Rounders: The best poker movie ever?

AgainstAllOdds · 04-20-2008, 08:57 PM

If not name what you think is the best...

TheLock · 04-20-2008, 08:59 PM

Best.Ever.

LVHerbie · 04-25-2008, 03:26 AM

Rounders is the best... the worst I saw was an Indie flick called "The Big Blind" (I believe that was the name of it)...

AgainstAllOdds · 04-25-2008, 02:31 PM

anyone ever watch the cincinati kid? I never had but I heard it was supposed to be a good poker flick...

slacker00 · 04-26-2008, 02:48 AM

Rounders is the only poker movie I've ever seen. I guess there's a film about Stu Ungar, but I haven't seen it. I haven't seen Cincinnati Kid either, it was made in 1965.

I saw Guys & Dolls a few weeks ago. I didn't realize it was a gambling movie. It's got a young Marlon Brando & Frank Sinatra in their prime. It's a musical, which sucks, but some entertaining gambling rhetoric thrown in there as well. I watched the whole thing and it's probably the first musical I watched the whole way through since Wizard of Oz when I was a kid. Watching Brando as a sexy leading man is ironic for me, because I only remember Brando as the Godfather and in Apocalypse Now.

AgainstAllOdds · 04-26-2008, 03:39 PM

I just watched "Deal" the movie...it was alright...pretty cliche...doesnt come close to rounders but is decent for a watch...

LVHerbie · 04-28-2008, 08:16 PM

Cincinnati Kid is a good movie specially if you're into older flicks... The Stu Ungar movie was okay but they have this thing where he talks to his dead dad, or something like that, throughout the whole thing... it's been awhile since I saw it (I own a copy and have only watched it once), and I could be off on exactly what the thing was, but it kindof killed the whole story IMO... Stu's life was so crazy you really don't need to add elements like that to the story...

The book about him is really great though and I would recommend that over the movie any day...

Anyone seen _The Grand_ yet? Heard bad things about it so I probably just wait for the dvd rather then go to the movies to see it...

Reload · 05-08-2008, 12:31 PM

Rounders would surely get my vote as the best poker movie ever.

harsh506 · 05-12-2008, 08:09 PM

worst in my opinion is " All-In" . Its about some girl who learns from her dad,but he gets in debt and runs out on the family and she goes in a poker tourny to pay for med school, where surpirse surpise she ends up heads up with him in the end. It is quite possibly the worst poker movie as well as too much partypoker advertising

Bullajami · 05-12-2008, 09:39 PM

Rounders is a good movie, despite the poker part being quite awful.

babaoriley · 05-14-2008, 02:37 PM

I have a couple of questions regarding Rounders:

What hand do you guys put KGB on in the following situations?

Sit 1: The final hand where Mike flops the nut straight. What is KGB sitting on? I know that pocket A's are the consensus, but really, if someone who was about to be whacked if they lost the game was saying things like "I might as well gamble or else I won't be able to forgive myself in the morning" with such a cavalier attitude, I certainly would have put him on a set or possibly even that straight. I know it's a movie, but that scene, despite its greatness, always angers me a little. KGB had slow-played his pocket A's earlier when he took Mike's bankroll and now he's grinning and talking smack (basically saying "HEY MIKE, I HAVE ROCKETS")... It was just out of character for KGB, and while the betting makes sense after the river card came up Ace (ostensibly giving Teddy the best set), him splashing the pot by raining a large raise after the turn does not. He's acting like he has the hand at that point, despite every indication that, at the very least, Mike has two pairs or a set, and possibly the straight. Again, this is a guy who is going to be getting whacked if he loses. That flop was 6-7-10 rainbow right? And Mike has 8-9 suited... If he's chasing the straight, he's chasing inside with 4 outs, or possibly 8 outs if he's open-ended assuming he has 85 or 54 (highly unlikely considering he raised pre-flop). I have to think that either Teddy was sitting on a set, himself and was using Mike's highly pressurized position to really lean on him. OR, he had A-10 (quite a risk to go with top pair, top kick, considering Mike's situation). OR (as at least a couple of my friends believes), he is on a stone cold bluff (again, using Mike's perilous situation as further pressure to fold). We'll deal with this hand first, before delving into a couple others.

Bullajami · 05-14-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullajami

Rounders is a good movie, despite the poker part being quite awful.

AgainstAllOdds · 05-15-2008, 12:48 PM

Baba, the general consences is yes, KGB had pocket A's. This is demistrating by teddy saying "there is no way that ace could have helped you"...meaning even if mike had A-10(aces up) the set of KGB would still be supieor. Furthermore, I think KGB and alot of other players could never put Mike on a hand like 9-10(thenuts)...teddy played the hand well, and the only two cards that could have beaten him, are the ones that mike held.

