Table Finder
PTR will soon be launching a comprehensive section dedicated to explaining the true cost to play at the online poker rooms we cover. In order to preview this information, let’s look at the cost per 100 hands at the different levels of full ring games.
PTR will soon be launching a comprehensive section dedicated to explaining the true cost to play at the online poker rooms we cover. In order to preview this information, let’s look at the cost per 100 hands at the different levels of full ring games. Rake is often difficult to quantify by just looking at the rake tables published online and trying to understand exactly how much the poker sites are charging you to play in their games. This table contains the amount paid in rake per 100 hands played by the average player. It’s a great way to compare the true cost to play at the sites.
Full Ring NL Holdem
| Stakes | Cereus | Bodog | Cake | Full Tilt | iPoker | Party | Stars | Stars.fr |
| 2NL | $0.17 | $0.24 | $0.28 | $0.18 | $0.20 | €0.34 | ||
| 5NL | $0.30 | $0.47 | $0.51 | $0.55 | $0.30 | $0.38 | €0.73 | |
| 10NL | $0.81 | $0.87 | $1.04 | $1.11 | $1.08 | $0.77 | $0.66 | €1.29 |
| 25NL | $2.03 | $2.31 | $1.37 | $1.82 | $1.46 | $2.64 | $1.59 | €2.83 |
| 50NL | $5.60 | $4.89 | $2.92 | $3.29 | $3.79 | $4.41 | $2.80 | €5.21 |
| 100NL | $10.24 | $7.82 | $5.27 | $5.98 | $6.80 | $6.62 | $4.94 | €8.54 |
| 200NL | $13.78 | $12.21 | $8.06 | $8.95 | $10.66 | $10.91 | $7.31 | €13.51 |
| 400NL | $18.77 | $16.42 | $16.54 | $12.48 | $16.72 | $15.13 | $10.95 | €20.90 |
| 600NL | $19.46 | $18.96 | $17.21 | $14.15 | $17.71 | $14.74 | $13.19 | |
| 1000NL | $20.86 | $13.15 | $15.91 | $14.40 | $20.06 | $18.33 | $15.54 | €22.48 |
You can see that the amount you pay to play 100 hands at the different sites can be dramatically different. The standouts in terms of cost are Full Tilt, Poker Stars and Cake, who are across the board the best in terms of the rake paid per 100 hands. In some cases, the cost to play at these sites can be as much as half of that of their competitors. This translates to significantly less bb/100 you need to earn in order to break even.
Cereus, whose basic rake structure is comparable to Tilt and Stars, takes extra money out of every pot in order to build the bad beat jackpot. We decided to include this cost in our comparison because it is so unlikely that you will ever win this jackpot. All but the tiniest percentage of players will experience the bad beat jackpot as a hit to their bb/100. We used the same reasoning for Party Poker’s BBJ drop.
For all you Stars.fr players out there outraged about the increased rake at the French site, you can see very clearly how dramatic the increase in rake is. At 100NL you would need to earn over 3bb/100 more just to maintain the same earn rate.
In the future, we will be taking a look at how dealt vs contributed rakeback mgr calculation methods affect these numbers. It turns out that there are dramatic differences in your effective rakeback percentage depending on your VP$IP when playing on a dealt rakeback site.
Our new rake analysis section is now live. You can view similar information from other game types and structures there.
7
A
K
Doesn’t seem like much to go on until you run the hands from different sites through the other sites rake structures ss different sites play differently, ie stars so much more nitty because of the rewards system so this report i just useless to me.
wow 9bb/100 rake at party 50nl
6 max please
Please make 6 max calculations also. Correct me if Im wrong but this chart could be a misrepresentation of the rake. If a bunch of random hands at a limit were taken at each site and looked at what the rake was paid, it seems stars is the cheapest and cerus or stars.FR pays a lot more in rake. In reality it could just mean that those sites are so much more fishier that they average pots are larger, thus generating more rake…
What needs to be done is the same set of random hands put thru a rake calculator using each of the sites rake profiles, thus arriving at a more accurate result.
Could you add Pacific, they cap the rake at $4.
Stars has changed/increased their rake system for 25NL and lower recently (a few months ago). Does this chart apply to all times or a few months ago?
Thanks
I like this stuff. Keep it up!
would also like to see 6max calculations, thx
Don’t jump down FT’s back so quick. PS just equaled their rake by not offering rakeback.
Although PS beats FT with their loyalty program, especially for cash game regs.
also limit calculations would be great as well, not just NL
Are all the tables on Cereus bad beat tables? Can you choose to play at tables that don’t take a bad beat rake? Curious as I was thinking about trying it out.
about time for a report like this. the question about difference in contributed vs. dealt rake has been bogging my mind for the last year and a half. I am very interested to find out the rake i pay in bb. (50nl 30/25 vpip/pfr.)
You cannot count bad beat tables at UB when most players don’t even play on them. That’s just weird. I do love the idea of this article though.
This is borderline criminal imo… They are robbing us.
I just played like ~500 hands rush 6max on NL10 and paid more
than a half stack in rake! i mean srsly… wtf.
hotchilli that’s the equivalent of 16.7 hours of live play. how many big blinds are you going to pay in rake and tips over that amount of time at a B&M casino. just to put it in perspective of which one’s criminal.
AMAZING JOB, THIS IS SO USEFUL, HOPE TO SEE MORE OF THIS QUALITY MATERIAL!
