You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
The term "villain"
peter27
Member Posts: 1,634
Curious to know if I am the only person who thinks the term villain sounds too serious/harsh? I mean, we're playing poker, a game - it's not a war! 
That's why I always say opponent rather than villain.
That's why I always say opponent rather than villain.
Comments
I tend to describe my opponent as "Matey Boy". If there are two, Matey Boy 1 & Matey Boy 2.
There are some terms ("fish" is a great example) which don't come across as intended in writing. We'd rarely call anyoine a "fish" in Live Poker, to their face, we'd be deemed rude if we did, & we'd probably get a smack in the chops, too.
Its as if people in the 21st century have totally forgotton the meaning of context.
A great example of this is the monkey joke reference by Roy Hodgsen if anybody found that offensive then they obviously are not very smart and do not understand context.
Today i use oppo and villian, not to be derogatory, really just poker speak for our opposition. Nothing ill willed/ mean/ nasty implied by the term, imo
I'm not offended by it, it's just a stupid and inaccurate term that seems to have somehow got widespread use.
If we started calling weaker players squirrels, are we going to start seeing that as offensive and start looking for yet another term?
If I called my mother a fish, do you think she'd be insulted? No, because a) she wouldn't know what it means and b) after I tell her that it means she's a bad poker player, she would probably acknowledge that it's a fair point, having never played the game.
Honestly, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to be called a fish. It happens frequently, lol. even if it's true, it's only a suggestion that I'm not very good at a game of cards, not a comment on my intelligence.
If you get upset when you're called a fish, it's actually something you need to look at in yourself. Getting upset about it means you're putting your ego into your game. You view an insult of your poker game as an insult of you. That's going to get in the way of you improving.
As for the term "villain" it really is completely different. It's not intended as any sort of slight or insult. Jonjo is right, if you can't put these things in their proper context it's an issue for you to look at in yourself.
If im playing a hand, I see the pot as mine and my opponent the villain is trying to steal what is mine.
The reason "villain" is used is that it's the natural counterpart when describing the opponent of the player we're referring to as the hero. It's neither stupid nor inaccurate.
If we were to refer to the hero of a particular hand as "Superman" then naturally we'd refer to his opponent as "Lex Luthor".
If we were to refer to the hero as "dog" we'd naturally refer to his opponent as "cat".
Now, obviously you can use the term to try to abuse someone but again it's no more of an insult than calling them a weak poker player. I'd no more try to upset someone by calling them a weak poker player than I would by calling them a bad public speaker. Some people would have no problem with trying to upset someone for either reason, and we call those people "jerks".
We need to describe players if we want to discuss the game. "Fish" is shorthand in the same way initialisms are.
Not a word we see too often on a poker Forum, Paul!
Generation thing I guess, we were bought up to the maxim that manners maketh man.
Think life has moved in a bit......
The context is a written analyses of a poker hand to easily explain which players we are looking at and from what perspective.
Our decision is based on what the hero (yay) would do against the villain (boo).
For me it is perfect and quite lighthearted.
edit: I am only talking about the use of the word villain here. I agree that calling someone a fish at the table is just rude and not needed.
However, the reason it is rude is that it's the person's intention to try to upset someone. The term itself is not responsible, the person using it in this context is.
As for whether you'd call someone a fish to their face, I think we all have and do. I'm pretty sure that if we looked back through the 861 archives, we could find Tikay, James, Anna, and all the other presenters and analysts referring to someone as a fish - That someone would obviously be Orford.
The point is Orford doesn't get upset about it because he sees the context is as a bit of friendly banter. The insult of his poker game is not an insult of himself. If some random person said it aggressively to him at a poker table, that would be completely different. The reason it would be different is the different context; that someone is clearly trying to upset him.
Think the point being missed is the difference between the spoken & written, word. It does not overly trouble me Online, though obviously I dislike it, but it is almost never said "face to face" in the real world. And with good reason, they would not dare, because it may well provoke a very unpleasant reaction.
The difference between spoken & written, real world & Online, is an extraordinarily interesting thing for students of psychology.
Interesting debate.