Column: Should We Call Fish Fish?

Barry Carter asks whether referring to inexperienced players as fish is bad for the game or just a bit of fun?

The sharks eat the fish Finding Nemo, © Pixar & Walt Disney Studios 2003

Last week, KevinWilliams joined our English community's coaching team and produced a video all about table image and how to spot inexperienced players, called Take the Target Off Your Back.

Although the video was about spotting bad players, and how to avoid signalling you might be a bad player yourself, the video was very respectful towards inexperienced players.

In fact, Williams clearly stated that he didn't like people using the word fish because it was disrespectful.

The idea of fish and sharks in poker is almost as old as the game itself. It is an excellent visualisation of how the poker ecology works; like a marine food chain: the majority of players are weak defenseless fish who get preyed upon by the select strong few who are the sharks. 

I for one like the analogy. It is part of poker folklore and quite a fun one at that. Here at PokerStrategy.com, we even have fish and shark imagery as part of our Tell-a-Friend marketing material (see below).

But should be using the word fish (or donkey) when we talk about inexperienced players, both behind their backs and at the tables?

The shark and fish analogy: part of poker culture.

Don't tap the aquarium glass

There is a saying in poker, "don't tap the tank/aquarium", which basically means "don't draw attention to a player who is bad".

Although it is a commonly-understood maxim of the game, new players still get called derogatory names like fish all the time.

I have seen firsthand what this seemingly harmless labelling of players as fish can do. My mother is the typical 'fish' player we refer to when we talk about the people who keep the poker economy afloat. She plays microstakes tournaments online for fun. When people referred to her as a fish in the chat box a few times it had two profound results:

Don't tap the tank

First of all, she felt offended and alienated. That didn't last too long of course, because she has been around the Internet long enough to know you will always get idiots saying things online that they would never say in real life.

The second reaction was that she wanted to know more - everything, in fact - about this hierarchy of fish and sharks. It had opened her eyes to the skill gap in poker.

This is precisely what so-called good players don't want to happen. Any time you alert a new player to their incompetence, one of two things happens: either they get better, or they stop playing.

Alienating the customer base?

Are we alienating inexperienced players?

More than anything, my mother felt quite let down as a customer that the poker room allowed this to go on in the chat box.

I can't imagine what she would have felt had I told her about things like tracking software and table selection tools.

She still plays a little, but those early experiences did taint her view of the game. That is a real shame for her because she enjoys the game; it is a shame for poker because believe me, you want my mother at your table.

I can't think of any other industry where marketeers encourage part of their customer base to exploit the other, much larger, customer base. There is a strong culture of online poker rooms promoting their room by saying "most of our customers suck, come and take their money".

This type of marketing works because it infers the message that "everyone is bad except you. Few people in poker think they are the fish, no matter how much money they hemorrhage. When they hear messages like this, they choose to believe them.

Recreational players

Recreational players are the future of the game

What I am wondering is, should we be more careful in how we talk about inexperienced players behind their back?

I myself have been guilty in the past of referring to new players as fish - not to judge them, but simply as a way of quickly distinguishing them from serious players.

Was I wrong to do that? More recently, I have been using the term recreational players instead, partially because I have become one myself.

After taking poker very seriously for a number of years, I only play poker for fun these days. Although I can still beat up my local home game, I am probably one of the worst players amongst my serious poker friends (which is possibly why I am a little more sensitive to the word fish now).

I'm not a fan of judging a person based on their poker skill, good or bad, and I am starting to get irriated when other people do.
 
Because of the variance, poker is probably the number one game where you can overestimate your ability and delude yourself into thinking you are better than you really are. I am starting to think that feeling the need to call inexperienced players fish is a way of trying to convince ourselves that we aren't fish as well.

The future of the game?

Perhaps the biggest reason we should be careful not to call players fish is because inexperienced players are viewed as the future of the game. Everyone is looking for a way to boost online poker traffic and revenues, and most think that new depositing players are the key to doing that.

I think the future of marketing in poker should be less about emphasising the skill gap that exists and more about how fun a game it is. Our CEO Dominik Kofert made a similar point in a column he wrote about marketing towards video gamers instead of gamblers in the future.

The skill gap shouldn't be completely ignored of course - perhaps just reconsidered. One of the most enticing things about poker is that you can still beat someone who is more skillful than you. Perhaps the message shouldn't be 'beat the fish' but indeed 'beat the sharks'.

To be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with the fish and shark analogies in poker. They paint a vivid picture of what the ecology is like and also can be a bit of fun banter between players.

I do think, however, we need to be a lot more sensitive and respectful of new players in the game and careful how we choose our words about them publicly.

Recreational players are the lifeblood of poker whether you play the game or work in the industry. Bringing attention to the shortcomings of players at the tables is good for nobody.

In fact, if anything we should be treating them VIPs instead of prey.

By Barry Carter l Barry Carter on Twitter

Should we reconsider the way we market poker? Finding Nemo, © Pixar & Walt Disney Studios 2003