"The Hustler"...how DID Bert figure that? (spoilers)

At the end of “The Hustler,” after Eddie takes down Fats, he’s heading out of the pool hall when Bert stops him by yelling out, “You owe me MONEY!” Eddie asks him how he figures that. Which is a good question. The two had a (very unequal) partnership. Bert would stake Eddie and set up matches in return for 75% of Eddie’s winnings. But:

  1. After Sarah’s death, it seemed pretty clear that the partnership was dissolved;
  2. Even if the partnership were still active, Eddie was playing Fats with his, Eddie’s own money and not Bert’s stake;
  3. Bert didn’t set up the match between Eddie and Fats.

So how does Bert figure that Eddie owes him money? Or does he not really think so, since he offers to accept half instead of 75% and eventually takes nothing (albeit with threats against Eddie should he ever enter a big time pool hall again)?

If you don’t have an opinion but love this fantastic film anyway, please feel free to talk about other aspects too.

The origianl deal includes Eddie’s winnings from the Fats game and assumes Eddie will play with his own $3000 won through Bret. Bret says he will help get Eddie the $3000 for the game with Fats but he wants 75%.

The question is why does Bret only ask for 50%. I think the answer to that is guilt. But under the original deal he should get 75% of the Fats game.

I don’t agree that the deal includes 75% of what Eddie makes when Bert isn’t staking him and I don’t agree that the deal includes money that Eddie makes in the rematch with Fats. Bert’s talking about the Fats rematch as an inducement to get Eddie to play for him.

The other answer is that Bert has guards and can enforce any deal he wants. Bert can has Eddie’s thumbs broken. The deal is what Bert says it is. What is Eddie going to do? His only play is to force Bert to kill him.

It is fair like when the Godfather sends Luca Brasi along with his totally fair offer you don’t refuse.

The whole point was that when bert makes the deal for 75% of eddie’s earnings, eddie was a loser and bert takes advantage of it. So after sarah’s suicide eddie was no longer a loser and stood up for himself to fats and to bert, unwilling to take his former subserviant role. Bert realizes he can no longer control him , eddie’s his own man. So bert backs down and becomes the loser expressed by lowering his precentage to 50%.

Having been staked before, I can say that it’s not as simple as, “Eddie’s on his own when he’s not using Bert’s money.” Because otherwise, Eddie could go off and play matches, and if he loses Bert has to cough up, but if he wins he could claim that he was really playing with his own money that time.

So really, when you’re being staked by someone, it’s very important for both parties to know which games are ‘staked’ and which ones aren’t. And even then, it can lead to problems. Let’s say you’re a poker player being staked into games by a friend. You play, and have a horrible run of luck and lose. So you feel bad about it, and tell your friend “Forget it. I’m sorry. I’ll play with my own money next time.” So you go out, and you win. How’s your friend going to feel about that? Of course, had you lost it would have come out of your pocket, but it’s still a bitter pill to swallow.

In this case, the relationship between Bert and Eddie was clearly over, but I don’t think it was ever explicitly stated. It was more like Eddie just saying, “Go screw yourself.” So then Eddie plays a big money game and wins, and Bert attempts to intimidate Eddie into paying him. The situation is vague enough that he can make the claim that Eddie is still under their agreement, and it’s up to Eddie to stand up to him and straighten it out, which he does.

Why didn’t Bert simply have his arms broken and take his money anyway? Because in this world even the bad guys have to maintain something of a reputation. In fact, when I played poker in underground clubs with some very ‘interesting’ people (gangsters, loan sharks, and other people flying under society’s radar), trust was *never an issue. One night I lent $2000 to a person I didn’t even know, just on reputation and because he was vouched for by someone I did know. My money was always safe with those people. One acquaintance I had was a loan shark and bookie (an honest and fair one, too, in my opinion). He ALWAYS paid up promptly when he lost a bet. As reliable as a banker. (In fact, he was the guy who vouched for my $2000). Why? If he stiffs someone they can’t exactly go to the cops. And he always could bring in ‘muscle’ if he needed to. But his reputation would be shot. No one would lay bets with him if they knew there was a sliver of a chance that he wouldn’t pay up.

So Bert still had to maintain his reputation. He had to play by the rules. He stretched them that night, and tried to push Eddie into making a stupid decision. Eddie didn’t fall for it, so Bert had to back off, or risk never being able to sit down in a big stakes poker game again, or be able to take advantage of someone else’s talents again by staking them.

I don’t know. I still read the origianl conversation as giving Bret 75% of what took off Fats with the $3000 that Bret helped Eddie get.

It is questionable, but I think Bret can make the claim.

Bert didn’t have Eddie’s thumbs broken. His thumbs were broken by Turk and his gang after Eddie hustled them.

Sam, your thoughts pretty much parallel mine on the whole staking issue. My feeling was that Bert was trying to run a number on Eddie and get money he wasn’t entitled to. Great story, BTW. I hope you’ll start a thread sometime sharing more of your experiences, or at least continue dropping these sorts of gems in threads as they come up.

I tend to see things like this in terms of the purpose within the story. (I’m sure there’s a lit term for this, cf. “McGuffin”.)

Bert was a jerk and will always be a jerk. Eddy had been a loser but was going to turn his life around. Beating Fats was a big step. Ignoring Bert’s threat was the next big step.

In other words, I just see it as something the writer threw in in order to demonstrate that Eddy was changing. Whether it was plausible for Bert to demand a cut or not isn’t the issue for me. A scene had to be given where Eddy stands up to someone nasty like Bert.

Plus, Bert knew that Eddy was a nanometer from taking out revenge against him for Sarah’s death. Forcing Eddy to pay would have pushed him over the edge.

(And boy-oh-boy. You sure could tell that this George C. Scott guy was going to be one hell of an actor.)