40% of Gross Rake Missing!!

[ebffs]

I use poker tracker and clearly see that the gross rake reported on rakeback.com is only 60% of the true rake that I paid.

Now I contact customer service at rakeback.com and am told that poker tracker and Absolute poker use "different formulas" to calculate rake. However, this makes no sense, since the formula are only used for points and rewards which are calculated based on your total contribution to raked pots.

The real rake you pay is only based on pots you win and does not need to be derived by a formula. It is simply reported on the hand history file for every pot you win. Poker Tracker does not make errors on this. I have personally verified on a hand to hand count up that the rake reported by PT is the true rake I paid.

Second point. I use a different affiliate for my rakeback with Full Tilt poker. Now there the rakeback reported on my poker tracker and the rake reported by the affiliate (I won't mention competitors) match exactly.

So this leads to my main concern. Either Absolute Poker is not on the up and up or rakeback.com is not on the up and up. This stuff about different formulas is nonsense.

I actually refused to play at Absolute poker since February when I discovered this and have been playing just at FT.

Was there just an error with my account or has anybody else noticed these discrepancies. If so is it just with AP or UB or with all the sites affiliated with rakeback.com.

ebffs.

[1Legacy1]

I did not email support but I use PT3 as well and it suggests your same findings. I did not understand all of the rules for rakeback but I thought it should be just as simple as 30% of my total rake paid. Total rake paid is clear maked in the hand history and read properly in PT3.

I am anxious to hear what the answer is here. I would be more than willing to send screen shots or hand histories.

Thanks,
Legacy

[frob23]

Absolute Poker (as well as some other sites like Poker Nordica) us a contributed model for calculating rake.

As a very simple example, If you are heads up and both players put $10 into the pot. The rake will be $1 and you each will get credit for contributing $0.50 of rake. Your poker tracker will (correctly in my opinion) say that the winner of the pot paid $1.00 in rake and the loser paid $0.00. This is not how the sites calculate it though.

As a personal issue, I believe that the PT method (winner pays the rake) is more accurate as to what is really happening. But there are arguments for other ways of modeling it. There are even interesting cases to be made for the exact opposite (all the people who put money in but didn't win paid the rake and the winner paid none) depending on your view of it and also the way certain things are defined. I can easily think of an example of that based on the definition, by my state, of poker as a parimutuel game and how the house cut is calculated.

[ebffs]

Absolute Poker (as well as some other sites like Poker Nordica) us a contributed model for calculating rake.

As a very simple example, If you are heads up and both players put $10 into the pot. The rake will be $1 and you each will get credit for contributing $0.50 of rake. Your poker tracker will (correctly in my opinion) say that the winner of the pot paid $1.00 in rake and the loser paid $0.00. This is not how the sites calculate it though.

As a personal issue, I believe that the PT method (winner pays the rake) is more accurate as to what is really happening. But there are arguments for other ways of modeling it. There are even interesting cases to be made for the exact opposite (all the people who put money in but didn't win paid the rake and the winner paid none) depending on your view of it and also the way certain things are defined. I can easily think of an example of that based on the definition, by my state, of poker as a parimutuel game and how the house cut is calculated.

Appreciate you taking the time to clarify that. So basically if you are winning a higher percentage of pots than you lose you get less rakeback.


Then also technically with this system, somebody who theoretically never won a single pot, and thus never paid a single cent in rake would still get 30% rakeback on the portion of the rake that the winning players actually paid......absolutely nonsensical. LOL. Poker is not a charity where we give the losers a consolation prize out of our own wallet.

Again thanks for your clarification.

RB

[1Legacy1]

I guess that makes sense but I still think that is weak? Is this the same for Full Tilt?


1Legacy1

[ebffs]

I guess that makes sense but I still think that is weak? Is this the same for Full Tilt?


1Legacy1

Looking now at the descriptions on this site I see the key difference between AP/UB and FT is that with FT on a 10 handed table with a final rake of $3. Everybody will be credited with contributing 1/10th or $0.3 rake even though only the winner paid the full $3.

So if you play full ring (which I do) basically if yo are the winner for 1/9th of all $3 raked pots at tables where you are simply seated your rake reported by the affiliate will actually be comparable to the true rake you paid.

The difference with UB/AB is that only the people who actually contributed to the raked pot get credited for rake.

This is all very clear to me now.

[frob23]

I absolutely hate the Full Tilt manner of doing it. It has to be the worst of the worst and breeds rock gardens where you have tables of people doing nothing but folding because they don't need to play hands to get rakeback.

There is logic behind the contributed model. In that a player that puts money into every single pot but never wins is helping generate more rake for the house than if he wasn't playing at all. I am not a fan of this logic but I understand it. I tend to win big pots and lose small ones... so I feel like I would (longterm) make more money if they did rakeback as if the winner paid all the rake.

Then again, I've had those days where nothing seemed to go right and it is nice to know that I'll get a little something back despite how bad I ran. And that will help a little to reduce the losses. If I had a choice, I would prefer it be winner only. But, since I don't, I try and see the positive from what I do get. And it's much better than nothing at all.