- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rounders
Posted on 3/15/16 at 3:06 pm to Deactived
Posted on 3/15/16 at 3:06 pm to Deactived
quote:
yes youre nitpicking a movie that is on a 'sport' that no one even knew anything about at the time.
how is that nitpicking when i point out an obvious detail that the director left out (for a iconic movie regarding the topic).
Look at past history of the movies:
Cincinnati kid, Maverick, kaleidoscope(With Warren Beatty)
More recent:
casino royale(can you imagine james bond dealing?)
lucky you
If I'm say old poker movies is not believable because it's not table stakes. This means if you can not call the bet or raise you lose. So if you sit there with a Royal Flush(unbeatable hand) and your opponent raises 10k and you have only 2K, you would lose the hand because you don't have the money to call. This isn't poker because whoever has the most money will win every hand. But I guess that would be nitpicky also.
2
Posted on 3/15/16 at 3:14 pm to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:
were they showing half of a card before?
This must be sarcasm? If it's not, it'll try to reason with you. "Whole cards" are the cards that are unseen by everybody at the table except the player holding them.
Here is a clip of 1989 WSOP. You can see that each player whole cards are not show to the viewers at the beginning of the hand.
LINK
Here is 2003 WSOP final table. The viewers can see each player's cards but their opponents cannot.
LINK
Posted on 3/15/16 at 3:31 pm to PeteRose
What detail are you talking about?
So many have been talked about
So many have been talked about
Posted on 3/15/16 at 3:43 pm to PeteRose
quote:
"Whole cards"
Posted on 3/15/16 at 3:45 pm to Peazey
you were supposed to let him go on believing that i was an idiot and he was a genius. thanks a lot
Posted on 3/15/16 at 6:29 pm to PeteRose
quote:
how is that nitpicking when i point out an obvious detail that the director left out
because it is of no significance. Harping on the no dealer (and they do have a dealer at the casino in AC) and stating that the director/writer didn't do research makes you sound like a little kid that knows something and thinks it makes him an authority. For all you know, they debated having a dealer for authenticity but decided it took away from the drama of the scene or that Mike and KGB agreed to play heads up.
Here's an article that mentions gambling mistakes in movies, including Rounders. No mention of not having dealer. The Casino Royale one is way worse, but at least they have a dealer right
[link=(
https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2014/08/5-silliest-gambling-scenes-movie-history.html)]LINK[/link]
Posted on 3/15/16 at 7:15 pm to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:
you were supposed to let him go on believing that i was an idiot and he was a genius.
That spelling was my mistake.
Posted on 3/15/16 at 7:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
For all you know, they debated having a dealer for authenticity but decided it took away from the drama of the scene or that Mike and KGB agreed to play heads up.
look at final scene on youtube in Cincinnati kid and see if it took away the drama.
quote:
Harping on the no dealer (and they do have a dealer at the casino in AC) and stating that the director/writer didn't do research makes you sound like a little kid that knows something and thinks it makes him an authority.
But I suggested you ask questions so you can prove that I'm a fraud. We can talk about ranges, floating, semi bluffing, fold equity, light 3 betting, light value, polarizing and merging ranges.
Doesn't matter anyway. I'll get accused of googling the answers.
Posted on 3/15/16 at 8:49 pm to PeteRose
Pete, you have made this thread ridiculous, and you're absolutely nitpicking.
Johnny Chan won Back to Back World Series Main Events. He was a Poker Superstar when this movie was made. You don't know what he held in the preflop hand in Atlantic City. It's highly possible he had over bet rags hoping to induce Mike to fold and then decided to fold when Mike played back at him strong. The point is to give rationale to Mike that he could play with the best, which is why he put his whole bank roll in play at KGB's. The details of the hand again are irrelevant to the plot. He out played a world champion.
The dealer thing is just stupid. If you're citing that as taking away from the quality of the movie, it's a weak argument.
This is a really good film with top notch, memorable acting performances from Landau, Norton, Malkovich, and Tuturro, and Damon's Narration excellently explained a game that most of the viewing audience had never played before seeing the movie.
It was also a catylist in the Poker Boom. As was Moneymaker, and online poker, but Rounders absolutely had a significant influence. I can attest to this personally.
Johnny Chan won Back to Back World Series Main Events. He was a Poker Superstar when this movie was made. You don't know what he held in the preflop hand in Atlantic City. It's highly possible he had over bet rags hoping to induce Mike to fold and then decided to fold when Mike played back at him strong. The point is to give rationale to Mike that he could play with the best, which is why he put his whole bank roll in play at KGB's. The details of the hand again are irrelevant to the plot. He out played a world champion.
The dealer thing is just stupid. If you're citing that as taking away from the quality of the movie, it's a weak argument.
This is a really good film with top notch, memorable acting performances from Landau, Norton, Malkovich, and Tuturro, and Damon's Narration excellently explained a game that most of the viewing audience had never played before seeing the movie.
It was also a catylist in the Poker Boom. As was Moneymaker, and online poker, but Rounders absolutely had a significant influence. I can attest to this personally.
Posted on 3/15/16 at 9:07 pm to dpd901
quote:
The dealer thing is just stupid. If you're citing that as taking away from the quality of the movie, it's a weak argument.
And how many of you have played in the card room of a Russian Gangster? Does he want to spring for a dealer to take the cut? I think he is getting his cut in that room no matter what given the nature of premise and character.
We are talking about underworld organized crime card rooms. The Chesterfield appeared to be the nicest place with at least a hot girl taking her cut before you start.
Any of you older sordid types been in a "KGB's"?
I recall a pool hall in Port Arthur, TX that if you stumbled in at the wrong time in mid week mid day, the crowd was different. Table of older dudes in the corner nobody playing for pennies or pride EVER looked as serious. Or looked as annoyed by our post college hijinks while they played.
Posted on 3/15/16 at 9:22 pm to LSU alum wannabe
I always thought I was nitpicky by thinking the end of "Victory" should have seen Stalone batting the ball away instead of catching a PK from a world class soccer player.
Then I read this thread. Holy shite
Then I read this thread.
Holy shite
Posted on 3/15/16 at 9:36 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
I always thought I was nitpicky by thinking the end of "Victory" should have seen Stalone batting the ball away instead of catching a PK from a world class soccer player.
Never really thought about that...but in hindsight, that's not a nitpick.
Of course the ball looked like a medicine ball, so maybe pace was an issue.
Posted on 3/15/16 at 10:11 pm to dpd901
quote:
Pete, you have made this thread ridiculous, and you're absolutely nitpicking.
well, i list other reasons besides the dealer. And I said it was a good movie, not great one.
Tarantino said any great story involves not the just the main plot but it's the little subtle details that make it believable and interesting.
Just my opinions since I've been in lots of cardrooms and I watch alot of poker movies. No harm in a healthy debate.
Posted on 3/15/16 at 10:23 pm to Jack Ruby
Chip Reese is the greatest all around poker player ever. Stu Unger is the best Texas hold em player that will ever have existed.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News