POKERTABLERATINGS POKER POLICE!!!
i second that comment from themandude
good stuff
6M w/ MERGE NETWORK plz
Stars is raking 1c from every 20c in the pot, and still not offering rakeback. So while Stars only takes 75c from a $15 pot, Full Tilt is taking $1 even, but giving it’s players rakeback. How is that calculated into this equation?
Is it still much better to play at Stars for 25nl and below with this newest structure, or would we be better off on FT w/ RB? I recently moved from PS to FT, and have really noticed how much more money they take from each pot, but haven’t gotten my RB yet to see how bad it really is.
Or in BB/100 (I’m not sure how well this will turn out without formatting, but here goes:
Excel formula for BB/100 =VALUE(SUBSTITUTE(A2,”NL”,”"))/100*2
Stakes BB Cereus Bodog Cake Full Tilt iPoker Party Stars Stars.fr
2NL 0.04 4.25 6.00 7.00 4.50 5.00 8.50
5NL 0.1 3.00 4.70 5.10 5.50 3.00 3.80 7.30
10NL 0.2 4.05 4.35 5.20 5.55 5.40 3.85 3.30 6.45
25NL 0.5 4.06 4.62 2.74 3.64 2.92 5.28 3.18 5.66
50NL 1 5.60 4.89 2.92 3.29 3.79 4.41 2.80 5.21
100NL 2 5.12 3.91 2.64 2.99 3.40 3.31 2.47 4.27
200NL 4 3.45 3.05 2.02 2.24 2.67 2.73 1.83 3.38
400NL 8 2.35 2.05 2.07 1.56 2.09 1.89 1.37 2.61
600NL 12 1.62 1.58 1.43 1.18 1.48 1.23 1.10
1000NL 20 1.04 0.66 0.80 0.72 1.00 0.92 0.78 1.12
Avg All 3.50 3.12 2.72 3.23 3.52 3.11 2.56 4.94
Avg 25NL 3.20 2.69 1.98 2.00 2.40 2.41 1.72 3.32
Run a conditional formatting over it and it’ll look pretty;)
Best is Bodog 1000NL, worst is Stars.fr 2NL
Best avg smallstakes rake (arbitrarily 25NL): Stars
Grain of salt and all that (i.e. lack of rakeback in the calculations makes most of this moot).
If you want to stick with one site and don’t have RB, then Stars is your goto site.
Woops, forgot this:
Avg All 3.50 3.12 2.72 3.23 3.52 3.11 2.56 4.94
Avg 25NL 3.20 2.69 1.98 2.00 2.40 2.41 1.72 3.32
Ahh, stripped html chars
Avg All 3.50 3.12 2.72 3.23 3.52 3.11 2.56 4.94
Avg lessthan-eq25NL 4.12 3.99 4.21 5.07 5.21 4.16 3.82 6.98
Avg greaterthan 25NL 3.20 2.69 1.98 2.00 2.40 2.41 1.72 3.32
PokerStars has by far the best rake back program. Supernova elites make over 60% rake back. You buy cash bonuses in their store with earned points.
MIght be interesting to see the tables without BBJ drop becasue certainly at Party you can find games with no BBJ and choose NOT to play them so if possible it may be an idea to split those sites which offer BBJ
On the full details page, for Fixed Limit, you label them as 100FL, 200FL, etc. Where do those numbers come from? How does that equate to the standard BB/SB structure?
@BigCheatsMcBeats
On party there is a lot of non-BBJ tables, on UB there usually isn’t. especially at this moment.
So I think the difference is pretty obvious, considering a similar rake structure at UB, Party and FT.
IM VERY CONFUSED THINK MY HEAD IS SPINNING!!!!!
SO IS IT BETTER TOMPLAY AT FULL TILT WITH RAKEBACK OR STARS WITHOUT ???
@TIM
First of all: Is your keyboard broken?
What is better obviously depends on how much you play. If you play, let’s say 10k hands 100NL a month, FT is probably better. In case you play a lot, Stars should probably be your choice.
dont know if anyone else mentioned that, but afaik ipoker has 20nl (as in .10/.20), not 25nl.
Stars has rake back way better than full tilt! It’s just not called rakeback, it is a vip program in which you earn points and buy cash with your points. It is way better to play at stars, especially for higher volume players.
you need to account for the higher % of rakeback you get at other sites. also for instance UB converts pionts for money at much higher rate than other sites.
so quert,
Are you saying that if I play 30-60k hands per/month of 50nl or 100nl, it would be better to play at stars because the bonus cash that I could buy with my points is better then the rackback at FT. what about with the new black card store, assuming that you qualify for it?
[...] [...]
pokerstars…
[...]How Much Do You Pay To Play? | PokerTableRatings.com Blog[...]…
browsergames top 100…
[...]How Much Do You Pay To Play? | PokerTableRatings.com Blog[...]…
Best Casino Jackpot…
[...]How Much Do You Pay To Play? | PokerTableRatings.com Blog[...]…
full hd…
[...]How Much Do You Pay To Play? | PokerTableRatings.com Blog[...]…
high pulse poker…
[...]How Much Do You Pay To Play? | PokerTableRatings.com Blog[...]…
St Albans Van Rentals…
[...]How Much Do You Pay To Play? | PokerTableRatings.com Blog[...]…