Now that the DVD has been out for a while, I was wondering if anyone has found any scene(s) that show what cards were in the "BIG" hand?
I thought I could see, in the scene when the men take Fonda out on the shutter after his heart attack, that Woodward was holding a 10 of diamonds. Did anyone else see this, or any other times the cards were seen on camera?
It does not matter WHAT the big hand was. It was a setup. Fonda milked the guys along on that hand by acting like it was big from the start. Then he ran the pot up. The banker was in on it, so when the lady showed them to the banker, he played along about how good they were. It was big bluff, planned from the start.
t2r
Yes. The bottom card in his hand is the 10 of diamonds in that scene.
Later, in the scene in the banker's office, the hand is partially shown. It very clearly does not have the 10 of diamonds in it. In that second scene she is holding, left to right:
4 of hearts, 4 of diamonds, 4 of spades, 4 of clubs, Queen of hearts = Four of a kind, 4's.
So, they used different hands at different points in the movie, and the purpose of the 10 of diamonds could have been to make you suspect a royal flush. The change in hands was probably intentional because the entire point is that you never get a good look the hand because it doesn't matter.
In order for the big bluff to work, the other players must have been dealt great hands, though.
Fonda was dealing at the time, so my guess is that he pulled off a mechanic's trick... sorting the deck while shuffling. Because he made sure that the others have premium hands the pot could be built up.
However, he must have taken into consideration that they might not be able to fold a premium hand. Therefore it would have been wise to deal an even better hand to himself just in case.
Good point about the other players hands. Of course, we see in the last scene that Fonda's character is an expert mechanic who could have pulled it off.
And again, there was no need to deal himself a good hand. Because of the banker's skinflint reputation, there was no way anyone would call after he raises the bet.
where did you saw all those 4's? and the second card from the left is 10 diamond, look again. She just shifted the cards while she was holding them all that time.
share *********************** S P O I L E R S ! ************************
Fonda and later his "wife" had nothing. Not even a pair.
from left to right: (on the scene where she shows the cards to the banker)
K heart
10 diamond
4 club
5 club
Q heart
The point was to get them to bail out, never even showing the cards. Since the other players thought to themselves they cant top the banker (because he said "get a lot more chips, and only get me 100's" to the barkeeper, they called it quits.
The 1 complication was..that Jason Robards who obviously had a good hand..and as the last man to fold..would have called the bet to see what the cards were..In almost every game I have played in..although for far less stakes..to keep the raiser "honest" that would be the edicate..IF..he head done that..not only would he have likely won..the whole deal would have blown up in the participant's faces....How could the banker possibly explain his participation?
shareI can see this as an unofficial rule in a low stakes game with the same participants week after week. In this case, Robards would be risking a lot of money in order to authenticate the "honesty" of an opponent he will never play another hand against ever anyway.
shareAgreed..I get that..and I get that it was the ultimate bluff..but..if I were in on the con..i would have to at least think it was a possibility..again, if I had an exceptionally good hand..he had bet $100 on 3 2's earlier in the game..no, I wold not have done it with that hand..but assuming a flush or better..i think I would have strongly considered doing so..
shareThe most important part of the con is that the banker is known as a notorious tightwad who would never risk the money unless he was certain that it was a winning hand. Anyone who called risked not only losing the extra 5,000, but would forever be the butt of jokes for his decision.
shareYou are right about the most important part of the con..and, i realize $5K in today's money represented a very very big sum...I don't think he would have been held to ridicule and actually would have garnered respect for taking the hit from the rest of the players..But, the consequenqunces of him calling were so astromical bad..assuming again the winning hand was all bluff, and would lose...that it almost defies belief..not only would the pot be lost, the con most likely would be exposed..the banker run out of town..there was siginificant risk..I guess why I would not be a good con man..But, to me..in a comparable theme film.."The Sting" less was put to chance..and more loose ends was tied up in their con..the only risk in the Sting..and again thinking like I would if I were in on the con..was the bettor thinking he did not want to leave anything to chance..would not have made the bet to win...but would have made what is called around a horse racing track a "bridge jumper bet"..bet it to show content with the reduced winnings or even across the board, win, place and show, content with the reduce winnings..just to protect against anything at all that could go amiss..I guess what I am saying..there was risk in both movies that the conned victims would act true to form..and that does not always occur..
shareIt's never clear whether the winning hand was really a bluff, it might actually have been a royal flush. Fonda played a card shark who slipped a rigged deck into the game. But the con would still need to play out since otherwise the other players would keep raising until Fonda goes broke.
shareThat is true..and if that is the case..it was a slam dunk con...nobody would have raised the hand...so, the worse that would have happened is to be called and with a Royal Flush which would have been believed given their motions beforehand it was a sure winner...and if I remember right, 1 of the players wanted to look at the cards...and the Banker or the Lady did not seem overly concerned about that and it actually was another player who pointed out nobody had the right to do so without calling the bet..so, most likely you are right..
shareYes, the players didn't have the right to look at the hand since they never called, but that would have been a risk that I wouldn't have taken if I did have nothing. I think that Benny had cut himself a royal flush just in case Drummond would have called the bet just to see what she had. Five thousand bucks didn't seem to be an amount that would have busted him, but he is a blowhard and blowhards will go ahead and pay to see the cards even though he would have lost it. Also, if I were all of them, I would have been suspicious of Ballenger changing his "spots" from a morality fanatic to a man willing to gamble with a lot of money to win a few bucks in interest. Remember, the bank only made a few hundred dollars if it had been a real deal.
shareAlso, if I were all of them, I would have been suspicious of Ballenger changing his "spots" from a morality fanatic to a man willing to gamble with a lot of money to win a few bucks in interest. Remember, the bank only made a few hundred dollars if it had been a real deal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Good point, but first of all, a few hundred back in the Wild West is a LOT of money. And Ballinger being a skinflint would liikely jump through hoops for much less. And B is more of a money fanatic than a morality one. And B annuonces that it's the best collateral he was ever offered. And finally, there's no love lost between B and the players and he'd love to take them, regardless of how much money is involved.
Edicat??? God almighty. It's ETIQUETTE.
shareI think one needs to remember that another reason the 'bluff' worked is that the woman carried on playing the hand.
They all had respect for a woman who was risking everything on a hand of cards when she 'didn't know what she was doing,' so they all assumed that it must be a big hand based on that too. They would never believe she would bluff. They probably didn't think she knew what that even meant!...and the fact that the bank had unlimited supply of money and was prepared to back the hand all the way.
It had to be the wife playing the hand. I think they may have been temtpted to call if the man had played it.
Good points, but the key reason the wife has to play the hand is to bring in the banker. If the guy had bplayed the hand they would have froze him out so it wouldn't matter how good his hand was.
share