[karlwig]

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