Lets create a list of Party Fish!!!

[Redhotman]

As John brought up in his post below, many good players have flocked to party. This has made it very difficult to play when you dont have a read on anyone. The good players have indirectly made the bad players tougher to beat.
What I propose is a collaboration between the 2+2's of Party Fish.

Just want to get this idea out there, see what the rest of you rocks think.

[GuyOnTilt]

Bad idea. I'd like to think I have at least some class. I really hope that others on this forum will have the tact and decency to not respond positively to this idea.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
The good players have indirectly made the bad players tougher to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just by this statement alone; I'm fairly confindent I can give you one:

Party List:

1. Redhotman

Now, don't get upset, my point is that it may be bad play that is costing you money now not good players.

You should post some hands for analysis and let the forum decide. We can help you work on your game.

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[Redhotman]

Did you read John Shafts thread below??
When you sit at a table and have no reads at a player on party it is hard to tell right away if they are playing correctly(as the player did against John) or just another maniac.

PS: I have put alot of hand histories on here smart ass.

[Redhotman]

I really dont see what the big deal is, I ahve a list of losers in my poker tracker database, as do you.
What is so indecent about sharing the list?

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you read John Shafts thread below??

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't yet but I will.

[ QUOTE ]
When you sit at a table and have no reads at a player on party it is hard to tell right away if they are playing correctly

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone has the right to play the way they want. You'll have to develop skills that will give those reads.

[ QUOTE ]
I have put alot of hand histories

[/ QUOTE ]

I look them up and read them.

[ QUOTE ]
on here smart XXX.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I didn't mean to get you upset, but seemingly I struck a nerve. I am sorry, I just tried to make a strong point and I guess it worked.

Again, welcome,
Joe Tall

[BigEndian]

Sorry Red, I'm not big on the idea. Not to mention that, at some level, we're all fish to some other player. And players are not machines, they learn. So a fish one week could a different player the next.

I don't head-hunt myself yet. Haven't needed to. I just pull up a chair at the first available table and play my game adapted to the table at hand.

- Groove

[ThingDo]

who cares? this is pointless. A couple of hands and you'll know who you are up against... when you move up higher limits ( not saying you aren't moving up now ) your list will grow... but this post is stupid and stuff like this has been flooding the forum as of late... sorry.

[GuyOnTilt]

Having a list of players that I think are "fish" on my harddrive is one thing. Posting a collective list on a public forum is another. It's just plain classless. More advanced posters in this forum may think YOU are a fish. How would you feel if your name was posted on this list?

[Redhotman]

Dont apoligize for disagreeing, you bring up some good points.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]

More advanced posters in this forum may think YOU are a fish. How would you feel if your name was posted on this list?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would feel like I needed to work harder on my game.

It was probally a bad idea to begin with. You brought up some good points.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]


I am sorry, I just tried to make a strong point and I guess it worked.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, it did work, thank you.

[chesspain]

[ElSapo]

One point on all this. Or three points. I'm drinking, and I haven't decided yet.

I love how everyone gets all upset about the idea of posting a "fish list." True, it is fairly classless, perhaps, to post it. But on the other hand, everyone, I suspect, be it mental or on paper or in PokerTracker, has one. We all do it.

I don't think we should post one, for many reasons many posters have explained many times more concisely than I. But I do disagree with the tone many posters take when someone does bring up the idea.

The idea has merits. It is not a bad idea, per se. It is simply an idea who's value is outweighed by negativity.

Just a thought. Or three.

[CrackerZack]

oh, yeah, terrible idea. let's tell all the lurkers that we think they're fish. good plan.

</sarcasm>

[CrackerZack]

Go search the archives of the Zoo...they used to do this crap.

[Lazymeatball]

In my experience a total fish will typically die out in about a week, just a flash in the pan. So even if this list were to get posted most of the names would just be ghosts in your buddylist.

But every once in a while I find a fish that just keeps coming back for more, and I will table hop quite aggressively to get on his left, to the point where it must be obvious that i just follow him around all day.

So if you were to publish a list, I think you would have to just stick to these uber fish that keep coming back for more. I highly doubt that any of them could be 2+2ers so I don't think there is any danger of them wising up.

Could someone go over the ethics of why this is wrong one more time. I am inclined to believe it is, and that the possible benefits aren't large enough to overcome that.

[Redhotman]

Im happy it sparked some interesting conversation though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[lil']

You should be able to determine who the bad players are at any given table after a few minutes.

[ccwhoelse?]

this thread should be lining a cage in the zoo

[JayCo]

I for one really respect the opinion of someone who puts a link in his signature to a web page with this drivel ...

[ QUOTE ]

Criticism:You're just bitter.
Answer:Maybe I am. But ladder theory made me that way, my bitterness did not make ladder theory. Attack the theory, not the person behind it. And why does everyone always say I'm bitter just because 99.999% of chicks are bitches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Real nice.

[ResidentParanoid]

This list would have to be updated daily, as the cast of characters changes constantly. Besides being a bad idea, in my opinion, because of reasons posted by others, it is completely impractical.

[Moyer]

Can you imagine what would happen to the so-called "fish"?

I mean, they have enough problems losing money as it is. They'd be gone in a matter of hours with a pack of 2+2ers following them around from table to table like wolves after a wounded deer.

"You can sheer a sheep many times, but skin him only once."
Or something like that.

At first I thought it would be an advantage to put myself on the list, until I realized what a huge target I would be for good poker players. Whether I'm a fish or not, I wouldn't want all of you blood hungry dogs chasing me around.

[J.R.]

I have it on an inside scoop that both lookma and pallavicini suck.

[AmericanAirlines]

Well,
The Ladder Theory is cute. But I always thought it went a little more like this:

Men rate women on two scales. Looks, Personality.

Women rate men on three scales. Looks, Personality, Providership.

Looks and Personality require no discussion. We all know what they are and though the parameters change, are fairly universal.

The Providership scale goes back to the beginning. In the beginning an ideal male was one who could fight off the bad guys, build a ranch, etc. I.E provide for the survival of the woman and children. Which by the way is what I believe the prime directive of women is... to make more people.

Now that man is economic, providership has been subsumed as "money". Whereas in times gone by the Alpha male had a distinct physical component as it's largest element, money has made it possible for many Alpha male types to arise.

The gal likes music? Well then it's Eddie Van Halen.
She likes Real Estate, well Donold Trump.
and so one. Each form of economic providership has it's Alpha.

However, since we are only so many generations into economic man, the influence of pure physical attraction hasn't been watered down yet. So "looks" for women continues to play a role. And probably always will, because who wants to have sex with unhealthy folks? (Ok, I suppose there are *some* nut cases out there etc. plenty of grey here.)

However, since our culture is such that men are still really expected to be the provider, even though women work, the effect is that the money bar has been raised.

As I once overheard in the cubicles of an engineering firm from a gal. "I am a pretty woman, I will not settle for a 'company x' engineer. I *can* do better."

Or... "Well he doesn't treat me all that great but he is an osteopathic surgeon".

And there is some varablility. Suppose all 3 scales are from 1 to 10.

Guy A may want a cumulative score of 15, but may only accept a Looks rating of 10, and be willing to forgo the personality some. (I.E. classic case of putting up with a good looking "high maintenance" type). Other guys may accept a different mix.

And so it is with women as well I suspect.

So bottom line, Be a good looking, exciting classy, rich dude, and you're an alpha.

Sincerely,
AA