Should we redefine the term "fish"?

Dead · #1 04-16-2005, 05:16 PM

Should we redefine the term fish? One common definition of it is a very loose player who is too passive postflop. A calling station. Fish supposedly bluff only rarely.

I have found that at the Stars .25/.50 game, in which lots of players are fish, there is an extraordinary amount of bluffing.

I have heard some in this micro say that if you are check-raised with TP on the river, that you should fold it. I disagree with this vehemently, at least if you are playing the Stars .25/.50 game. I have found that WPT fish at this limit will bluff with almost anything. They will bluff with busted gutshots, 5 high, you name it. They do an intense amount of bluff check-raising, probably because they saw Gus Hansen or someone do it on their favorite WPT episode.

I find that you can make a profit calling these check-raises, because very often, they don't mean sh*t.

Just my opinion.

Ianco15 · #2 04-16-2005, 05:22 PM

I define fish as someone who plays poker unprofitably. They could be passive or aggressive. As long as they lose consistently, I consider them a fish.

cold_cash · #3 04-16-2005, 05:23 PM

I don't like the term, so I don't use it.

If I was against someone like you described I would just say "a live one who is capable of throwing a bluff in now and then".

Dead · #4 04-16-2005, 05:23 PM

But a rock is not a fish. A fish has to be loose. And rocks lose consistently as well.

Dead · #5 04-16-2005, 05:24 PM

It's not meant as a pejorative term.

If it wasn't for fish, then I wouldn't be able to make any money. So, thanks fish!

A_C_Slater · #6 04-16-2005, 05:27 PM

Actually rocks are marginally profitable players. Maybe .5BB/100.

Dead · #7 04-16-2005, 05:40 PM

Maybe at the microlimits. They'd get crushed at bigger games.

BriPlay · #8 04-16-2005, 06:11 PM

I agree. very much so.
Brian

tiltaholic · #9 04-16-2005, 06:17 PM

rocks don't always lose.

and the yankees suck.

Rambino · #10 04-16-2005, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I define fish as someone who plays poker unprofitably. They could be passive or aggressive. As long as they lose consistently, I consider them a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my definition as well. I mark all losers as "fish" right away, and then later worry about more categorization...