First of all...it goes from lowest to best hand, they wait way too long to show their cards. I would love to be involved in a hand like this holding a straight flush and all my opponents had a strong hand :)
shareA line from the Fleming novel regarding a winning hand at baccarat: it was, unnecessarily, the best.
What no man Can give ya. And none Can take away.
I couldn't agree more. I wonder what the odds are of having four players, which all have a flush, full-house, higher full-house, and a straight flush? Maybe Le Chiffre can calculate the exact percentage...
shareFrom several earlier discussions that I've read online, I'd conclude that the improbability of the scene lies mostly in the fact that none of the four players protected their hand with a big raise or folded their hand early in the process -- they all limped into the pot. If four players always stay with their hand until (and throughout) the river, then showdowns like this would occur much more often than they do now (although the odds would still be small, I'd guess somewhere in the order of one-in-a-million).
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
[deleted]
[deleted]
It is obvious that you have never played in PokerStars or FullTilt poker jajaja...Ive seen *beep* pretty unreal in those tables, so unreal that Casino Royale last hand look boring..
sharebecause it really would have been great for them to say 'pair of 5s'... '2 pairs!'
shareThe only way people would think or say that this was an unrealistic poker hand is because they've never played all that much poker themselves.
If you've ever played poker with any kind of dedication for even a year or two, even then you would or at least should already realize that there is no such thing as an unrealistic poker hand. The criticism about them not raising at certain points and this sort of thing by another poster is also so incorrect. Much of poker is to play the math, yes, but also to mix in a great dose of unpredictability along with strong mathematical tactics. In the film you have to understand, these were suppose to be very good players. For them to do predictable things even 85% of the time would mean that they really aren't that good. So no matter what a great player does when they have a strong hand, it can never really be called an unrealistic hand. Many of you people don't understand, hands like this happen probably on a weekly basis at least somewhere in the world. That's how common crazy stuff like this really is! It's also why no one can completely dominate poker, even when it seems like you have a great hand, sometimes you can still be totally crushed. Trappers getting trapped happens quite a bit in Hold'em, especially in tournament style play, there is no doubt about that to a decent well seasoned player. Real cash game poker players have to be very good money managers to not lose everything they have on a bad day. It's a crazy game.
On another note, it's not as if the James Bond series has ever been all that concerned with keeping things real. People aren't looking for ultra realism when they watch a Bond film to begin with, either that or they're watching the wrong film. Bond films are suppose to be fun escapism. I think that's more than obvious.
My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!
The criticism about them not raising at certain points and this sort of thing by another poster is also so incorrect. Much of poker is to play the math, yes, but also to mix in a great dose of unpredictability along with strong mathematical tactics. In the film you have to understand, these were suppose to be very good players. For them to do predictable things even 85% of the time would mean that they really aren't that good.Yeah, maybe. But all four of them, at the same time? To the point of each seeing it all the way through to the river and then going "all in"? None of these players made a move to get more information about the other players' hands? None of these "very good players" has been paying attention to the others' playing behaviors earlier in the game and got a clue that he may have been setting himself up for a trap? Are you saying this happens regularly in high-level poker tournaments?
In the film you have to understand, these were suppose to be very good players.No, they weren't. They were poker amateurs who may have been above average (after all, they were the ones who made it to the finale) but who were mostly there because they were rich (and shady) enough to buy themselves into LeChiffre's tournament.
You leave key facts out of your argument(Such as how committed to the pot certain players were.), and include assumptions (Like
None of these "very good players" has been paying attention to the others' playing behaviors earlier in the game.How can I even take you seriously?
"As a person who has played a ton of poker, I know it isn't overly unrealistic."
It is extremely unrealistic.
That hand in the match had a buildup that was demanded by the script. For four players to get hands in that order -- each hand building in its quality -- is absurd. It was filmed with the "watch me get him" mindset and then what we see unfolding is just not something anyone could control.
Granted, if enough players play hands that scenario would eventually happen, but not on demand as was presented in the film.
I wouldn't say that the "poker in the film may slightly lean to the unrealistic," I'd say it's as unrealistic as it gets.
I don't know what was worse, the improbable (though hardly unpredictable) hand and how it unfolded, or the McEachern-esque commentary supplied by Mathis. I kept waiting for Norm Chad to chime in.
share