B1GER1C828 · 05-15-2008, 07:22 PM

rounders is my fav.."all-in" is by far the worst. i cant remember the name of the other movie. had drew berrymore and all the other actors arent comign to mind. also had many pros in it. it was a pretty good watch and ill still watch it when its on tv

babaoriley · 05-15-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

Baba, the general consences is yes, KGB had pocket A's. This is demistrating by teddy saying "there is no way that ace could have helped you"...meaning even if mike had A-10(aces up) the set of KGB would still be supieor. Furthermore, I think KGB and alot of other players could never put Mike on a hand like 9-10(thenuts)...teddy played the hand well, and the only two cards that could have beaten him, are the ones that mike held.

i think you're SEVERELY underestimating very good poker players. Again, it all boils down to situational betting in this case. KGB's phrase "That Ace couldn't have helped you" was uttered WAAAY after KGB said "On a Draw, Mike?" then chided him.

Let's break this down a little further.

Mike McD: If he loses, he's out $15k and at the least, he loses the ability to walk for a VERY long time. Not good prospects for a guy who can blindly read the law professors hands blindly.

Teddy KGB: Mafia bagman and (from what we're led to believe) a very savvy poker player (despite having one of the most ridiculous tells ever), but sufficiently connected, regardless. Not the guy you want to risk your life on a draw with, right? And if Mike was on a draw, again, KGB is putting Mike on either 5-8 or 5-4 (unless he thinks Mike is drawing inside to the 8 or 9. Or maybe we're not to take Teddy at his word considering he's a poker player. Now, this is where this argument gets good. Teddy is risking $30k against a presumably scared shitless kid. A kid who will be killed if he loses. So, what if KGB, pissed at having his tell outed earlier, decides he's representing AA in a bully effort, and he's going to ride it out. If he wins, he's up $30k, he owns Mike (he can stake him and turn him into a real profit stream, then kill him if he wants) and the possibilities are endless. If he loses, he loses $30k. Maybe a steep loss, but probably didn't put a dent in his bankroll. In the process of winning, he gets to deal Mike the most severe form of punishment; that of humiliation after being humiliated himself.

I'd have known to get away from that hand. I've gotten away from AA before (rarely, but I have) because the situation dictated it. An 85% hand can turn into a coin-flip really quickly, and in certain cases, I've ditched them. Normally, I wouldn't worry about 6-7-10 rainbow flop hurting me, but in that specific situation, I would have never thought the guy was chasing. If taken at his word, (as you and others do when arguing that Teddy's statement "That Ace could not have helped you, Mike" is proof of A-A), you'd have to assume that Teddy was telling the truth about believing Mike was on a draw. You can't be selective when taking KGB's statements at their word, versus common sense. Putting Mike on a draw would be ridiculous in that situation and giving out such an obvious "I have rockets" declaration would be equally stupid.

Dark Horse · 05-16-2008, 04:37 AM

It's a movie, so the tell had to be made very obvious to make sure that everybody in the audience got it. In reality it would have been far more subtle. Complex games as poker and chess always get this treatment in movies. Chess invariably goes from great complexity to check mate in just a few moves; in movie chess a player never gives up in a lost position (long before check mate), and the action is quick because the movie would come to a crawl otherwise. And even the latest Bond, which is grittier than all the previous editions combined, has a straight flush that would have put a twinkle in Maverick's eyes.

The Oreo cookie in the movie is where the psychology shifts. Now KGB, a very good player, realizes that he's up against a player that is much better than he had previously assumed. Until now, Mike had always played at the low limit tables, and the one time he bet big in no limit he lost. Again, the fact that he lost by missing the most obvious (pocket aces) was 'movie poker'. I think it's important to keep the storyline separate from the actual cards, which are simplified for the audience.

The point of the movie was that Mike was great without pressure (reading the professors cards blindly), but not under pressure. He had choked the first time with real money. If that happened again, he would never get over it. He would be a choker for life. The whole movie was about the inner process of getting from A (great without pressure) to B (great under pressure).

So I tend to think KGB gave him an opportunity to get over the hump. And I'd like to think he did so on purpose, and acted furious after losing to keep up appearances with his crime pals. This guy had lost big bets before. He had developed great respect for Mike. And all he wanted to know at this point was if Mike would be willing to take that one step that would define everything else from thereon. He wanted Mike to be a great player. And so, if this is indeed the movie's storyline (confused by 'movie cards'!), he bluffed.

Mike was so elated with his newly won freedom that he didn't realize KGB's role. As KGB threw his anger fit, Mike decided to insult him ('I can beat you all night'), which had KGB's helpers ready to jump him. And it is at this point that KGB immediately regains his calm. 'Nyet! Nyet.' To control his helpers. KGB had called Mike the kid the whole time. But now, after he regained his calm, he said: "Pay him. He beat me. Straight up. Pay that man his money." KGB couldn't have just paid Mike without first throwing an anger fit. He had to play to his helpers in crime first.

KGB, like a teacher, showed Mike when he was not ready and when he was ready. At the beginning of the movie he isn't ready. The movie is about the lessons he has to learn first. The process involves going beyond his two friends - one a cheater, the other a good player not interested in the big time-, and breaking with his girl friend and college education.

That's how, I believe, it would have been written. Translated to 'movie' reality, however, Mike just had a killer hand. And KGB missed it, just as Mike had missed KGB's pocket aces early in the movie. The final hand was luck. It was KGB making a mistake, rather than Mike making a brilliant move. But it really shouldn't have been luck; not at that point in the movie... And so it looks like the movie stayed true to the end to the typical movie thing. Oversimplifying a complex game. Why can't somebody just win big with 10-2?