Start with the governing source
A statement can show a table fee, an amount attributed to a player, reward points, a calculated rebate and a settled result. These are not interchangeable. Before checking arithmetic, find the written terms for the named program and period: what activity qualifies, how the fee is attributed, the reward unit, the rate and where each correction belongs.
The rakeback guide explains the distinction between a fee, its allocation and a separate reward rule. This worksheet begins after those definitions are known.
A worked statement with invented terms
Suppose a fictional one-period statement starts with 1,000 fee units attributed under its written method. The fictional terms exclude 100 units of activity, reduce the base by another 50 units after a source correction and add 20 units after a different source correction. The three base changes are distinct. The corrected base is therefore 870 units. For the example only, the fictional rate is 20%, and the result has a separate 10-unit deduction after the rate is applied.
On a narrow screen, swipe within the table. With a keyboard, focus the table and use the left and right arrow keys.
| Stage | Example amount | Record to match |
|---|---|---|
| Attributed fee base | 1,000 units | Period and allocation method in the account report. |
| Excluded activity | −100 units | Distinct activity IDs and the exclusion clause. |
| Downward base correction | −50 units | A separate source correction before the rate. |
| Upward base correction | +20 units | Another separate source correction before the rate. |
| Corrected base | 870 units | 1,000 − 100 − 50 + 20, with no item counted twice. |
| Calculated result | 174 units | 870 × the fictional 20% rate. |
| Result deduction | −10 units | A distinct deduction explicitly applied after the rate. |
| Reviewed result | 164 units | 174 − 10; still not evidence of approval or payment. |
(1,000 − 100 − 50 + 20) × 20% − 10 = 164 units reviewed.
Every number, unit and rule above is invented. A real program might use a different calculation or no percentage at all. The example does not assign a cash value to its units.
Putting an adjustment in the wrong stage changes the result
If the 10-unit result deduction were mistakenly removed from the base, the arithmetic would be (870 − 10) × 20% = 172 units. That is eight units higher than the example's 164-unit reviewed result because the deduction would be reduced by the rate. The written terms must tell you which stage applies; a reviewer should not move a deduction to make the answer look better.
Check that exclusions and corrections refer to different underlying items, and that the same reversal is not taken from the base and again from the result. If the report lacks an adjustment reason or the corrected base behaves unexpectedly, pause and request the underlying ledger. This page does not invent a floor, carry-forward rule or negative-payment policy.
Questions for a real statement
- Which party issued the terms, and which product and period do they cover?
- What fee was charged, and what method attributed the eligible share to this account?
- Which source IDs explain exclusions and each upward or downward correction?
- Which rate and unit were effective for the activity period?
- Which deductions apply to the base, and which apply to the calculated result?
- Which record marks the result final, approved or paid?
Keep the source statement and terms privately. When asking the responsible party about a discrepancy, cite the relevant period, ID and clause rather than posting personal account records publicly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this a live rakeback calculator?
No. It is a static, fictional reconciliation. It has no input controls, available rate, payout forecast or enrollment route.
Why does the order of adjustments matter?
A correction to the eligible fee base belongs before applying the rate. A deduction from the calculated result belongs afterward. Moving one between stages changes the arithmetic and may contradict the governing terms.
Can I use a reward-points balance as a cash base?
Only if the exact program terms expressly define that conversion. A points balance and an attributed fee measure are different units; neither establishes a cash payment by itself.
What if the corrected base is below zero?
Do not infer a negative payout or an automatic zero floor. Reconcile the source data and read the program's correction and carry-forward rules.
Does a calculated result prove it was paid?
No. It still needs an approval or settlement record from the responsible party and, for a payment claim, a separate receipt or account credit record.
Sources and limits
Partypoker's rake guide illustrates an operator's fee mechanism, while PokerStars' rewards help illustrates an operator-specific contributed-points rule. Both official pages were reviewed 27 September 2026; neither supplies the fictional terms in this worksheet or a Deep Poker program. A real statement must be checked against its own operator and agreement. No account, approval or payment was tested here.