Anyone know the rake contributed rate? This is a huge change as rake attributed or PVI systems tend to way favour losing players.

Milf- I don't think you understand how to calculate rake. Just look it up on google if you don't.

Basically you are telling me that Natural8 only charge 4bb/100 in rake at 25NL? No site in the world do that and Natural8 rake is pretty high.

A huge change indeed. Was not aware of this so thanks for bringing it to our attention @MilfGrinder!

Information on the new method:

Contributed Method: Regardless of who wins or loses the pot, the rake will be distributed proportionate to how much the player contributes to the pot.
Before and After:
Loser Take All (before): Player A and Player B goes All-in with same amount, Player B loses, the rake will go to Player B.
Contribution (current): Player A and Player B goes All-in with same amount, it doesn’t matter who wins or loses, the rake will be distributed according to how much each player puts in the pot.

@Ballerholic would recommend you chat to their Facebook support, they are very helpful.

@Ballerholic I don't think you understand how to apply basic logic.

What I am telling you and what I proved in my example is that there is no fkn way to calculate your rake from PokerCraft and knowing your actual profit.

Your logic is that if player A has played 10k hands, PokerCraft shows 1k profit, but real profit is 500$, he has paid same rake as player B who has played 10k hands, PokerCraft shows 1k profit, but real profit is 500$.

Let's simplify the example:

Player A has played 1 hand, has made profit of 95$, PokerCraft shows profit of 100$. Player B has played 1 hand, has made profit of 95$, PokerCraft shows profit of 100$. Prove me that player A has paid the same rake as player B (which is your logic) and I'll ship you my whole roll.


It is very possible that you have payed 4bb/100 in rake over that tiny sample you have.

I take back what I said earlier, attributed will be higher than contributed if your a winning player, so contributed still favours the losing players. Still better than the previous method though.

Contributed favours no one because the rake is distributed equally. Loser takes all method favours losing players because when you win a pot you don't get any rakeback. The rake comes out of the pot regardless but it's who the rake is attributed to that determines the rakeback. .

i have received emails from different affiliates two of them to be exact marketing natural8 poker now.

one affiliate is offering 35% rakeback + 100% deposit bonus upto 1000$ and another affiliate offering flat 40% rakeback. 35% weekly and 5% at the end of the month to an e wallet of your choice.

can pokervip match this?? i have emails to show proof of the offers incase you need them.

i feel like we should be getting somewhere close to what they are offering

If you read into the networks terms & conditions you will see that its actually against the rules for an affiliate to offer players more than 35% rakeback which is why the extra is being paid via E-Wallet on the above. These kind of affiliates can be banned by the network, they are very strict on these rules.

You can read the full T&Cs here.

Note point 6.1.1.1. a Participating Operator may offer Rakeback to a Player, provided the Rakeback offered to such Player does not exceed 35% (thirty-five percent) of the Poker Revenue;

PokerVIP is Natural8s largest affiliate and works very closely with them. Its possible for example that we could implement them into the rake race in future amongst other things.

Depends on how you look at it.

If you lose the pot you lost the hand so you didnt pay the rake. You only pay rake when you drag in a pot. Just like at a casino, you pay commision on your winnings. Contributed rake only came about as a concept and a way to pay rakeback, so losing players got more back.

What are you talking about? Pokercraft shows profit without RB. So if the profit showed is $1000, that is without rake taken off. To figure out how much rake we must take off, we must figure out how much we actually profited thru the cashier. So if I made $500 then I'm going to think, "why is pokercraft showing that I made $1000 when I only have $500 in my account?" Well that is because the $500 remaining is the rake taken out. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've been told by many that pokercraft shows rake free profit.) I don't understand your example, you are just repeating yourself for both player A and B. They both paid the same rake.

Please send me your BR now, message me for info.

Hahaahaahh, what if player B wins 3 way all in for 100$, how much he payed in rake?

