Online Poker Rake Comparison
Effective rake cost by stakes, game type, and room.
| # | Room | Rake / 100 | Net Rake | Cap | bb / 100 | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $3.11 | 3.06% | $2.004.0 bb | 6.2 | Play | |
| 2 | $3.70 | 3.65% | $2.004.0 bb | 7.4 | Play | |
| 3 | $3.70 | 3.65% | $2.004.0 bb | 7.4 | Visit | |
| 4 | $3.97 | 3.92% | $2.004.0 bb | 7.9 | Play | |
| 5 | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | Play | |
| 6 | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | Play | |
| 7 | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | Play | |
| 8 | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | Play | |
| 9 | BetMGM | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | – |
| 10 | Global Poker | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | – |
| 11 | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | – | |
| 12 | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | – | |
| 13 | WSOP US | $4.02 | 3.96% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.0 | – |
| 14 | $4.21 | 4.15% | $4.008.0 bb | 8.4 | Play | |
| 15 | $4.21 | 4.15% | $4.008.0 bb | 8.4 | Play | |
| 16 | $4.21 | 4.15% | $4.008.0 bb | 8.4 | Play | |
| 17 | $4.35 | 4.28% | $3.006.0 bb | 8.7 | – | |
| 18 | $4.50 | 4.44% | $4.008.0 bb | 9.0 | Play | |
| 19 | $4.50 | 4.44% | $3.006.0 bb | 9.0 | Visit | |
| 20 | $4.84 | 4.77% | $6.9013.8 bb | 9.7 | Play |
A room charging 5% with a $3 cap can be cheaper than a room charging 4% with a $5 cap, depending entirely on your stake and how often pots reach the cap. The calculator above converts each operator's published schedule into bb/100, the same unit you measure your win rate in, so you can read rake the way you read your own stat line.
At microstakes, percentage drives the cost because pots rarely hit the cap. At $1/$2 and higher, the cap becomes the binding variable and the ranking shifts. WPT Global and CoinPoker hold the lead at low stakes; GGPoker and PokerStars catch up as caps start to matter.
Full Rake Comparison
Swipe the grid sideways for higher stakes.
| Loading... |
How We Calculate Online Poker Rake
The calculator applies each operator's rake rules to actual pot size distributions compiled from several million NLH cash game hands across $0.02/$0.05, $0.25/$0.50, $0.50/$1.00, and $1/$2. Each player count has its own distribution. For stakes outside the sampled range, pot sizes are scaled proportionally. For non-NLH variants, distributions are adjusted using documented scaling factors. PLO pots are scaled 1.6x with a higher flop rate, since more hands go multiway and postflop. Short Deck is scaled 1.3x for the stronger holdings a reduced deck produces. Fast Fold is scaled 0.75x with a lower flop rate for its tighter preflop play. These adjustments produce accurate relative rankings between rooms even though absolute bb/100 values will differ slightly from a pure PLO dataset.
Three variables define rake at every cash game table: the percentage taken from each pot, the cap on that percentage, and the drop rule. Nearly every site uses no-flop-no-drop, meaning rake is only collected when a hand reaches the flop. GGPoker is the exception, also collecting on 3-bet pots that end preflop. The interplay between percentage and cap makes rooms hard to compare without a calculator.
Loose players pay more rake than tight players at every stake. These figures reflect average play. At higher player counts, pots run larger and caps bind more often, so a room that looks cheap at 6-max may not be at 9-handed.
Default figures are gross rake. When the rakeback column is enabled, "Net bb/100" reflects gross rake minus each room's published rakeback rate. Rates used are realistic midpoints for a regular grinder. A room advertising "up to 65% rakeback" may deliver 25-30% to a typical player grinding 15-20 hours per week.
We maintain rake schedules for 20 room configurations covering every regulated and offshore operator with meaningful traffic. CoinPoker appears twice because its 3-Bet Club rakeback is a paid subscription; the free tier is listed separately. Schedules are verified against published room terms. CoinPoker updated their caps in March 2026; those figures are current. Submit hand history data or report discrepancies at contact.
Your Monthly Rake Cost
Loading comparison…
Leave a Comment