Does anyone know what/which rooms have the lowest rake for FR microgames nowadays (and, preferably one with a decent rb system)?
Stars? I heard Party has a pretty high rake...
Anyone has any numbers to give me (SH ones is fine too) as for how many bb/100 theyre raking? 
Would aprechiate it! 
http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis/no-limit-hold%27em
No idea how old or reliable it is...
Stars lowest rake of all games. Rakeback is kinda shitty unless your supernova (but lower rake = auto higher winrate anyway).
Downside of stars: games starting from the low stakes (nl50 and up) are harder than other rooms. Usually 5 regs fighting for one fish.
Stars has way the lowest rake for any limit afaik. The thing is, Revolution (ex-Cake) has 36% RB hourly and Dealt system, while Stars has Weighted Contributed and VIP system.
You would need to get some info on Revolution (security, software, traffic, etc.) and compare it to Stars. Party, iPoker and 888 all have higher rake than Stars and use Weighted Contributed. iPoker has good RB through VIP system and other promos (higher percentage than Stars) but the effective rake will probably be higher and field is worse imo: nitty and lots of bots being a network full of shaddy skins.
From what I remember, I got around 5bb/100 rake at NL50 SH and Platinum Star VIP. That goes to around 4bb/100 effective, maybe less depending how you use the FPPs.
AMaA: The Good Life
:diamond:Follow me on Twitter @emanuelc16
The Education of a Modern Poker Player by TwiceT, jbpatzer & EmanuelC16
Thanks for the answers guys.
The problem is that though stars has a quite low rake, their games are full of nits and midstackers and hardly any fish. Obv gives a "higher" wr, but im far from sure it would end up being the best choice anyway. I know people say "people are terrible on any site on NL10 and below" but I dont completely agree. Ofc, the players on those limits always have a lot to learn, but its quite hard making (a nice) profit vs nits and rocks (when you're still a beginner yourself).
It seems many of the games below NL25 today are almost unplayable because of the rake. 
pokerstars so called "lowest rake" on micros is a myth. lets say you play nl10. Your pay 1ct per 20 ct in the pot on stars and 0.01€ for 0.20€ on entraction(strategy has partner room 24h poker). but on entraction you get 30 % rakeback. on microgaming if nothing has changed from last year its also same 0.01€ for 0.20€ and unibet gives 30 % rakeback. So it's not even close to pokerstars. btw that's only about strategy partner rooms.
Hi vonki,
For some of our partner rooms with a breakdown of rake into bb/100 among other facts, please see the ongoing series of posts we're making about Rake analysis, the currently available threads will be linked below:
Poker770: Rake Analysis
888poker: Rake Analysis
PKR: Rake Analysis
Everest Poker: Rake Analysis
Unfortunately we do not yet have this for each of our partner rooms yet, but hopefully this helps a little.
Regards,
Richard
Originally posted by Vygantas82
pokerstars so called "lowest rake" on micros is a myth. lets say you play nl10. Your pay 1ct per 20 ct in the pot on stars and 0.01€ for 0.20€ on entraction(strategy has partner room 24h poker). but on entraction you get 30 % rakeback. on microgaming if nothing has changed from last year its also same 0.01€ for 0.20€ and unibet gives 30 % rakeback. So it's not even close to pokerstars. btw that's only about strategy partner rooms.
And unibet players are lolbad. Just not much traffic, right now i see 1 table of NL4 FR running
SH is a lot better i see like 10 tables of normal and a lot more annon tables running. And of course they have just launch blaze too which i imagine is super soft
Originally posted by vonki
Thanks for the answers guys.The problem is that though stars has a quite low rake, their games are full of nits and midstackers and hardly any fish. Obv gives a "higher" wr, but im far from sure it would end up being the best choice anyway. I know people say "people are terrible on any site on NL10 and below" but I dont completely agree. Ofc, the players on those limits always have a lot to learn, but its quite hard making (a nice) profit vs nits and rocks (when you're still a beginner yourself).
It seems many of the games below NL25 today are almost unplayable because of the rake.
If your too lazy to table selection stars: yes ur winrate will be extreme low vs the regs.
Oh nits and mistackers? They don't exist at above nl50 because they get crushed by the TAG's ♦
I love the nits and midstackers; their strategy is easy beatable. The midstackers pushes the variance though.
what about merge,perhapse not so crowded,but there is still some americans playing...is that count at all perhapse...
what about merge,perhapse not so crowded,but there is still some americans playing...is that count at all perhapse...
btw PS don't have any merge room as partneroom. And that's great. If you want to play with americans you can play on cake witch has good rb and probably lowest rake. But you should read in forums about the cashouts. I heard that they are fast now. But is the money safe on that site god knows.