With rakeback it's important to just remember LCFC lalala

Ok you guys actually are a very particular sort of special. Let's say we have player A and player B. Both so far have profited $200 over the past month in poker. (We won't include rake taken from them so far because that is irrelevant and would further confuse you guys). So Player A profit: $200, Player B profit: $200. Now let's say they both go all in on a pot for $100 each. Player B wins the pot. So according to Pokercraft (profit without rake included) Player A now has a total net profit: $100, but when he looks at his cashier he only sees $95 profit in his account. Player B has a total net profit: $300, but when he looks at his cashier he only sees $295 in his account.

Player A: $100-$95= $5 paid in rake

Player B: $300-$295= $5 paid in rake

I mean guys I really can't make this any clearer. I'm just trying to aware you guys and ask if you could please check in the amount you are getting in rakeback is 35% of what you are being raked. For me, I am only getting around 18% when I should be getting 35%. So I'm getting cheated, but I want to know if anybody else is so we can make this a bigger issue and get what we deserve. I spoke to them on fb messenger briefly last night, but honestly they have no clue and all they say is that nothing is wrong.

@Ballerholic Are you trolling or you're actually like that? If 2nd, you shouldn't play poker and look into manual labor.

Your example is absurd and impossible in many ways:

1) From your logic total rake taken is 10$ while it is capped at 5$ for NL100 (or 8$ for NL400 which would be lowest stake player could buy in for 100$);

2) "Player A now has a total net profit: $100, but when he looks at his cashier he only sees $95 profit in his account." - I mean.. why on earth would his PokerCraft profit change by 105$ when he lost 100$? He will see a profit of 100$, therefore:

"Player A: $100-$100= $0 paid in rake - while he actually paid 2.5$ if example was NL100

Player B: $300-$295= $5 paid in rake - while he actually paid 2.5$ as well if example was NL100"




why am I wasting my time on this

I'll play the intermediator in this.

@MilfGrinder I don't think the example being techniqually wrong matters too much with regards to the cap.
@Ballerholic I wouldn't disguard MilfGrinder and make out he's stupid when he's a very accomplished players with experience.

I think @Ballerholic saying when gross profit is $100 on craft but he has a lower amount of X in his account. He must have been raked $100-X, lets call that amount Y. So he should get 35% of Y back in rakeback.

However what he's forgetting is that would be right for rake attributed, not contributed, which will give much lower RB if your a winning player. like I mentioned in an earlier comment. Like In @MilfGrinder 's example above.

rakeback doesnt matter if your winning 20bb/100 hands. you should learn to play poker and give it a try

Shots fired

Bang Bang

Hey, i was reading rules of their network and it looks very worrying.

2. PREDATORY BEHAVIOR
Predatory behavior is defined as an activity focused primarily on, but not limited to, exploiting others to gain monetary advantage. Such predatory behavior is in direct conflict of our promise to the players, and the management team will not tolerate any form of it. Although poker is a game of skill, GGNetwork promises to provide a safe, fun, recreational, and enjoyable game experience for all players.
If a player exhibits any predatory behavior as defined by GGNetwork, GGNetwork, in its sole discretion, shall be entitled, without notice, to suspend the player’s participation in the poker network, pending the conclusion of an investigation into the player’s activities. Further, following the conclusion of the investigation, GGNetwork reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to extend the suspension or permanently ban the player, and confiscate all funds.

11. BUMHUNTING
Bumhunting includes, without limitation, where a player deliberately plays against very weak opponents avoiding games with other regular players at all costs. If a player is suspected by GGNetwork, in its sole discretion, of engaging in bumhunting, GGNetwork shall be entitled, without notice, to suspend the player’s participation in the poker network, pending the conclusion of an investigation into the player’s activities. Further, following the conclusion of the investigation, GGNetwork reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to extend the suspension or permanently ban the player, and confiscate all funds.

Does that mean they can ban winning players just for being winners?

http://contents.good-game-network.com/leaflet/NATURAL8/securityandecologyagreement/en/?tz=+02:00