Do rakeback players = prop/shill players?

I was wondering if there was such thing as rakeback in live poker. I found that players like Scotty Nguyen get paid to sit in Cherokee Casino and play and also, players like Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Antonius get paid to sit at Bobby's Room to play poker. Can this be considered rakeback? These players I mentioned were just examples of high stakes poker cash game. For low and middle stake, I think they use players like prop players and shill players. Casinos pay them so these high stake celebrity players will stay in their casino and make other players come to their casinos to play them. It looks like each casino can be considered a team and casinos(teams) compete against each other to draft good players(professional poker players) to attract customers and poker players to sit down and play high stakes against pros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_jargon

and search up prop player and shill player, prop players are players who get paid hourly to start the tables or keep the game active while using their own money

shill players are players who get paid hourly to do same thing prop players do but they use casinos' money.

Can these be equivalent to rakeback players online? If this is true, then I guess having a rakeback can be considered having a job. There are prop players who go broke. Same goes for rakeback players who go broke even with rakeback.

No.
Prop players both live and online have a agreement to play at certain times for some x amount of time to engourage action.

Rackback and props have nothing incomen except there both means of attracting players.

If you have rackback your under no obligation of playing at certain times or for certain ammounts of time and you dont lose your rackback if u decite to play low volume.

Thank you for clear response. because i was just being simple minded and said to myself "online, they use rakebakc players to attract customers. live, they pay prop players and shill players to attract their casinos" but other than that, the whole payout system and structure is different. I have a question for you then. Which is better? Prop/shill player or rakeback player?

Both have the advantages obvs.
For more recreational players beeing able to sit down with a big name pro probably means more then the few extra $ they would make with rackback but high volume players would much rather join a site with good rackback then some famous pro.

I wise i was red pro on FTP, they get 100% rackback+ a hourly .

There is also an important distinction between prop players and shills that was touched on but really needs to be clear imo.

Prop players are paid hourly to play by the house/casino. They play the game using their own money, they keep their all of their winnings and suffer all of the losses. Also, they don't always get what they want. Often times prop players are put in short handed games to fill the table or they are used to start new games, etc. Not always ideal for them but that's the point of the hourly compensation. In a way you could look at their hourly wage as sort of a rake back because they earn that from the house while playing and whether they win or lose.

A prop player is HUGELY different than a shill. A shill is put in a game, gets paid by the house, plays with the houses money, and essentially is trying to win money back for the house. So basically using a shill is a house/casino trying to screw their players not just by taking rake but also by trying to win their money in the game as well. Generally using a shill is immoral/unethical at best and, in some areas, illegal as well.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge no legit online sites use shills and most do not even use prop players. Last I saw PokerStars (as just one example) specifically states on their website that they do not use prop players for any reason.

^^ you think? Can you quote your sources on this please?
Why wouldn't a pro be reg. in all of the FTOPS events & in every single $1Kmonday tourney & all WSOP MainEvent Seat Satty's (if 100% rakeback)? Pretty sure they don't work things that way but could ask one I know (although he's never mentioned how he's paid by Fulltilt.... nor would I consider asking come to think of it).

Do a search of the math forum.
Its obvs mostly just rumors since if never seen a post or statment from FTP or a red pro saying what they make but most places seem to think its 100% rackback +35$/hour, and then the founding members obvs make a tone because they own a piceof the company(for that reasons Howard Leader is considered the richest big name pro)

You came up with interesting criticism which made me research what red full tilt pros really get. I googled it and here's what I found. I don't know if I can trust this source but here it is.

http://www.texasholdem-king.com/what...ship-deal-155/

According to them, it says

The standard deal for a Full Tilt Pro looks like this:

-100% rakeback

-$35 per hour for every hour that they play on the site

-bonuses if a player a) appears on TV b) appears on TV and makes a final table c) appears on TV and wins. Obviously a player must be wearing their Full Tilt gear in order to qualify

35 dollars an hour? that sounds unbelievable....you win the final event at the rio in vegas and most sites <as longas u wear their gear> pay 10 million....so if you are their pro i wouldnt think there is a hourly rate for play but a set salary with bonuses. can you imagine phil helmuth saying i make 35 dollars a hour ..when they play hundreds of thousands on a regular basis?

Just to add...many live casinos offer a form of rackback. Many pay you x per hour, every hour your "Casino Card" is logged in for play

I think it's 35 dollars for basic pro such as Alan Boston, Mandy B, Kenny Tran, etc, not iconic professional poker players like Jennifer Harman, Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey. Same goes for Ultimate Bet. What Phil Hellmuth and Annie Duke gets paid is different from regular pros from ultimate bet.