http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_309a.html
This importance of this question escapes me. I usually find the entertainment-related questions pretty lacking in punch, compared to some good hard science. But even I find this quesiton exceptionally insipid.
Anyone care to explain why this is such a big deal?
Probably not a big deal at all. Notice how short the answer is. Cecil probably to fill out a column that was running a bit short, and, hey, presto, there was a simple question about a movie he liked. If it lets a few guys win bar bets, what’s the harm.
Because Steve McQueen was cool, which renders his merest trivia of interest. I understand this because I, as well, am 
Of more interest is the damage done to the movie, which was, up until that point, pretty cool itself. There was no possibility, none, that The Man (Big Eddy Robinson) would have chased the huge raises The Kid was throwing down with only the glimmering hope of a straight or a flush. If that was the way he played poker, the Kid would have finished him off in the first hour.
Um, no, not really. Here’s the situation, as I recall. After the turn, The Kid (SMcQ) has a set of Aces with a pair and a Ten kicker showing; The Man (EGR) has an inside straight flush, including the diamond Ten. So The Man has 12 outs (1 for the straight flush, 8 more for the flush and 3 for the straight) with 45 cards (52 minus the 7 unknown to him) left, or somewhat better than 4 to 1 against drawing out on the river. Pot odds probably favor his calls: if there’s about four times the money already in the pot than he’s called on to add, calling The Kid’s bets is in his favor.
Likewise on the final round: The Kid is on a 1 to 42 proposition that The Man doesn’t have the one card in the hole to fill the inside straight flush, the only possible hand that would beat his boat.
As The Man says, just before the quote related in the answer, “sometimes you do the right thing for the wrong reason.”
for “unknown” above read “known;” for “4 to 1” read “3 to 1” and for “four times” read “three times.” also note The Kid is on the more likely side of the 1 to 42 (for) proposition.
And since The Man has one of the Tens The Kid needs to fill his (probable) boat, if The Man only gets the straight or flush it’s also 14 to 1 (42 to 3) against The Kid getting Aces full or four Aces.
Tom, I’m diggin’ the gospel you’re layin’ down here. I’m not familiar with the hand in question, but euclidator does imply that The Man has been seeing big raises the whole time, presumably even when he had a runner runner flush/straight pull. If this is the case, then his odds were much worse, as were the pot odds. I’m not familiar with the hand in question, but I’d love to hear a real student of poker’s look at the whole hand, and not just the final draw- and Tom, you seem to be the man for the job.
Well, I didn’t find anything on the movie, just the book. The Kid is sitting with a pair of tens showing and a queen buried. The Man has a matching seven and eight showing with a pocket matching jack (in the book it’s hearts, and I guess in the movie it’s diamonds). With the pot at 250 and obvious high pair showing, the Kid bets 500 to get the Man out. The Man re-raises him 300. WTF? He’s got a runner runner flush pull and a DOUBLE gut-shot straight pull. He can’t even bluff high pair, he’s showing a suited seven and eight. The Kid raises 2000 and the Man calls. Well, I call bullshit. Unless the movie is considerably different euclidator is right. No sane poker player is calling that bet unless the deck is stacked.
Agreed, as described in the book, The Man’s raise and call after the third card are highly dubious from an odds standpoint. Now he might be betting on pairing his overcard, or drawing out a higher pair or a set, but all of his outs put together are a little worse than 3 to 1 against and he added 800 to a 750 pot. And after the re-raise it’d take one icy character not to put The Kid on a set of his own.
One difference with the movie is that The Man’s final SF was 8 through Q, which only gave him one inside at any time, rather than two with J87. One analysis that concluded that The Kid was cold-decked erroneously stated The Man had the Q, not the J, in the hole which would have given him an open SF showing, not that it would have materially changed anything from The Kid’s perspective.
Richard Jessup wrote the book, which was back in print as of late 2003. If anyone has any insights into the late, great David Spanier’s analysis in his Little Book of Poker I’m sure we’d all appreciate them. But it looks as if someone might actually have to rent the movie before this is settled to our entire satisfaction . . .
In regards to the original topic, I find these threads boring as well. It seems like $2.50 and a trip to the video store would have answered this question. I tend to appreciate answers to questions that are not immediately obvious, or for which there is little reference.
But keep in mind the column was written in 1975. Video stores (and consumer video-cassette recording generally) was a few years in the future. The movie itself only came out ten years before, so it may not have been played often in the repertory houses or on any of the big three (yes, there were only three)television networks. “John F.” and his poker buddies may have seen the movie once, a decade earlier, and not since because it was impractical to arrange a rescreening just to settle a wager.
I realize it may be hard to fathom now, but there was a time not too long ago when recorded entertainment on demand was only dreamt by madmen. And dinosaurs walked the Earth…
If I remeber correctly, the Kid is definitely winning at the 4th card (he has two pairs, the Man has 3 diamonds showing).
And the Kid checks! :eek:
I’m just a casual player, but I would have bet the pot at that stage.