How many think the kid was a better player than the man. and really won?

Remember though that the kid had been helped a lot by the shooter.
Surely in that situation, unless you're able to understand what your opponent has, you gotta call. But the kids play very badly the last hand not going all in on the turn and just calling the man and in the hand by not recognizing the straight flush. Such a big hand should have altered someway even the man.

Btw, I think rounders is taking that full house situation right from this movie, or peraphs it's just the full house which may be a very-close-to-the-nut-but-not-yet-the-nut hand. Anyway, I think rounder sucks. A lot.

The kid was a better player, at least on the hand he lost. Five-card stud players don't normally go for straights and flushes because the percentages are too great against them. Remember Lancey's board had the Jd missing, a one-outer for the hole card. The book was a two-outer with 7h 8h 10h 9h showing. The point is that if Lacey were playing the percentages he would have likely folded by the third round. Even going for an open-end straight or a flush he would have 17 outs on that last card--not nearly enough in heads-up play.

On the other hand the kid should have realized that only a straight-flush draw would have kept Lancey in for the final round. A paired queen would not have likely kept Lancey in at those stakes.

Anyway "The odds against any full house beating any straight flush, in a two-handed game, are 45,102,784 to 1." says Anthony Holden. (Quoted backwards?)

http://hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com/2007/01/last-hand-of-cincinnati-ki d-differences.html

Actually the odds are even higher if you consider the high probability that the inside straight-flush draw will fold before reaching the final round.

--
Drake Straw

With the kid consistently outplaying the man with Lady Fingers dealing, the man was in desperation mode. After the third card, you could tell the man thought, "I'm getting my ass kicked so I might as well go out in style and lay it all out. If I was destined to defeat the kid, I'll draw two diamonds."

I can't believe so many people congratulated the man like he was some sort of genius afterward. Throwing all his money around on a three flush?

Nope! Not at all. "The Man" won fair & square - even after he was cheated. "The Kid thought he could beat him straight up (no cheating) and guess what ? he lost. End of movie. Sorry to burst your bubble!

The Kid is not a good player. His error is much earlier. He asked him, if he will set on a flush.

The question is the following. You cannot win the whole game with a bluff or a lower card in a single game. You can only win the whole game, when you have the better card. Betting on a possible lower card makes no sense.

So Lancey raise 1.000 Dollar for the flush. When kid folds or holds it is a normal game with a high value. Kid makes it with his re-raise to the game which all decides. With no need and with the possible lower card. Poker is a game of being patient enough, where you should wait on the right moment. A card which is possibly lower, and at least if it is only a very small chance, makes no sense.

Now the problem in this situation on re-raise is, he has commited with to much money before. After the third card he has two tens an a hidden card. That is the point to throw Lancey out and making a high bet to make the risk for Lancey to high, because here he is in front in the possibility (Kid could have three tens, Lancey could only have two Queens) and Lancey must bet against the chances, because Poker is also a game of the chances and the price for it.

Throwing Lancey at this point not out, is a failure. On fourth card it becomes more clear. Now Kid has two pairs and he is clear in front. If he throws now in all his money, Lancey would know, he must be better to win, but to be better is only a possible small chance. The money to buy this chance must odd the possibility. At this moment Lancey would not bet against Kid, he would bet against the card deck. But a good player didn't hope on luck. The low raising of kid makes it possible for Lancey to stay in, it's expansive, but at card three and four it makes sense, because the raise of Kid is to low. That's the failure.

Digital_Data
http://www.youtube.com/LiebensteinMovies

Now it is obvious that Robinson knew about the full house - he deliberately pointed out how that ace must have helped McQueen. Still, McQueen didn't just call the original bet - he kept on raising! Shouldn't he have figured out that Robinson was perhaps digging a hole for him? Robinson knew that the Kid was too hungry for his own good, trying too hard, ready to fall for a carefully placed trap, and he took advantage of that. Sure, the hungry Kid was taking a lot of pots with his aggressive style, but Robinson knew that he only needed that one shot. So obviously Robinson was WAY ahead of McQueen the whole time.

Now, perhaps McQueen thought Robinson was just bluffing, or maybe pretending his flush (which by itself would've won 2 pairs but would've lost to a full house) was actually straight flush. But why did he think that? At what point did he make up his mind about Robinson bluffing? Was there a tell he got somewhere, or was it just a lucky guess? In the end, McQueen did what the typical good-but-not-great poker player does: he couldn't tell the difference between what he knew and what he wanted to believe. He made the wrong judgement at the wrong time, period. Thus, he was not ready for Robinson despite all his good playing. In the most important spot, he couldn't make the right judgment, and that (and that alone) is what separates the truly great players from the good players.

A professional wouldn't fold that hand? First of all: he didn't have to fold, he could've just called the initial bet, and he would've only lost SOME of his money. Second of all, I myself have seen a pro poker player check the best full house on the table because he thought that a 4-of-a-kind was trying to check-raise HIM! And you know, when the cards were opened - he was right, the guy next to him really had 4-of-a-kind! So McQueen's character wasn't as good as the best poker player which *I* have ever played against - and that guy wasn't even a professional!

So yes, Robinson's character was the better poker player. WAY better.

"The Man" knew the kid wanted to take him down BAD. So he knew he only had to outlast him and knock him out with one hand which he did because he had more money. In a no limit game among level competition the player with the most money will almost always win in the end. If Lancey lost that game he still had the money to keep playing. In "The Hustler" it was the same situation the first time they played. It's about winning not who the best player is.

before I get to THAT final hand, I'd like to address what seems to be the consensus that The Kid was out-playing The Man in the hours leading up to the hand.
I don't think he was. I think The Man was deliberately giving up small pots to him, for 2 reasons:
Information - he could get a read on The Kid or, most likely, confirm his read on The Kid to be correct. And, most crucially,
It would make The Kid (and all the spectators) think he was getting the upper hand and lull him in to a false sense of security. Make him think The Man had lost it and was weak.
Both of these helped in the final hand. For me, it's not the cards he got, it's how he played them. If he'd made a massive raise after the 5th card, it may well have tipped The Kid that he had a straight flush, so, knowing that The Kid probably had a full-house (see above re Information), he made enough of a raise to represent a normal flush. When The Kid came over the top, instead of just calling, he made an insanely disproportionate re-raise, to make it look like he was desperately trying to bluff a straight flush (again, see above, this time re deliberately looking weak).
And for me, the most significant moment wasn't when he turned over the jack of diamonds, it was when The Kid conceded - he acknowledged that The Man had just destroyed him. "No. I'm done".