and hit a rake target could just result in heavy losses on the tables, thus making it a -EV endeavour.

I should clarify, since I am prone to post confusing and unexplained gibberish from time to time.

If the player vpip of 30 percent is aggro, she is winning more from the folding of the 22 vpip players than the 22 vpip players are saving in rake.

It is possible to play 22 vpip aggressively post-flop, but most TAG players nit it up and wind up folding.

I guess my whole point (only applied to NL holdem) is that your largest contribution to rake in a session will be a few of your largest pots, instead of a few BB saved by a tight opening range.