MovieChat Forums > Casino Royale (2006) Discussion > "You must have thought I was bluffing"/"...

"You must have thought I was bluffing"/"You lost because of your ego" NO and NO!

posted 2 years ago by SlackerInc (1101)
11 replies | jump to latest

Bond had a very strong hand, ace-king on a board of JKAJK, "rainbow" (no possibility of a royal flush). His opponent had the stone nuts (the actually unbeatable hand: two jacks in the hole for "quads", four of a kind). That's just bad luck for Bond. You can't "play scared" in Hold'em, meaning playing so conservatively that you fold a very strong hand just because someone might have the nuts. (Omaha, okay, different story.) It's not ego, it's playing the percentages and preventing super aggressive players from running you over.

"You must have thought I was bluffing, Mr. Bond." What a stupid thing for Le Chiffre to say. Bond did not have a "bluff-catcher" hand. That's a medium-strength hand that can pick someone off if they are betting big with basically nothing (or "air", is it is called in poker). From Bond's perspective, Le Chiffre might have the remaining king, ace-jack, or just one jack, any of which would give him a weaker full house than Bond's. A pair of aces or jacks in the hole were the only hands that could beat Bond.

It's fair to say Bond should know Le Chiffre is less likely to have a solitary jack, because then he's turning a fairly strong hand into a bluff (a poker no-no) since there's nothing Bond can call him with that he has beat. But Le Chiffre might have a king or ace-jack, hoping Bond has a weaker full house and "has to see it". He also might not expect to be called but planned to show the jacks if Bond folded, to discourage him from calling later when he really was bluffing.

It's certainly possible for a strong player in Bond's position to fold that hand. But you would need a really good read, or a sense that you can get him later and that it's not worth the risk. To call there does not indicate that he is sure the other guy is bluffing, or that he let his ego get the best of him.

If this is the way they needed the story to play out, they should have given Bond just a king (no ace) or even something like a pocket pair of queens, which really would just be a bluffcatcher hand.

EDIT: What I neglected to notice initially is that Le Chiffre didn't even know he had the nuts! For all he knew, Bond could have had pocket kings, giving him a higher four of a kind (in many casinos you will win a bad beat jackpot if you lose that way, but presumably not at the ritzy place they were playing).

[–] Towelie_Towel (1773) 2 years ago

Good analysis.

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

Thanks!

[–] FFNogoodnik (775) 2 years ago

If I recall wasn't the point that Bond saw LeChiffre's "tell" and went solely based on that?

Bond thought he knew hat the tell was so the actual cards were irrelevant, right?

[–] PinbackWiggly (413) 2 years ago

Oh that's right. LeChiffre faked him out with the tell because René was working both sides I think?

[–] FFNogoodnik (775) 2 years ago

Yes, except it was Vesper who was working both sides.

[–] PinbackWiggly (413) 2 years ago

I thought she was not working both sides until her and Bond were captured and James was getting his balls scratched.

[–] millsey72 (10244) 2 years ago

No! Vespers boyfriend faked his own kidnapping so Spectre could blackmail her into giving them all the money from the poker game in exchange for his life. Rene was proven innocent in QoS

[–] PinbackWiggly (413) 2 years ago

I'm going to have to go back and watch all the movies and pay better attention. Thanks!

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

That would only make sense if Bond had a bluffcatcher hand though. In that case, it's a clear fold unless the "tell" indicates he should go against normal poker logic and call. But Bond had a very strong hand, so he doesn't need to know whether his opponent is bluffing. That's my point: to make the script work as written, they needed to give Bond a weaker hand that could still beat a total bluff.

Edited to add: It's never true that your cards don't matter when your opponent goes all in and your only choices are to call or fold. For example, let's say you are sure your opponent is bluffing but you don't have anything, not even one pair. Then calling his bluff is very risky because he may be bluffing with a low pair that still beats you.

The only time "the cards don't matter" is when your opponent makes a big bet but still has plenty chips "behind" (still remaining in his stack) and you have plenty behind as well. Then, if you feel confident your opponent is bluffing, you can come over the top with a big reraise even if you have "air", and if you are right your opponent will have to fold. But that option was not available here.

[–] millsey72 (10244) 2 years ago

I don't know anything about playing cards but my college professor is a poker champion. He told me that the hands shown in these scenes were very unrealistic. And thats a real shame because I always counted on Bond films to be accurate portrayals of the international spy world. I like realism in my movies which is why this is one of the Bond films I didn't care for. I rather watch Moonraker or The Spy who loves me

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

Yeah, I thought the hands themselves were fine. Unlikely that those specific combinations of cards would come up, but possible. And if they did come up, the way the players bet them was reasonable. The only part that bugged me was acting like Bond did something stupid or reckless in the earlier hand. He was just unlucky.