Rounders - BBC1 tonight 11.30

willis

Best poker film ever made, worth watching again and again imo

mewso

Which is why I have the DVD

Rodge

me too :cool:

I think I've seen it at least 20 times. Perfect for Sunday afternoon hangover recovery syndrome.

][cEMAN**

Time to admit my addiction. I first saw this film a year after it came out. I kept getting it out from Xtravision every couple of months. Never could find it to buy. I got a copy of it and put it on my PC (bad me). And just before christmas I bought it retail.

Over christmas alone, I must have watched it 20-30 times. I just seemed to watch it through, then stop it and start it again. Weird in a way. I guess it's why I started playing. Bad reason, but i'd always wanted to play poker anyway.

I still put it on quite regularaly. Around once a week. Fantastic film, but I still think Shawshank Redemption is the greatest of all time.

impr0v

thanks for the heads up.

Running Bing

your right iceman it just seems to be one of those movies thats so esy to watch. definately the best poker movie ever made ( it is better than the cinncinati kid imo ). by the way iceman the godfather is the best movie ever made. ( note the absence of imo )

Dub13

It starts at 00:05

DeVore

"In the poker game of life, women are the rake"


DeV.

][cEMAN**

Babybing wrote:

your right iceman it just seems to be one of those movies thats so esy to watch. definately the best poker movie ever made ( it is better than the cinncinati kid imo ). by the way iceman the godfather is the best movie ever made. ( note the absence of imo )

Yeah soz, I forgot to say imo. Top 5 include Godfather 1&2 (not necessarily in that order) shawshank, rounders, and .... tbh there's too many films out there to limit to a top 5. Can I have a top 500? lol

I went looking for those quotes one night. I downloaded about 40 of them, "Lays down a monster....should have paid me off on that - the fu ck did you lay that down"

Hectorjelly

Freeroll!

Corben Dallas

Rounders is pure class, aint seen it in a while, Malkovich plays a Russian poker player?

Speaking about poker flics anyone ever seen 'Big Hand for a little lady' Old (70's) film with Henry Fonda playing a blinder(acting wise).Its sort of a Western as well
u guys seen? ?:|

The_Bullman

You mean it's better than Maverick?

mewso

Lads while Rounders is a great film can we not turn it into a top 5 films of all time etc. The films forum might be better suited to that. Anyway I have played poker in the Taj so I am the biggest rounders fan na na na na na etc.

Basq

Not a big Poker fan.. but Rounders is an absolute classic!!

Lafortezza

2 things that annoy me about rounders:
1) When Ed Norton and Matt Damon get the shíte kicked out of them by the cops when they get caught cheating, oine minute they're groaning in agony barely able to move on the ground, then next they're arguing while on the jaunty walk back to the car.

2) When Matt Damon tells the story about how he played 300-600 with Johnny Chan in the Taj. He sits and folds every hand then bluffs Chan off *one* hand.
Woo! Even DeV might get away with that.

lordofthetilt

Things that annoy me about rounders:

Matt Damon. There's no way i can believe he's a pro poker player(like good will hunting--he's the most un-genius looking person around). Ed Norton/John Tuturo/John Malcovich are much more convincing and carry him through the movie.

The fact that he throws that seriously fine poker playing chick out of his gaff. It's like folding the nuts. Wouldn't happen!! Never!!!!

As people mentioned the whole bluffing Jhonny Chan scene. Also I find the scene where he lays down top two pair as he knows KGB flopped a straight a bit much. You'd put him on something big, maybe trips but to call that he has a straight???

There's no mention in the whole film of 7,2o(and they call it a poker movie--sheesh)

Apart from that it is amazing and highly enjoyable....and i love KGB's accent

'payyyy datt meeannn his maaannney'

Cincinatti kid was a good movie but the writer knew nothing about poker. As I recall the final hand was five card draw where the kid got a full house of ace's over queens(or perhaps the other way around) and he came up against a royal flush where the ace was the door card.

After betting all his cash on his full house(as you do) he was told 'you're good kid but as long as I'm out ther you'll never be the best.'

Tony Holden rightly pointed out in 'Big Deal' that if you were dealt that hand in draw you'd be asking for your money back and calling everyone there a cheat. The chances of hving the ace...when there's a full house of aces on board. It's non-poker poeple trying to imagine what great poker hands are like.

lordofthetilt

Rather I should have said the chances of one player in draw getting a royal flush are slim but but they must go towards the billions if someone at the table has aces full of queens

there's one for the maths buffs

][cEMAN**

lafortezza wrote:

2) When Matt Damon tells the story about how he played 300-600 with Johnny Chan in the Taj. He sits and folds every hand then bluffs Chan off *one* hand.
Woo! Even DeV might get away with that.

No, if I remember correctly he said "Played tight, folded mostly".

"Did you have it?"

"Sorry John, I don't remember"

Love that quote.

Samson

lordofthetilt wrote:

Cincinatti kid was a good movie but the writer knew nothing about poker. As I recall the final hand was five card draw where the kid got a full house of ace's over queens(or perhaps the other way around) and he came up against a royal flush where the ace was the door card.

