re: Rounders

If Mike doesn't pay the whole 15k, it is implied that he is is deep shite. Even worm Said that if they were a little barber shop, they would be fricked. KGB also said "if you don't have it, you will be mine". What that means I'm not sure. But I wouldn't feel too good if I were mike.

Also, although it was probably mostly greed with some ego as well, could have also been a bird in the hand kinda thing. He can win Mike's 10k now (and he really a enjoys playing cards anyway and never thought he'd lose), have that in hand, and Mike's still on for the 15, as opposed to Mike hauling arse. He probably wouldn't consider Mike a huge flight risk, but if he's being prudent and again, enjoys playing anyway, why not?

quote:

---

1. In the opening scene, Mike buys in 30K in the big game. However, the players have to deal the cards? Come on. Any legit card room will have their own dealers.

---

this sounds nitpicky, it looks like a dive run (we assume) by the Russian mob or at least a guy connected to them

quote:

---

2. The hand were Mike goes bust vs KGB. Mike goes "I don't think you have the spades, I'm all in". Pretty bad line to use for a gifted poker player. If you think KGB is bluffing, you just call. You wouldn't go all-in unless you have nuts.

---

Also sounds nitpicky, but a) i thought Mike had a good hand and just got beat and b)i figure they were trying to show he was arrogant and that arrogance blinded him to the better hand, it short he fricked up. He's a good player, not perfect.

quote:

---

3. Mike owes KGB 15k and he has till morning to pay up. Mike has 10k with him. KGB knows this. However, Mike ask for a heads up match. Why would Teddy play him? Ego? It doesn't make sense because if KBG waits till morning, he gets mike's 10k regardless. Why even play?

---

If Teddy wins the 10K doesn't he still get the 15K he owes and besides, its a joke anyway, he was paying Mike with Mike's own money from the last time he stuck it in Mike.

quote:

---

4. The part where Mike tells Knish that he beat Johnny Chan. Where he and chan was playing high limit. They kept raising and reraising before the flop. No decent player would fold one more bet and not see a flop. And chan suppose to be a poker god in the movie.

---

maybe he was just making that up plus i thought he checked til the end?

quote:

---

5. Movie portrays Chan as a poker god and Eric Seidel is a loser. Eric Seidel is a great player and still scoring big tournaments.

---

who cares, besides was that true when the movie was made?

quote:

---

Knish and Professor was the real hero of the movie

---

i agree with this.

Overall its a good movie not flawless, some quotable lines. I'm not a poker player

Thought you were asking about the Glenn Ford/Henry Ford western. It was good.

quote:

---

but the rest is just nitpicking.

---

I don't think so. Part of making movie is doing a bit of research. And in this director/screenwriter clearly didn't.

quote:

---

I don't think so.

---

You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it so.

quote:

---

Part of making movie is doing a bit of research. And in this director/screenwriter clearly didn't

---

Really, link? It's kinda funny that because you fancy yourself as some kind of poker expert that you "know" all this stuff. As i said you point about Chan "mucking" and not seeing the final card maybe correct, but i also was never sure if it as a "true" story or something Mike just made up.

That seedy and illegal clubs would 100% have dealers is pure speculation on your part, maybe they do, maybe they don't but there is nothing implausible about an underground club run by the Russian mob not having a dealer and even if they do, not having them in the movie is irrelevant to the story and nit-picky.

For example in The Client, Susan Sarandon and kid drive from Memphis to New Orleans, when they show them getting to the city, they are crossing the GNO Bridge into the city. If anyone knows New Orleans, you know that is not how you'd get to the city from Memphis, but the shot of the bridge with the city in the background is a much better shot then turning off I55 in LaPlace. So while i roll my eyes, it's nitpicky, because it doesn't matter. Having a dealer with Mike and KGB would just clutter the table and is not necessary.

quote:

---

That seedy and illegal clubs would 100% have dealers is pure speculation on your part

---

After high school, I worked in some rinky dink bar that ran an illegal card game. They absolutely have a dealer that takes a cut out of each pot.

We played a game called lowball. However, when poker went nuts due to ESPN world series of poker becoming so popular, we switched to Texas hold'em. The craze started quite a bit after the movie and is more attributable to ESPN and the main event telecasts than to the movie.

quote:

---

Movie portrays Chan as a poker god and Eric Seidel is a loser

---

no it doesnt

quote:

---

Really, link? It's kinda funny that because you fancy yourself as some kind of poker expert that you "know" all this stuff. As i said you point about Chan "mucking" and not seeing the final card maybe correct, but i also was never sure if it as a "true" story or something Mike just made up.

---

Maybe I am an expert. Maybe not. The sad part is that you can't ask me the right questions to confirm that. And Chan did not fold before the river card(River card). He folded preflop which is something you don't see anybody do after putting in multiple bets in a limit game.

One more thing. In the movie Mike said about No Limit Holdem "the game is so volatile that some players won't play it". Anybody who knows anything about poker knows that Pot Limit Omaha(PLO) by far is the most volatile game. Again, if the filmmaker did a bit of research, the would know this.

Btw, ask me any questions about Holdem or Omaha (high or high/low 8 or better) and I will try to satisfy your curiosity. I just ask that you make them hard so it'll be fun to answer. Try not to ask about the lesser popular games like 7 card stud or 2-7 triple draw. No one plays them live nowadays.