Rake
Hi,
Since there are so many rake changes happening in the cashgame online poker world and there is very small chance to grasp on all of them I would to compare rake of sites for different stakes. Let's see how much money we are paying to different poker sites on rake per bb/100. I am personally curious about sites like PokerStars, PartyPoker, iPoker and some independent sites but feel free to post anything NL50+ with sample of at least 30k hands. The more hands the better of course.
888 NL200/NL200fast
179,647 hands; rake 25,080.55
Rake is ~7bb/100 (6.98xx)
888 NL400
33,786 hands; rake 6990.64
rake is ~5.17bb/100
If you are playing day-in day-out on this site you get 2% rakeback (if you are not VIP. so if you are not VIP right now I think you do not have a chance to become one)
OnGame NL200
27,533 hands; rake 4913.80
rake is ~9bb/100 (8.91xx)
On OnGame you have better rakeback compared to other sites. Do not know the exact number but it is surely 30+%
Looking forward to your rake posts and hopefully we will be able to make a nice list of stakes at different sites and be able to compare them!
8 Replies
Hi Guys,
I've been playing on both GG and Stars, people always say that the rake is super high on GG, but looking at the two samples it actually seems higher on stars? See the two comparisons below:
GG hand sample:
Stars hand sample:
Is it just because it's a small sample? The rake on stars is $400 over 21k hands but GG is $234 over 16k hands, estimating if I had 21k hands on GG it'd be around $330-$350 or so.
Does anyone know why this could be?
For zoom / rush gg has smaller rake at the smaller stakes and vice versa higher stakes.
For zoom / rush gg has smaller rake at the smaller stakes and vice versa higher stakes.
Thanks, I was looking at this but assuming it's only for reg tables: https://worldpokerdeals.com/blog/poker-r...
Wzzzup,
Comparing rake on different stakes and sites I wonder if net rake is taking the rake cap into account? I had this thought that recently struck me which is for example:
Lets say you play NL10, you get all-in with AA vs KK 100bb deep, the pot will be 20$ but you only end up winning around 19$ because of the rake, this is 5% of the pot.
In NL100 in the same situation, AA vs KK 100bb deep the pot is 200$ and you win 197$ because you hit the rake-cap, this is 1,5% of the pot.
It just struck me how much it matters in some situations when to fight for a split-pot or not the stakes you play is worth taking into account.
In NL10 in this scenario the poker site takes 10bb from you, in NL100 in this scenario the site takes 3bb from you.
If you go all-in for 100bb every 100 hands and win this is an additional -10bb/100 hands loss in rake in NL10 and -3bb/100 on NL100 (?).
(The exact numbers is not the point here, I'm trying to make this easy).
Is this calculated into the rake/100 hands which is around 7,5 bb/100 for NL100 and 9bb/100 for NL10?
If not can you calculate "real rake" making sims for hundreds of thousands of hands on different stakes where the sims make assumptions of how many times you go all-in in a large pot, hit the rake cap and therefore take advantage of this rake cap?
Am I making things harder than they are? Can I just look at the numbers? Is this common knowledge and I missed it?
Ty in advance.
Hello!
Can anyone help me find out the rake for the following sites and stakes:
1) Pokerstars Zoom NL50, NL100, NL200, NL500
2) Pokerstars Regular tables NL50, NL100, NL200, NL500, NL1000
3) GGpoker Rush&Cash NL50, NL100, NL200
4) GGpoker Regular tables NL50, NL100, NL200, NL500, NL1000
Thank you...
CoinPoker offers rakeback, and Basepoker does too. But people are complaining about the rake on WPT and 888.
What's the best platform with the lowest rake As a low-stakes player, I don't want to lose my small wins to rake.
How the hell you were digging out this thread?! Hands down impressed!
This is actually a useful idea. Rake differences between sites can be huge over a large sample and many players underestimate how much it affects long term win rate.
Having a comparison by stakes and bb/100 could be really helpful for people choosing where to grind.
Also saw the Big Adventures tournament is wrapping up and the final draw for a Maldives trip will be streamed live from the Top 100 players.
Stars NL200 I was running around 5.8bb/100 last year with a decent sample (somewhere north of 80k hands) before they restructured the loyalty program again. The 888 number is brutal though, 7bb/100 at NL200 basically means you need to be a significant winner just to break even after rake. OnGame at 9bb/100 I could never make work longterm even with the rakeback partially offsetting it.
