At the end of the last hand, Steve Mcqueen raises all-in or "what I have in front me." Then Edward G. Robinson raises him another $5000, which McQueen must match. Did this bother anybody else? I realize poker (especially back then) wasn't always played for table stakes, but I would think in this setting it would be.
shareYes it certainly was weird to say the least since it's supposed to be a showdown of who is the best, not of who took out the most money from the savings account the same afternoon.
www.pokertvguide.com - daily US, UK and Swedish poker TV listings
[deleted]
Hollywood seems to have a fascination with off-table money going into the pot. I don't think anyone played that way during the period where that film was set. In fact, table stakes would be assumed in any serious poker game.
It looked bad but it was hardly the only major problem. If McQueen's character was not brutally cheated on that last hand, the film is science fiction. I have often agreed that it is an excellent movie right up to the last hand but I have disagreed with those who said that the last hand doesn't ruin the film.
you don't have to be cheated to get hit by a 1/250000 some odd draw, you can be unlucky... very unlucky, but it can happen. The last hand is far fetched, but far from impossible. I agree though... more often that not, if that happens, you got cheated.
share[deleted]
last year they had a special on tv of the 100 greatest lines in movie history, was "Your good kid, but as long as I'm around your 2nd best" in it. I've used that line in my 60 years.
Dutch
[deleted]
By the way the board lays, he is behind the entire hand. There is no way Lancey would put that much money in the pot on that draw. I cut my teeth playing 5 card stud many many years ago, and the hand being played that way by a player of his caliber makes no sense at all. Even if he doesn't give the kid credit for the boat, he has to know he is drawing almost dead from third street on.
I agree, Sci-fi it is.
Best Wishes,
Fitz
never mind the odds but it can happen! some body won 350 million lotto last year is it not? what were the chances of titanic sinking on its first maiden trip?
And it is film, if something outrageous than life had to happen it is here and the last hand is the best place to do it!
movie is a classic even with improbability of the last hand!
It certainly doesn't make sense given that "Pig" busts out earlier and only loses what he's got on the table.
The plot has problems. The stage is set for some horrible outcomes for Shooter and the Kid, but they never play out. Shooter is up against the wall and under pressure to cheat. When the Kid loses, what does that mean for Shooter? Seems like the potential damage to the Kids reputation (not to mention his face) if the scam had been found out wasn't really explored. And he certainly doesn't pay any price for a roll in the hay with Ann-Margret. He loses the big game, but you know it'll only be a minor setback for him... nobody is really forced to answer for themselves in this story.
The movie is full of plot and technical holes but I still enjoyed it immensely as a great looking film with great dialogue.
You're asking for a much longer film if you want resolutions to the characters' problems. No answers are given, so it's up to each viewer to supply his/her own resolutions. Maybe Melba rats out Eric to Shooter. Then what? And does Slade call in the markers on Shooter? Then what? Maybe the strain has been too much for Lancey and he dies in his hotel room. Then what? Maybe Slade's bully boy follows Eric and beats him to death. Then what?
shareI think the ending is full of bad potential outcomes. In the last few minutes all sorts of bad stuff in foreshadowed. Not only is The Kid now broke (in debt, actually), but he's got to deal with his infidelity and his apparent loss of confidence. I just couldn't disagree more with the "no outcomes" opinion.
shareThat's the way it is in the majority of movies. People are never held accountable unless its critical to the plot line.
shareBeing a heads-up cash game, The Kid and The Man could play for any stakes at any time by mutual agreement. While it's certainly one interpretation that McQueen had to call the extra $5000 to see Robinson's cards, it's also entirely possible that he simply chose to. I.e., "OK, Kid we've spent all the money in front of us... Want to go for another five G's?"
With the flagrant string raises I wouldn't be surprised to find that the makers of the movie also ignored the table stakes rule (which is very common in movies). But it's not clear that they violated the rule in this case.
Generally it is played for table stakes, however, I think the extra $5,000 was intended to be something on the side, just to make it interesting you might say. If the Kid did not want to call the $5,000, he could have still played to the end.
I think what the Man was trying to do was to make the Kid nervous. Without the marker, the Kid stood to lose 1) the match, 2) the title of being the Man, and 3) his life savings. Now with the marker makes he will not only be broke, but now be in debt for the next year or more.