(but lower rake = auto higher winrate anyway)
Not only rake. If you want to count your winrate you should count 1st deposit bonus, VIP program/rakeback, promotions that are running (rake races etc.), player traffic and how many weak players are at your limit etc.
When i was thinking about changing from Stars I did a little research on this and I think stars is for sure the best, i got as far as withdrawing my whole bankroll, doing tons of research and in the end depisited back to stars feeling like an idiot and just got back into it.
stars has like 4.2% rake whole most other sites are 6%ish.
Thats like getting 50% RB, and then getting their vip system with the rake your paying after the 50% RB.
Just change the filters at stars to only show tables with 20%+ VPIP this makes sure there is atleast 1-2 fish OR a bunch of 20vpip players and no 8/5 nits ect
You can easily get 10 tables that are even over 20VPIP table average.
At 5NL atleast and easily alot of 30 vpip tables at 2NL.
Might take a little longer to get 10+ 10NL tables with higher then 20 vpip tho and i've never tryed higher then 10NL ♦
More players online = more tables with higher then 20 VPIP
Hope this helps!
stars has like 4.2% rake whole most other sites are 6%ish. Thats like getting 50% RB, and then getting their vip system with the rake your paying after the 50% RB.
Not even close to the truth. there are many sites that has same rake as stars or even less at micros. and pokerstars VIP ? sounds like a joke unless you have supernova or supernova elite. I can agree that i can be good to play on stars if you gonna grind lets say 20+ tables but i will never agree about so called lowest stars rake because its simply not true if you do your math.
ok i will put some numbers here and it will be more clear
stars: rake is 5 % on nl2-10. if you play with VIP status bronze like 150k hands you can get about 20 % rb.
888 poker: rake on nl2 - nl6 ~ 6 %, nl10 and higher - 5 %. rb - almost none existant.
microgaming (unibet): rake 5 %, rb 30 %.
party: nl2-10 rake 10 %, rb - almost non existant.
entraction i think is close to microgaming, never had counted.
well, its not just the rake % that matters, it also matters what kind of cap they have on the rake... for example I saw in the 888 rake thingy furktpuff linked that NL10 FR on 888 is like 9.5bb/100 in rake... 
On poker stars if you play nl10 fish will loose 10bb/100 hands, on 888 poker 30bb/100hands (on average). Even if you loose 1 or 2 bb on rake compared to stars on some other room that is not important. Also people here don't keep in mind that stars rakes every penny when other sites use incremental system, wich is much better. And weigted contributed rake system on stars means actualy that you are getting less rb then site tells you. And from my experience depending on playing style rake on stars at nl10 will be almost the same, like 8-10bb/100 hands (b/c its weigted contributed, verry depends from play style). I agree that (rake)cap is lower on stars but they also calculate rake diffrently then most sites. on nl10 stars you pay 4.50% for every penny till/if you reach rake(cap). on 888 you pay 1 ct per 20 ct till/if you reach rake(cap) at nl10.
Fact is all microstakes limits rake is high. Doesnt really matter where you play. When you hit NL100'ish where the rake starts getting low overall it depends your ambitions. Want high rakeback + low rake but thougher field? Stars. Want lower rakeback, pay more rake but softer field? Any room besides Stars ♦
Rake on pokerstars is the lowest and you get to play more hands because of table ninja! So even if the win rate is a tad lower, in micro limits you can play a ton of tables because there isn't as much "fancy play" as the higher stakes and you can fold/call/raise just by putting your cursor over the table and clicking i.e. D for bet/F for fold... the only reason why I'm starting to get into the time bank a bit while playing 12 tables 6 max is because I just watched hasenbraten crush NL25SH so I need to think a little bit more (working on my play). If I can play 12 tables, you should be able to play 20 tables FR ♦ That will get you more money than 8 tables on 888poker imo.
Plus you can get into the sunday storm with 250FPP and cash for $22 which is a huge BR boost for NL5 and 2 hours of NL10 10bb/100 crushing.
RED BULL!!!
Originally posted by vonki
I saw in the 888 rake thingy furktpuff linked that NL10 FR on 888 is like 9.5bb/100 in rake...
their sample is too small, it's close to 11bb/100 on nl10fr. SH is 14bb/100.
