I'm fairly sure this isn't true. I have a rake model that's based on a million historical hands per stake, and it says that at PL10, 3% to 200c cap is 93bb/100 from the site's perspective, while 5% to 30c cap is 105bb/100. I made this a while ago:

I'd be interested in how you worked this out. Care to share? I understand both sites reduce rake for players delt in, MPN reduce by up to 66%, Unibet by 50%. But I don't have the time to see the impact of this. I imagine it makes a reasonable difference - probably more in favour of Unibet as the seating waits until hand starts to sit player so you don't know how many players are on the table, on MPN you can choose to stand up straight away and wait for a full table.

I am basing everything off of an average pot size, Stars ~ 20bb, MPN ~25bb, Unibet games are similar to MPN imo, I have to take an educated guess based on playing there (6000 flops seen at 4/10PLO this month).

I would be interested to my average pot played, in order to get a better understanding however, I don't think I will vary much from the player pool. I imagine 90% of the pool will have a very similar average pot size. Unfortunately I would only be able to get my figure for stars but games are not crazily different.

You are however, correct, I may have been quick to assume.
http://imgur.com/a/mURa2

u can get easily 50% rb on MPN with there VIP system + fdb

fdb being deposit bonus? Yeah the scheme works out good. Rake wise though games are definitely lower rake on Uni. Considering you can't track MPN properly anymore I would just go for lowest rake environment.

It isn't average pot size that matters, it's pot size distribution. I have a million hands at each stake, as played on Unibet. As I know the pot size etc of every hand, I just have to do the calculation for every hand with different rake schedules.

How the **** do the unibet reps know to find every thread on the entire site where unibet is discussed. Seriously talking about unibet is like a ****ing bat signal