Copy fish2013 and you're probably onto good stuff

Every professional tournament player, from the emerging grinder to the seasoned veteran, confronts the same fundamental question about the structure of their career. A player I work with framed this existential dilemma perfectly, and he even gave us a clue to the answer:

if you were playing mid/highstakes online mtts full time, how would you go about maximizing your EV/hourly/ time spent playing? i think there are two sides of the coin, maybe 3

1. I know players who mostly play everything from the start. The idea is that in their database, their bb/100 can be extremely high in the early levels, so putting yourself in this situation allows you to gain more chips, make more deep runs and have the highest ROI. However in early blind levels, the stakes are the lowest and your hourly isn’t great

2. Other players only register two types of MTTs early: PKOs (obvious) and the very best main events that day, then max lr everything else. This allows for an increase in volume, albeit a lower ROI and more variance given you’re jumping in with 8-15bbs for most of your mtts

3. Then there are some players (fish2013 comes to mind), who use most of their volume for one bullet at the start of MTTs, the highest roi bullet, and then if they bust early-ish, instead of potentially firing 5-6 bullets into the daily $400, they’ll use their second bullet to max lr”

This is the entire game in a nutshell. To find the answer, we must move beyond vague debates about “ROI vs. Hourly” and reframe the problem through a more rigorous lens: what can we prove, and what must we assume? A rational actor bases their decisions on evidence.

The only thing we can demonstrate with high certainty through large-scale calculation is the immediate chip-to-dollar-value conversion of a starting stack. Solvers and ICM calculators prove that, due to the escalating blinds and proximity to the money, a stack has a higher immediate cash value ($EV) per chip when you late-register. This mathematical reality is our baseline—our ground truth.

Every strategy is a conscious decision to either accept this baseline or to make a set of unprovable assumptions about one’s own ability to outperform it. This leads to four distinct philosophical archetypes.

The Four Philosophies

• The Early-Stage Edge Builder: This player’s hypothesis is that their deep-stacked skill is so significant it will overcome the initial $EV deficit of registering early. This requires one massive, unprovable assumption about their own talent.
• The Leverage Hunter: This player’s hypothesis is that the endgame power of a uniquely massive stack justifies intentionally taking on supra-standard variance to acquire it. This requires two leaps of faith: one about their skill, and another about the unquantifiable power of a monster stack.
• The ICM Realist: This is the late-registration specialist. Their hypothesis is that the provable $EV advantage of a late-reg stack is the most reliable edge available. This is the rational default, relying on the fewest assumptions.

The Pragmatic Navigator: A Case Study on fish2013

This brings us to the hybrid player. To understand why a monster of the game like fish2013 would adopt such a strange and nuanced strategy, we first need to understand how he thinks. He once described the obsessive mindset of a pro:

“Poker players have a bit of a deformation. During the game we try to maximise EV. Even though I already have a lot of money, I still try to pick the best sizing or the best time to sign up for a tournament. And this carries over to regular life. I too often estimate EV even in situations where it makes no sense and we are talking about insignificant amounts.”

This quote is the key. The hybrid strategy is not a random compromise; it’s the result of this relentless, EV-maximizing mindset being applied to the problem of registration time itself. Its genius operates on two distinct levels.

Level 1: The Stop-Loss on the Ego

For a player of his caliber, who can credibly claim to be an elite Edge Builder, the first bullet is a calculated, positive-EV gambit. He is investing one buy-in to test his primary, high-assumption hypothesis. But the moment that first shot fails, he immediately and ruthlessly pivots to the baseline, low-assumption ‘ICM Realist’ strategy. This is a pre-planned, systematic stop-loss on his own ego. It’s an act of supreme discipline.

Level 2: The Living Laboratory

This is where the true brilliance lies. This strange behavior isn’t just a way to play; it’s a way to learn. By adopting this dual approach, a player creates the perfect controlled experiment to gather data on themselves. Over time, this method builds two distinct, clean datasets:

• Dataset A: All your first bullets (testing the “Early-Reg Hypothesis”).
• Dataset B: All your re-entries (adhering to the “Late-Reg Baseline”).

This is the only way to get a true, apples-to-apples comparison of the two core realities. It allows a player to collect empirical data to answer the ultimate question: “Is my personal skill edge in the early game actually large enough to overcome the provable value of ICM, or not?” He isn’t just assuming he has an edge. He is actively building the infrastructure to measure it. He is checking the theory behind ICM against the reality of his own results. Smart guy.

Conclusion

The fish2013 gambit is the ultimate expression of rational play because it is both a sophisticated financial strategy and a rigorous scientific method. It combines:

1. Confidence: The self-awareness to know your edge is real enough to justify taking an early shot.
2. Discipline: The pre-planned commitment to abandon that strategy the moment the first test fails.
3. Intellectual Honesty: The commitment to not just believe you’re right, but to gather the data to actually prove it.

So, while the deepest lesson is to analyze your own skills and find your own path, we have to acknowledge the facts. If you’re looking for a shortcut to a sound, rational, and battle-tested strategy that has been proven at the highest levels, you could do a lot worse than this.

Copy fish2013. You’re probably onto good stuff.