Why they are Pros, and we are not

[limon]

this reminds me of a guy at the 10-20 nl game at bellagio losing his ass. i remarked to a local i know that the guy was a poor player, the local told me he was a good player and cited an 11 rack win in 80-160 as proof. that actually CONFIRMED my feeling he was a poor player due to the fact there is no way you can have an 11 rack win without playing farrr too loose.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
So while I'm sure huge luck was involved in the 100bb win described, the observation by the pro that he could increase his earn by playing the players after watching them for about 3 dealers does seem to me a relevant (and likely profitable) skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If he really did have a great feel for the table, he likley turned what would have been a 70BB or 80BB win into a 100BB win.

[chesspain]

This reminds me of that dumb scene from Rounders, where Matt Damon's character meets up with the other pro-wannabee losers at the Taj Mahal, and in his voiceover he explains how he and the others cleaned out one tourist after the next by reading all of their tells with pin-point accuracy.

If only he was smart enough to not bring the mechanic with him when they played against all of those cops. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Legend27]

I was just pointing out the obvious. sorry.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I always felt that it was a HUGE hole in the story to have them cheat cops. No sane person cheats them. First, they are suspicious by nature. Second, they are naturally observant and look for all forms of cheating. Third, they are tough and carry guns.
Regards,
Al

[goofball]

i didn't think it was too far fetched.

Matt Damon's character doesn't want to cheat them. He knows better and sends Ed Norton on his way. He 'knows' that he can beat them for however many thousands on dollars in the single night (a much bigger hole in my opinion).

Ed Norton's character is the one who comes back on his own much to Matt Damon's chagrin. I didn't find this surprising at all as he is developed as someone with the technical skill but no discretion, one who as they say in the movie would rather skin the cheap once then shear in many times.

[glen]

no you weren't. now be quiet, you melvin.

[roGER]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the excellent essay by John Feeney called "The Best Player I've Ever Seen..."

In the essay, John cautions us to be skeptical about such stories. He notes that they almost always seem to feature:

"...someone who plays with a certain style - a style that involves playing lots of hands and playing them very fast. The player described is usually thought to be able to win tremendous amounts of money through extreme aggression and incredible hand reading skills."

Forgive me for my skepticism, but John's description seems to fit your story 100%.

John goes on to write:

"The problem is that such a fast style is just not characteristic of the great players in live games. Though some forms of poker allow for the play of a few more hands than others, in limit poker, the players who win the most tend to play with a fundamentally tight, aggressive, but generally prudent style."

An earlier essay by David Sklansky called "Sizing Up Those Flashes" makes many of the same points.

Maybe your friend is a really great player, but true or not, you happened to watch him on a very exceptional day...

- roGER

[zuluking]

He called me yesterday and we're going to play Saturday night. I'll post the results. Gees!

[Al Schoonmaker]

I am not sure whether he wanted to cheat the cops or was just too weak willed to resist the other character. However, his motives are not the primary issue. Since he had known the cheater for a long time, he should have been smart enough to realize he was going to cheat. Then he SAW him cheat, and did not leave.
These two actions are not at all consistent with two central elements of his character.
1. He was supposedly extremely smart.
2. He loved the challenge of playing the best.
Cheating cops is extremely stupid, and it's not remotely an intellectual challenge. It is a "challenge," but an adolescent one. In fact, he was a rather adolescent character.
My overall feeling about the film is that it was poorly done. It violates one of the most important dramatic principles: Once you create a character, everything he does should be consistent with that character.
But then most movies are made for their primary audience, teenagers. Adolescents go to the moives far more often than anyone else. That mixed up, immature character would be attractive to them, but not to more mature people.
Regards,
Al