Saying no to free money/victory all for the message

It has been far too long since my last blog, The change in my employment has had a large part to do with that. Funny that I have had more free time now for quite a while, yet I have written less.

I recently watched the movie Deal, against the advice of every review I could get my hands on, and of course against my better judgement. The convergence of my two biggest interests (film and poker) must truly inhibit my common sense.

The poker boom is traced by many to the John Dahl independent film Rounders. The post Will Hunting vehicle for Matt Damon. Damon (and certainly his costar Ed Norton) and Chris Moneymaker have brought so many potential poker players to the world of gambling for a living. The movie arguably the best "poker movie" made to date. I tend to champion Steve McQueen's The Cincinnati Kid, over Rounders, almost strictly because Rounders is so evidently the more trendy choice.

Both films have major flaws that help anyone who wants to argue against the film's poker "supremacy."

The featured game in Kid is five-card stud, which is now an antiquated game, rarely played. In the final hand (spoiler alert) The Man draws an incredibly improbable Queen high straight flush (the odds of this in five card game are beyond astronomical, just being dealt a straight flush only happens 1 out of 72,193 times) to best The Kid's tens full of Aces(the odds of this match up of hands occurring are even more laughable: 332,220,508,619 to 1) This hand stinks of Hollywood, and the sheer lunacy of the probability of this match up occurring threatens to undo all of the great poker displayed in the film up to this point (The terrific hero call made in the opening hand by the Kid, and ridiculous bluff run by the Man on Pig are the highlights). After thinking about it though. I think its the only spot in which the Kid could be broken, and the point of the film can not be driven home unless he loses.

In Rounders, my major gripe occurs with the betting in the first big hand, in which Mike McDermott is felted by Malkovich's Teddy KGB. While the hand is based on a colossal misread by McDermott, he made two crucial mistakes in the hand. The first was playing with his entire bankroll. This mistake occurs more often than it should in real life, but one would think that a player with the skills of McD would no better (he even says it; "always leave yourself outs"). The second mistake is his $33,000 raise on the river. Mike holds the second nuts (nuts is pokerspeak for the second-best hand possible) with a nines full of aces full house. He assumes that KGB holds a spade flush, based on his analysis on KGB's play in the hand so far. The ridiculous occurs with Mike, assuming that KGB has a weak hand, raises his huge $15,000 bet into a $5,000 pot, a staggering $33,000 more. KGB can only justify a call with hand better than the one that McDermott holds. A player like McDermott would likely call in that spot, not raise.

But these are quibbling problems. Overall both movies offer excellent depictions of poker, and its encompassing lifestyle. The two most recent movies based in poker that I have watched; Deal and Curtis Hanson's stinker Lucky You, have one common plot point which irritate me to no end. Both movies end with the final table of a prestigious poker tournament, and the father/son and teacher/student combinations from each respective plot facing off against each other.

In both films the protagonist purposely folds a vastly superior hand to their opponent. Nice killer instinct guys. In what poker world would anyone fold a winning hand on purpose. It makes sense that the director wants to make a point. But in no way are there any poker players who would do this. Just pisses me off that poker is being sold to the masses this way.

Poker players are trying to win the money. They don't care about making statements. They win or they lose. They're all degenerates (though some more than others). Don't try and dress them up. Just accept it and move on.