Contrary to the folk image that skippers are important in determining fishing success, we conclude that the skipper effect is a myth. We reach this conclusion by three converging analyses: (1) we show that the size of fishing boats and the number of trips account for most of the variance in catch, leaving very little unexplained variance to be explained by a skipper effect; (2) we show that there is no relationship between experience and success; and (3) we suggest that skippers in fact avoid risky hunting strategies and fish where they can count on a catch, even if only a small one. We argue that skippers use the myth of skipper effect in a rhetoric of impression management to enhance their prestige and hence their access to larger boats and better crews, which are the real determinants of success. Competition for prestige is not just a game; it is of critical economic importance.