That extra marker, to me, was intended to ice the Kid, to make him more nervous. Now the outcome had already been determined (all 5 cards had been dealt), he can't play any better or worse at this point, but it makes his future a part of the stakes. If he loses without the marker, then he can come back a year later and challenge the Man again. But if he loses and has this marker to pay back, he will need to concentrate on paying back this debt before he makes another challenge at the title.
And everytime he makes a payment on his marker, he will be reminded that he is only 2nd best. I think it is something the Man did to protect his title from serious competition.
They said what the rules of the game are before the game started.
One rule is that you have half an hour to come up with money that you don't have on the table. So it's not table stakes by any means. They said that in the rules. So I'm Ok with the $5K bet on the end.
What I'm not OK with is they also said that String Bets are not allowed in the game, and yet there's a string bet in every hand.
Last thing. If this hand occurred it doesn't mean there's cheating involved. Quads can lose to straight flushes and straight flushes can lose to higher straight flushes or Royal flush. Seen it happen.
Agreed. "All in," in current parlance, means the stack you have in front of you, and the other bettor can match or overcall, but you don't have to meet his higher bet. In the context of both the movie and Dick Jessup's book, you, the bettor, have to meet the raise, and you can leave the table to pony up the money (inside half an hour). In other words, "all in" isn't. As for the last hand, the Kid figures the odds of a straight flush are next to zero, and that's why he gets gutted. Edward G. plays the cards he's offered.
shareI couldn't keep track. Does anyone know what the final pot was?
shareIt's made clear in the book that they were playing for table stakes. When Lancey raises the Kid at the end, the Kid is all in, so he can't call. This is why Lancey says, "I'll take your marker, kid."
McQueen says, "I can get the money."
Lancey: "I know you can."
McQueen: "OK, let's see it."
Basically, the Kid has agreed to give Lancey a marker if he loses. In the book, it's explained that if any player busts out, he has 30 minutes to raise a roll and get back in the game. In the movie, Shooter explains this at the beginning: "A dead man has one half hour to raise his roll and get back in the game."
In the book, when Lancey raises the Kid at the end, the Kid says, "I'm taking a half hour to raise my roll," and Lancey tells him he'll take his marker.
So yes, they were playing table stakes.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
Ladyfingers: (deals) "Eight. Ten. Ten bets."
Kid: "Five hundred." (bets $500)
Man: (bets $500) "Deal."
Ladyfingers: (deals) "Queen and two diamonds. Pair of tens. Tens bet."
Kid: "A thousand dollars." (bets $1000)
Man: "Up one." (bets $2000)
Ladyfingers: "A thousand to you, Kid."
Kid: "I'll just call." (bets $1000)
Ladyfingers: (deals) "Three diamonds, and a possible. An ace to the tens."
Kid: "Three thousand dollars." (bets $3000)
Ladyfingers: "Three thousand to you, Lance."
Man: "A reasonable bet." (bets $3000) "Deal the cards."
Ladyfingers: (deals) "Nine of diamonds, and a possible flush; possible straight flush. The ace of spades, two pair. Two pair bet."
Kid: "Check to the possible."
Man: "One thousand." (bets $1000)
Kid: "Call your thousand," (bets $1000) "and raise... What I've got in front of me... Thirty-five hundred." (bets $3500)
Man: "That ace must have helped you, Kid." (bets $3500) "Call your thirty-five hundred, and I'll raise you, uh, five thousand." (bets $5000)
Ladyfingers: "Five thousand to you, Kid."
Man: "I'll take your marker, Kid."
Kid: "I can get the money."
Man: "I know you can."
Kid: "OK," (implicitly bets $5000) "let's see it."
The pot is $30000, including the Kid's $5000 marker.
what in the *beep* are you babbling about..... the bottom line is he had unbeatable hand so he wanted to win as much money as possible
shareYou're the one who's babbling -- apparently you've forgotten the Man's own words, "...to the true gambler, money is never an end in itself, but simply a tool..."
share...but it's a tool to "gut" the other man. You don't want the money as money but as a measure of your victory. It's still important.
Clancey's hand wasn't unbeatable until after the last card. With three cards down he had- at best- less than one chance in two of not busting on the next card and the same on the last card. All told, three cards down, he had at most one chance in five of beating the kid. He should have folded then at the latest. The amounts he bet before each of the last two cards wasn't justified by the odds. True, it could happen, but Clancey relied on incredible luck. You don't get to be "the man" playing like that.
share