Speaking of Cincinatti Kid

Can anyone explain why Lancey plays that hand at the end when he gets that straight flush? If I remember the bets were very large that he was seeing. I know he probably expected to try to get a straight or a flush and bust out the Kid because the Kid wouldn't believe he went for it, but it still seems a bit much to believe that a professional who was losing would try a move like that. The rest of the movie seemed like a good realistic poker movie except that part. Any comments?

He says it all when Lady Fingers questions him, after the hand is over, about raising with only a three card flush-"thats what its all about, making the wrong move at the right time".


To analyze the hand, he put in a big raise on the third card. I would say he was hoping the kid would fold. Kid just calls. On fourth street he picks up the flush/straight flush draw. At this point, he is going no where.--Big Al--

the reason he played it was because the movie is unrealistic. Even worse it is also boring especially in the middle. The only good part is that is has ann margret. Despite malkovich's accent rounders is a much better movie. Maybe JOEY got his rape fantasies from malkovich "sticking it in" matt damon. :-)


Pat

Thought the most unrealistic thing about Rounders was Malkovich's tell at the end with the cookies. Like a real pro is gonna have such a simple, stupid tell. That was the biggest disappointment to me in that movie. Just like the last scene in Kid was disappointing to me. They always have to make something over the top it seems for a climax.

The kid really did make a meal of that final hand. He could have won the pot on 3rd easily with a riase, but didnt as he was attempting to trap Laney who had represented Queens. On 4th he should have made a large bet, much bigger than the lousy 1/3 pot bet he did make. Despite laney having a straight flush draw he could not have played for a big bet. But the biggest mistake of all was not playing for table stakes, but thats the biggest fault in movie poker.