Ingorance and simplyfying - why is the word fish used?

I have been thinking about this lately - why do some people call other players fish?

I find that a lot of players will call other players names like fish when they loose against a player when the other player makes an unusual move or a negative EV play.

On the other hand I have heard good players use words such as aggro loose fish, which in my mind is a little better cause it has other words beside the fish.

Still, I think that the word fish should be eliminated from your thinking. The biggest downside is that it just drains energy from the most important tasks at hand which is beating the other player.

This is where the ignorance and simplyfying come in. You are ignorant to see the plays he is making because you have pigeonholed him into being a fish. Even the worst players in the world can make decent moves sometimes so ignoring aspects such as different levels of his game can be quite problematic. The "fishy" player might just be playing bad on that day, but since you were ignorant that he was playing bad, the next time you play against the better game of that player you will have problems adjusting.

Simplyfying goes hand in hand with ignorance. When you pigeon hole a player, there might be trouble later on. Forexample if you don't see that the "fishy" player is playing so loose and aggressive is beacuse he is on a upswing and doesn't normally play that loose then you might have problems adjusting later. And then if your thinking is : "This guy is a fish, I should be able to beat him", you are not seeing things clearly and wasting your energy when your thinking should be "I am loosing money against this guy, how should I adjust?".

Lastly I think this is part of a bigger topic of looking at things objectively. I am a fan of being objective at the poker table. One example of this is note taking, someone might write that a player is a "super fish" when he raises from UTG with 86os, but the thing is that isn't really going to help you as much as just objectively writing in what he did.


I would love to hear some comments on this and I will try to get my 500th post special writing up soon as well.

A Fish is someone who chases draws plain and simple.

flint said:

-snip-

Lastly I think this is part of a bigger topic of looking at things objectively.

Click to expand...

You are right on the mark here.

I take notes extensively, writing down the actual "thing" that happened.

For example I'd write:
calls 4x BB raise UTG +1 with K2s, blablabla, 40/20 lag flop pot bet raiser mid pair + , overplays TPBK, calls train 66+ and so on.

If I talk to someone else I'd say he's a laggy fish though.

Reason I call him fish and not bread is that fish have a connection to rivers (and hope to catch) and bread doesn't.

Doesn't make any sense ? Doesn't matter.

KetchupFreak said:

A Fish is someone who chases draws plain and simple.

Click to expand...

There are situations (odds - wise) where chasing a draw is the right move.

I agree that most "fish" don't know anything about odds though and rather play odd.

My question

Ok a poor player is a fish,,,, but isn't a shark a fish also,,,,I'm so confused..
take care

I am somewhat surprised that I have been getting very little discussion at what I wrote and most of its seems quite general blabber.

Graf, your argument for why you call them fish is what I expect many people to say, that it is just a word you use. But the words we use many times shows how our thinking is and especially the word "fish" usually has a lot of emotion with it.

Personally, I like to see my poker game as a seperate entity from myself. This means that I see other players as playing bad, not as being bad. This I think is an important distinction as most poker players tend to have different levels in their game as well as some players are there to start their poker learning. Also I am putting my energy to figure out how to play against the opponent rather than thinking about anything else.

wagon596 said:

Ok a poor player is a fish,,,, but isn't a shark a fish also,,,,I'm so confused..
take care

Click to expand...

Lol, it's funny cuz it's true!

Fish are bad players. They were called fish, cuz back in the day, most players were really loose passive. You'd go fishing for em. Get a solid hand, throw out a bet, and see if one bites.

The name stuck, and now it's just players that are exploitable. If someone's a fish at $400nl+, they're usually aggro monkeys. Still extremely exploitable, and bleed money, but in a different way from what it used to be.

I'm sure you've all heard of a card shark. Well a fish is a name for a bad player but I agree that there are alot of ways to categorise a fish. At the same time they are still a fish. One may call too much, another is a maniac pre-flop. They are both fish.

I have been thinking about this lately - why do some people call other players fish?

Click to expand...

...and don't spend too much time pondering this mystery of nature.

KetchupFreak said:

A Fish is someone who chases draws plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Chasing non nut flush draws and gutshots to the river with incorrect odds

A fish is an opponent that you'd like to think you are better than -- maybe you are, and then again . . .

RogueRivered said:

A fish is an opponent that you'd like to think you are better than -- maybe you are, and then again . . .

Click to expand...

This what I want people to think about. Is there really such a thing as a fish? If you go on tilt you are the fish, how many times do people admit that? Even the best players have days where they play bad where 'worse' players can beat them.

The concept of fish is so one dimensional and abstract that its not really useful. What kind of edge are you getting from using that label in your thinking?

I think it is a ego thing to look at other players as weaker, but the truth is that exploiting leaks from good players is as profitable as exploting similar leaks of weaker players.

flint said:

This is where the ignorance and simplyfying come in. You are ignorant to see the plays he is making because you have pigeonholed him into being a fish. Even the worst players in the world can make decent moves sometimes so ignoring aspects such as different levels of his game can be quite problematic. The "fishy" player might just be playing bad on that day, but since you were ignorant that he was playing bad, the next time you play against the better game of that player you will have problems adjusting.

Click to expand...

Thinking the way you do, how could we ever trust the notes we take?

Grafkarow - hit the nail on the head, our notes are our bible.

Jarod 1213 - also hit the nail on the head - Chasing non nut flush draws and gutshots to the river with incorrect odds. Good players don't do this whatever mood they are in.

I do agree with one of the points made... The guy could be an inexperienced player who is learning the ropes...Play this guy 3 months on and he could have improved beyond all recognition...I counter this by putting the date with my notes, it can be helpful.

I never call a guy a fish in the chat box, I prefer them to think they are playing well, and tell them so. I even wish them GL when they knock me out of an MTT.

flint said:

This what I want people to think about. Is there really such a thing as a fish? If you go on tilt you are the fish, how many times do people admit that? Even the best players have days where they play bad where 'worse' players can beat them.

The concept of fish is so one dimensional and abstract that its not really useful. What kind of edge are you getting from using that label in your thinking?

I think it is a ego thing to look at other players as weaker, but the truth is that exploiting leaks from good players is as profitable as exploting similar leaks of weaker players.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel the same way about it that you do. It's all relative. A good player at lower levels may not be good at higher levels and who gets to determine when to call him a fish? It's just a crutch to try to classify or pigeonhole people. What good is it?

Fish isn't only a poker term. I've played chess tournaments for years, and the good players often referred to lower level players as fish. The best players play in a specially designated area of the tournament room -- everyone else is in the "fishbowl." Sometimes these little fish grow up to be "big fish," and I mean that in a good way.

I think it's also a respect issue. For some reason, people want others to earn their respect. I guess this means that they don't respect others as a general rule. That's not good, imo. Wouldn't it be better to respect others until they prove they're unrespectable?