Since there is a lot of discussion about how few actually winning players there are, is rakeback the way how the marginally players get by. It seems with multitabling ( I hear about how some people play over 100K hands a month) that a substantial amount could be made just using a very basic strategy and relying mainly on rakeback to keep you out of trouble.

I find hard to accept that people are able to use some of these advance strategies described here or are able to compute the odds and equities of every hand when they are running twelve tables at a time, playing 400 to 500 hands an hour.

Is this the truth? or are some of these people literal poker savants?

If you are an average player then you will lose long term because the rake will beat you. So you need to be above average to maintain your bankroll at a certain level taking into account the rake. Now once you are at that level anyway rakeback you get will be “profit”

Obviously the very good players win and get rakeback. In this case the RB is like a bonus at work.

I think when you talk about equating odds and playing say 12 tables we are not calculating exact odds. But the more you play the more accurate you can quickly assess any odds. Some people find this easier than others and I have said before it can be a personality trait whether this comes naturally or not.

But no, you do not need to be a savant. Generally a quick look and you may assess something at say 70% but the exact figure lets say is 73.2%. You do not need to be exact and you would not be able to play if you wanted it that close.

Since a rakeback deal normally pays 30-40% back, it possibly adds around 2% to a players total return. This will have an effect of turning some players from borderline losing/BE to BE/winning players. There are also some rake tricks that players may use to increase this return rate but definitely multiplaying, ABC poker and table selection can certainly return a decent win rate and nice rakeback bonus - but never assume those on a rakeback deal are automatically winning players - some merely use the regular lump sum payments to write off other losses.

As for 12 table multiplaying, I'm pretty sure there are some poker savants out there but note that most mega-multitablers if they are playing ABC/tight poker as you would expect will only be actively playing 20% of their hands anyway they will tend to bluff and make moves less than other players because it will use up precious time. It's unlikely they are using too many advanced strategies - but in many circumstances these strats are just not necessary.

Well what I do I build my bankroll by playing poker and whatever rakeback amount I get I allow myself to cash it out. So rakeback is like my spending money from poker.

Like others have said rakeback should be a bonus and never your main source of building your BR.

Yes.

To paraphrase Doyle Brunson "I figured out the math on all the plays years ago, now I just make them and can't remember why."

The key is quantity here. When you're seeing thousands of hands a day 99.9% of situations you've seen before and, even if you can't figure your equity to 73.2%, its familiar and you know what to do. Raise... next table.

Like that.

Multi-tabling is a skill in itself. Learn to play poker first, and if you want to multi-table, slowly add tables until you are comfortable with x tables at the same time. It can be done.

cool. I'm getting to a Doyle Brunson level of play much faster than I realized.

or maybe you are just getting senile at a young age

Nooooo... way way way more than 2%. It really depends on the stakes and player's skill level, but rakeback comprises more like 20-100% for almost all players. The only way it would be as low as 2% is for winning high-stakes players, where the amount won is many, many times smaller than amount of rake paid.

I posted a personal example of rakeback as a percentage of total poker earnings in this thread if you're interested.

I played a million SNGs July-Aug and 27% rakeback comprised about 25% of my profits.

Maybe I incorrectly worded it but I was referring to 2% return not 2% profit difference - the simple mathematical idea that the a rakeback program offering 40% back (based on the players own rake contributions only and 5% standard rake) would effectively return 2% of their total playthrough back to the player which could turn actual losing players or breakeven players into effectively winning players by virtual of rakeback alone which was what the original OP asked.

You are absolutely correct though and rakeback can make a huge difference to a players actual profit.

The link is great. Much appreciated.

i have played 225,000 hands at nl cash since june and Rb is equal to approx 25% of my profit.