[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
Trying to limit it to one table like a real poker room is stupid as Live poker without the interaction of other people at your table would be the most unenjoyable thing ever. Setting it to 3 or 4 tables max would still greatly serve your cause of trying to preserve your fishy clients.
.
.
If the lake can be maintained in a healthy state with 2 or 3 tabling, fine. By a healthy state, I mean no drop off in the number of rec players and a consequent overabundance of grinders. Like what was happening at Party even without the UIGEA. I don't know what the optimum number is for keeping a good fishy site vs the number of tables allowed. I am pretty sure ONE works well. And if the site is running well and there are lots of rec players there, ONE or two will be the number.
.
.

Lastly, A rakefree site is nice and all but the only people that have that high on their list when shopping for a poker site to play on is the very people you don't want, the multitabling hud bots.

.
.
You are missing the point of zero rake. Zero rake makes it legal and doable. The funding mechanism is what is tricky. There is a necessity of supporting the operational costs without breaking the law.
.
.
A recreational player does not care about the rake charged by a site (to an extent of course). Rather charge a rake
.
.
see above
.
.
(you can still keep it less than the competition) and spend it all on promotions and advertising to get players to your site and keep them there.

[/ QUOTE ]