jadaminato said:
I know the term is sometimes offensive. But there is nothing wrong with it. Nobody is born knowing how to play poker. It doesn't bother me to admit it, I'm a fish. And I study every day to stop being it. But if you ask a little it seems that most of the players are sharks, they know exactly what they are doing and how to optimally play all kinds of boards. I have no doubt that there are many sharks in the sea of cardschat. And you? Are you one of them or, like me, are you a little sardine trying to grow?
I congratulate you for your ability to be critical of yourself. As a 5 year CardsChat member I wouldn't expect anyone to label themselves a fish. Perhaps you're being modest, perhaps you're being honest, but the willingness to recognize the need for growth, the ability to see strengths in our opponents, and the ability be honest about our results is KEY to growth and the feasibility of attaining continued or future success. Many players never take much time to read or study and claim through only experience to be superior to other fish. They may or may not be correct, as some players can do quite well in their player pool without much off the table study.
To answer your question personally, I'll agree with some of the other posts and say that it depends. In my humble opinion, at most average live 1/2 games in the US I would consider myself one of the sharks. Not that I would be the best player at the table but I usually feel like I'm able to quickly recognize who is who and adjust accordingly to be successful. Obviously this still doesn't guarantee any single session will be a success. I have also been at tough 2/5 tables where I feel like I'm one of the fish. I'm probably also a fish at 5/10 games and larger. Similarly, just because you're "a fish" doesn't make you the worst player at the table or guarantee you will lose the session. It just means that it appears as though you are making more mistakes or -EV plays than most of the other players at the table. I think game variations and modalities also come into play. For example I never really played online cash games (tiny sample pre Black Friday) before November 2019, and after over a decade of live poker and considering myself more of a shark than a fish at live 1/2 I was quite humbled by 2NL. After 1,500 hands of online 2NL I was down 5 buy ins. I was a fish, it was supremely humbling. I felt embarrassed. I was making large mistakes that cost me tons of EV at the lowest online NLHE game I could find. I was eventually able to adjust and after 6,560 hands total, not only had I won back those 5 buy ins to get even, but I had also won an additional 19+ buy ins. Was I now a shark? It's impossible to know with such a small sample but probably not. But the chances that I was still a fish on a heater were also fairly small. As I continue to try to move up in stakes I do not consider myself a fish in the online games I currently play (100NL) but that is only in comparison to my player pool. If I was on a different site with stronger players I may indeed be a fish even at 50NL for example, it's all relative to your competition. The same sort of contrast can be drawn for situational play. Some players are particularly weak at short stacked play, or deep stacked play, or a particular format such as full ring vs short handed, or an MTT vs cash.
The important part, as you've already done. Is to be able to recognize your need for growth and be able to responsibly continue. Whether that means, moving down to an easier game or switching player pools, studying more, playing less, continuing to lose at a manageable rate as long as you're having fun, or quitting altogether.
