I think there was a clear implication that he was in over his head at that level of play… he was ok at the lower stakes, but the moment he thought he was better than he really was, he got immediately crushed.
Yeah, you get the impression that they’ve pulled that scam a hundred times before, and are just falling into an old pattern on the spot.
I didn’t get the impression that Rusty was helping with the con. Why would he scare off a steady paycheck? I just thought Rusty knew that there was nothing he could do to stop Danny, and was just watching it happen.
That was the best line of the movie: “What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?”
At my weekly poker game we make fun of Rounders mercilessly. Damon’s character beats Malkovich’s character in the climactic hand by slow-playing something. Everyone who plays poker knows the slow-play. This is not a complicated or particularly advanced technique. But Malkovich’s character treats it like he’s just been expertly finessed and completely blindsided by someone with mind-boggling talent.
Several times a week, someone will shout in the angry-Malkovich-Russian accent: “SLOW PLAY? WHAT IS THEES SHIT? ALL NIGHT YOU CHECK-CHECK-CHECK!”
How’s the poker in Lock Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels?
I will defend Rounders… as I love that movie… and I’m a poker buff… so, here we go:
A> I think that what people believe about Mike (Damon) from his loss to KGB, is that Mike attempted to make a step up in class and was dominated. I think it is clear that Mike doesn’t believe he was not good enough- but it is the impression other people got from him. Something Kinish calls him on, and Mike explains the story of how he outplayed Chan for one hand at a casino. “Did you have it?” “Sorry Chan, I don’t remember.” The idea that he was being outclassed was not just in the hand that he lost was a good hand, but that KGB was good enough to figure out he had Mike on the line when he hit his hand. This scene is really soley not to put Mike down, but to setup really how good of a player KGB really is, IMO.
B> KGB put Mike on a draw on the last hand- and in mocking Mike says so… “What… you on a draw? This hand, is not good for you…” (or something really close to that) and KGB attempts to buy him out at that point.
C> When Mike calls out KGB’s tell- he obviously gets inside of KGB’s head. “The rule is- you spot a man’s tell you don’t say a word. And ordinarily I’d have let him go on eating those cookies until he was broke. But I don’t have that kind of time.” (Again really close to that) Mike needed to throw KGB off his game and throw him off balance. By the time the last hand comes around, Mikey has a huge chip stack in front of him. Mike has clearly been wearing down KGB.
When the cards on the last hand are dealt- this is pretty much a replica of the hand that Mike watched Chan win the WSOP against Eric Seidel earlier in the movie. “Look at that, Chan flops the nut straight and has the guts to wait him out.” KGB- off balance from a night of losing- puts Mikey on a draw and plays the hand poorly. Mikey lets him do his thing. When KGB realizes it, and is finally fully defeated- his outburst, I take as a night of frustration finally being let out.
If I am not mistaken, the game played in that movie is not poker, but a British game superficially similar to it called brag.
Just my 2 eurocent!
You’re completely wrong about the poker played in that scene.
It was stupidly played and employed the “only in movies” aspect of being able to bet someone out of a hand simply by having more money than them.
It featured probably 3 calls that not even beginning poker players would make, as well as string bets, after they announced that no string bets were allowed.
That scene was 10 kinds of retarded.
That’s what bothered me about the movie. Mike is supposedly a poker expert, but thinks that ONE HAND reveals anything about how good he is? (And the guy he’s telling the story to, who is a classic long-term grind-it-out kind of player, is impressed, instead of saying “Anybody can win one hand. If you really think you can play with him, why did you immediately leave?”)
Of course, the scene is on youtube. The hand with Danny starts at about 2:30. Rusty is pretty much encouraging everyone else to stay in the hand - he tells them things like “this early in the game, that much money, I don’t think he’s got more than a pair of face cards.” and later when Danny raises “He’s trying to buy his way out of his bluff.” I think Rusty was sick of cold-decking Teen Beat cover boys, and realized that Danny’s return meant things were probably about to get more interesting, so he went with the con.
Spot on. Topher’s “All reds!” gives him a nice headache, so he escaped to the bar. Clearly a “Why the hell am I doing this?” moment.
And now watching the scene again - Rusty was dealing, so obviously he gave Danny the four 9’s he wound up with.
Does NOBODY listen to me any more? :mad:
Sorry. :o Since muldoonthief provided the video, that was the post at the top of my mind. My bad.
Chan is used through the movie to represent the BEST player in the world. The point of the story is that Mike learned he was good enough to make the next step- because he managed to make a move on Chan and had success. The hand was fully played pre-flop, Mike made a move against the best in the world (With Rags none the less) and won.
Imagine it to be like LeBron James as a High Schooler runs across Michael Jordan in his prime… and gets to play a pickup game to one and LeBron wins. It doesn’t mean michael isn’t the best in the world at that moment, but that LeBron really has what it takes. LeBron at that point, takes his win and walks away on top of the world.
The poker (and gin) in The Stu Ungar Story is well-played, often based on actual play by Ungar and his cohorts (including a re-creation of Ungar’s dramatic third WSOP win).
Even though it’s a heist film more than a poker film, Shade was well done in the poker department.
Lady Luck, which I’ve only seen once, struck me as including decent poker, though it was far from the main object of the film.
Are you talking about the final hand between Robinson and McQueen or the play in general? While you are correct that the string bets are annoying, no one got bet out of the hand for not having enough money. Robinson went into his wallet, which was totally bogus, but took McQueen’s marker.
Michael Weisenberg wrote a column a few years back analyzing the final hand, explaining how the actions by each player made sense.