MovieChat Forums > The Cincinnati Kid (1965) Discussion > so much stupid posts on this board...

so much stupid posts on this board...

posted 13 years ago by OpenMindedObjectivist
12 replies | jump to latest

so much retarded posts here....

first of all:

Lancey won the game. So he is totally right when he said "You're good, kid, but as long as I'm around you're second best." He beat "Kid"...how, doesnt matter.
Its Poker!!
Most people dont get the point of the film. Its irrelevant who the better player was. Its like in life, "making the wrong move at the right time."(Lancey)...can make you more succesfull, than somebody who´s got actually more skill
So, the lesson is..."Dont underestimate luck".

2nd of all:

"Kid" played the last hand just bad. But, nobody figured it out yet, why. At least not on imdb.

After the last cards were dealed he raises Lanceys bet, when he should have just called. Its just a mistake to raise, and i tell you why.

"Kid" had AATT open. "Lancey" had a possible flush and a possible straight flush with the Jack(diamond).
So, obv. "Lancey" knows that "Kid" could have the full house. Especially when he thinks about the handhistory, but anyway. A full house beat his flush obv...

So, when we see that from "Lanceys" point of view. When "Kid" doesnt have the full house, he obv. got 2 pair. So, when "Lancey" bets with his 4 diamonds, he knows exactly that kid wouldnt raise with 2pair. Because, "Kid" would beat him anyway, when "Lancey" bluffs. (and it its either a (straight)flush or a bluff. He couldnt had anything else obv.)
So why the *beep* should he raise with just 2 pair(AATT). of course he wouldnt raise, and "Lancey" knows that obv. And "Kid" knows that lancey knows that.
So it makes no sense to raise with just 2 pair...

Ok, after we know that, its no clear...that "Lancey" can be sure that, when "Kid" raises...he indeed have the full house.
And now, we come to the mistake. So, if its clear that "Lancey" knows when "Kid" raises that he got the full house, why should "Kid" raise?? It would be ok, when "Lancey" wouldnt have a possibilty for the straight flush. But he has...
So, "Kid" have to know that "Lancey" knows for sure when he raises, that he got the full house, but still he raises and give "Lancey" the chance to put even more money in...when its really the case and he really got the straight flush. Of course most of the time, he will have just a flush and no straight flush, here. But because "Kid" would most likely get no more money anyway in this pot from "Lancey", because it makes no sense for "Kid" in that case to raise with his 2pair.(like above explained)
Why give "Lancey" the opportunity to put more in the pot??(for the case he really got the Jack(diamond)

makes no sense...
so "Kid" lost half of this pot just because he made a bad play. The other half he would have lost anyway obv...

[–] tricksoftrade01 13 years ago

I disagree. While your anlyasis of the last hand is correct, it DOES matter how he beat him because you are not taking into account the whole night.

Just like a Cy Young award pitcher that grooves a fastball to a great hitter, the Kid made one big slip and got slammed.Lancey was 0 for 4 until the last ab, where he hit one over the fence for the game.

I was a pitcher in high school and college, and have been playing poker since 2003. I have come to learn that there are a good deal of similarites between the two games.

Every good poker player, like every good pitcher can make a mistake on any hand or pitch, nobody is perfect, the kid made a mistake on the last hand.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 13 years ago

Both of you are mis-reading the event . . . The Kid made no mistake . . . only that he got tangled up in all this to begin with . . .

[–] tricksoftrade01 13 years ago

Could you expand on that? Why should he not have been tangled up or what should he have done differently?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 12 years ago

A great film . . . which has too much focus on the secondary poker game . . . the film has nothing to do with poker (of course, it is the important back-drop) . . . though fortunes as to be won and lost . . . it's all in other directions . . . many aspects of this worthy film go undiscussed . . .

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 12 years ago

It's a morality play, with the Kid being further drawn into the den of inequity . . . a place he may not wish to be . . .

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 12 years ago

Not just that, but one could easily expand the premise of the film: the three women (Shooter's woman, Christian and Lady Fingers)--that wholde set-up is a story unto itself (in fact, the more I analyze Kid, the more I believe it is Christian's tale--the the Kid subsidiary) . . . a great film . . . there is much more going on than people realize . . .

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 12 years ago

Wendi---

Correct, this movie is very deep . . . there's a great deal to this story . . . you could go in myriad directions . . . yes, it is a "set-up" . . . but you have to spend a great deal of time analyzing the film before you begin to realize its true meaning . . .

I honestly am beginning to believe that the film really is all about the three female characters--with the story of the Kid and the Man fronting . . .

A masterpiece of film making . . .

[–] seahawk3133 12 years ago

Sena1 - what you don't understand is that every moron in the world believes they are great poker players. They show it all the time on TV poker by pushing all-in on their first two cards knowing they have around a 50/50 chance of winning. No skill needed, but when it works, they are a great poker player.

The kid clearly made an error on the last hand when playing a great poker player and by the way the hand / betting played out.