After betting all his cash on his full house(as you do) he was told 'you're good kid but as long as I'm out ther you'll never be the best.'

Tony Holden rightly pointed out in 'Big Deal' that if you were dealt that hand in draw you'd be asking for your money back and calling everyone there a cheat. The chances of hving the ace...when there's a full house of aces on board. It's non-poker poeple trying to imagine what great poker hands are like.

Not entirely accurate. Lancey's hand was a queen high straight flush, so an ace didn't figure in his hand. The Kid held aces full of tens. They were playing stud, not draw poker.

As far as accuracy is concerned in poker themed cinema, a balance must be struck so as to appeal to those who know poker and those who don't. Therefore artistic liberties must be taken, so that cinematic situations, which to a poker player will seem highly unlikely, if not totally unbelievable, are exciting/understandable to a lay audience.
Otherwise mass appeal (which is what film-makers want) is not possible.

Eoin

I hadn't seen Rounders before, and really enjoyed it - although Matt Damon just isn't convincing as other posters have said... BUT

Samson wrote:

As far as accuracy is concerned in poker themed cinema, a balance must be struck so as to appeal to those who know poker and those who don't.

I don't think Rounders got the balance right - I didn't think there wasn't enough actual card play for people who know poker, and too much unexplained poker jargon / terminology for people who don't know poker. <EDIT> Given that they had Matt Damon giving a monologues throughout the film, they could have easily explained a few terms during these.</EDIT>

Having said that though, poker is probably one of the harder topics to make a film about. If you make a film about pool (e.g. The hustler), anyone can follow it as it is obvious when the guy is doing well i.e. he is potting balls. Same goes for football etc.

Running Bing

yes yes poker movies are unrealistic but thats the way it should be. The majority of people who go to see these movies are not poker players (even today if a new poker movie came out).if it were realistic it would be boring to most. many people say rounders converted them to poker. would they have been so eager to take it up if the final hand had seen kgbs pair of eights been beaten by a pair of tens? or damonn and norton mucking almost every hand they got? thats real poker and If thats what people want to see tune in to challenge or 265.

mewso

Funny really when we talk about folk who don't play poker when they are probably in the minority.
I also believe that poker can be quite dramatic, even for the ignorant, if it is done properly. I would prefer the unrealism of a commentator in a movie for example saying something like "He has just re-raised all-in and he has nothing." I think most people would understand what is going on.

Hectorjelly

lafortezza wrote:

2) When Matt Damon tells the story about how he played 300-600 with Johnny Chan in the Taj. He sits and folds every hand then bluffs Chan off *one* hand.
Woo! Even DeV might get away with that.

Yeah I thought that as well. Chan might of had an inklling that he had nothing but happened to have 27 in the hole. The other thing that really annoyed me was the 1st hand where Matt loses his bankroll. He has A9 on a flop of AA9xx with 3 spades, and he raises KGBs bet thinking he has the flush, that is such a retarded raise, if KGB is any good at all he knows that a flush is no good to an allin raise on the river of a paired board. Against a bad player you should raise sure, but against a good player your only geting called if your behind.

Doc Farrell

lordofthetilt wrote:

Cincinatti kid was a good movie but the writer knew nothing about poker. As I recall the final hand was five card draw where the kid got a full house of ace's over queens(or perhaps the other way around) and he came up against a royal flush where the ace was the door card.

After betting all his cash on his full house(as you do) he was told 'you're good kid but as long as I'm out ther you'll never be the best.'

Tony Holden rightly pointed out in 'Big Deal' that if you were dealt that hand in draw you'd be asking for your money back and calling everyone there a cheat. The chances of hving the ace...when there's a full house of aces on board. It's non-poker poeple trying to imagine what great poker hands are like.

Richard Jessup knew more about real dirty poker then all of us here ever will. This is a beautiful tragic book and I really recommend it. Lancey knew that without luck he was beaten. That's why he says:
Its all about making the wrong move at the right time.
The kid suffered a bad beat.
In the book the kid plays him a second time and is beaten a second time. The book doesn't go into it too much. Basically Jessup is saying that no matter how brilliant you are and how prepared you are, in the end it all comes down to the turn of a card. You need luck on your side.

Hectorjelly

The book is good, last chapter is terrible

CoD

Hectorjelly wrote:

Yeah I thought that as well. Chan might of had an inklling that he had nothing but happened to have 27 in the hole. The other thing that really annoyed me was the 1st hand where Matt loses his bankroll. He has A9 on a flop of AA9xx with 3 spades, and he raises KGBs bet thinking he has the flush, that is such a retarded raise, if KGB is any good at all he knows that a flush is no good to an allin raise on the river of a paired board. Against a bad player you should raise sure, but against a good player your only geting called if your behind.

Think the board was A99xx, since KGB had AA, and matt A9

DeVore

Would you drop the nut flush heads up to a reraise simply because the board has paired? I dunno if I would.... in a full ring game of Omaha, sure! (enter Oscar to point out that I almost certainly havent at some point but then we are talking about good Omaha players )

In Holdem, headsup, would you really be so concerned that you'd drop it? Remember he has him covered neh?

DeV.