Rakeback and actual rake - some questions
 

I've finally understood how much a good rakeback deal could change your winnings. Still, I only hear people talk about the percent in those rakeback deals, say 30%, which is common. But does that really matter if you don't know the "original" rake, before rakeback?

An example: At PokerStars I can't get rakeback (at least not from what I've heard). Now on Full Tilt, I've seen many sites offer a 27% rakeback deal. So that means I should choose Full Tilt, right? So it seems. But then again, some people claim Full Tilt has a higher rake than most others in the first place, making the rakeback "even money" as compared to, say, PokerStars.

So my point is: Yes, you save money on rakeback deals, but it doesn't actually mean you get more back compared to a site without rakeback, cause the original rake could be a lot different.

Has anybody compared the biggest sites (party, fulltilt, stars, and others) taking BOTH rakeback offers AND original rake into account, finding the "best" one?
Are there any sites I should really avoid, due to high rake (for example, I heard PartyPokers rake on small stakes being much higher than normal)

I play mostly NL cashgames 10c/20c up to maybe 50c/1$, but also cheap sit and go touraments.

thanks so much for any comments on this.
-karl

Re: Rakeback and actual rake - some questions
 

I'm pretty sure that NL rake structures are very similar, if the same, across sites. Poker Stars has a frequent player program that can compensate high volume players for the lack of rakeback.

When choosing a site you ought to consider rakeback in conjunction with player promotions, bonuses, and the quality of games.

Lucky

Re: Rakeback and actual rake - some questions
 

you can find the rake on the websites. Stars and FTP have the same rake at 25NL. FTP's rake sucks at 10NL (10% instead of 5%).

Rakeback+bonus is awesome on full tilt's microstakes (starting at 25NL)

Re: Rakeback and actual rake - some questions
 

they all look about the same. HU actually seems cheaper at FT because it's max $.50 rake instead of $1.00 at PStars.

It looks almost identical as far as I can see, the only difference I notice is the cap is $3 for 5-handed on FTP, while it's $2 on PStars.

It's true that $10NL is double PStars, but FTP has smaller caps. FTP is 2-3 $.50, 4-5 $1, 6+ $2. Stars is 2-3 $1, 4-5 $2, 6+ $3.

PS, at $50nl over the past ~23.5k hands I paid about 3.36bb/100 to rake (it'd be interesting to see what $50nl players on Stars pay). With the 27% rb, I get 1.78bb/100 in RB, so I doubt FTP's making a killing by the slightly higher rake of 5-handed games. In fact, I calculated the discrepancy ($3 cap instead of $2 cap) this 5-handed rake cost me it came out to $16.35.

I'm sure that figure's higher at higher limits, and I think a lot more games are 5-handed, but at least at $50nl RB seems to easily cut the rake in half.