Uh, no. Mike ends up as a complete degen, borrowing money from a mentor who foolishly trusts him to be responsible, then, once he luckboxes into going up by 30K, decides to drop out of his elite law school (on the path to a career where he can make well into six figures) to play in the WS of Poker with 33% of his roll. In another year or two he is going to be back begging his rich lawyer friends for money to chase after the excitement of playing in games for which he is underrolled. Oh yeah, and he decides to ditch his girlfriend as well because she is too smart and responsible for him. Seems like a good example for my case to me.

Being a good poker player just isn't that important if you don't have capital and can't use good bankroll management.

Tsk. Tsk. Such negativity about a game that this forum site is supposed to be about.

A better ending:
He avoids a miserable 60 hr/week grind working as a corporate attorney where he mostly would be looking to find loopholes in complex contracts that he is supposed to use to screw a rival corporation before than they can screw his client, being treated like dirt by the firm's partners in hopes of one day getting to be a partner and not be fired at the whim of a senior partner, where he eventually loses all his ethics and morals, and rarely gets to see his girlfriend/wife who also has some grinding career.

Instead he goes to Vegas and eventually becomes like Doug Polk. He makes a ton of money playing in side cash games, and like Doug retires from poker at a young age, say 30. He makes funny youtube videos. His girlfriend joins him, and they go off into the sunset traveling the world. Much nicer dream.

Sure, that is possible. I'm obviously talking in generalities and we can make up whatever happily ever afters we want for a fictional story.

Poker is a great game, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good career. Look at chess for an even clearer example of a fun and intellectually stimulating game that makes for a lousy career. But even if you disagree with me about poker as a career, we are in agreement about the larger point here.

Almost literally no chessplayers can earn a living at chess by only playing chess. Chess professionals almost always earn money from private coaching and to a lesser extent from writing chess books and producing instructional chess videos.

I am semi-retired , and earn some extra cash by teaching after-school chess programs at three local elementary schools. I'd starve to death if I had to earn a living playing chess (I'm not even a Master, let alone a Grandmaster).

Is tennis evil?

Well, if you play someone purely on the basis of crushing their spirit and make them feel bad, then it would certainly not be a nice thing to do. But on the flip-side, if you invite a buddy a long to teach him the game, get him some exercise and have a good time - then it is a nice thing to do.

I think we can reasonably sure both things are scenarios that happen. It isn't the game that is bad, but what you do with it and how your actions in it affect people.

And sure, that gambling addict that needs the money for rent shouldn't be at the table and has certainly abdicated his personal responsibility. That doesn't make it right to take his money. And hiding behind "if I didn't do it, someone else would" is a logic that I don't agree with. It can justify anything, which is always a bad sign.

This thread probably fits Dear Abby better than two plus two, but here are some facts
Poker is a zero sum game; for every winner there is a looser. Except for skill the expected value for every player and all player's collectively is ZERO unless there is a rake. If organized poker were legal the rake would plummet because all it takes to offer poker at a restaurant or club is a table, a roof and a dealer. With nine players at table that is cheap entertainment. Compare for example to an offshore fishing tournament where luck is at least as important to winning yet you also have to have boat, tackle, buy gas and even a great fisherman is lucky to win back his entry fee.

The total amount of money in play in poker is a drop in the ocean compared to State Lotteries which the expected value of each and all players is about 50% of the amount they bet. Lotteries ONLY benefit those who DO NOT PLAY - generally the ones that don't dream for their money. Lotteries have no educational benefit, no skill, no entertainment value for the losers which is most of the players and that they require no discipline and zero intellect or intelligence which is why they are boil down to a tax on ignorance that goes to reduce the taxes of the smart and the rich.

Anyone looking for a cause to benefit society should consider lobbying their State congressman to replace their lottery with a State sponsored poker tournament in which winners earn college credit for mathematics, statistics while learning the importance of concentration and discipline in the process.

poker is degenerative whether it's a skill game or not. we produce absolutely nothing for the world. and look at the people that it's full of. poker pros are all the same. a buncha trendy npc's with their hands rested on their biceps and fake laughing at the fish's jokes. thank god i don't have to play live anymore....

His girlfriend was an insufferable, sexless nag who he should have ditched way sooner than he did.

The movie isn't even close to being about the character traits one must posses to be a good poker player. The movie is about the life-importance of being true to yourself and who you really are.

Mike didn't want to be a lawyer. He didn't want to be with an insufferable, sexless nag. He no longer wanted to take care of his friend, Worm. He didn't want to grind out for small stakes. He wanted to take big shots and prove himself. He loved using his mind to play poker and playing on the edge, because it was the only thing that made him feel alive. The movie is about the interesting process of him realizing that, and how the things we sometimes build up around us in our lives are not indicative reflections of who we really are.

It's amazing anyone could see it any differently, which solidifies my assessment of you as an inherently disingenuous arguer.

lol, okay.

You're talking about what the movie is about, or the implicit message or meaning of the movie. I disagree with that message/meaning and so reject its framing of Mike's story as one of triumph and finding purpose in a positive way. There is no rule of criticism that says I have to agree with a movie's view of the world.

Okay.

OrP is right odds are Mike would of gone bust and became Worm the way he managed his bankroll.

Its been a very longtime but was it a sexless relationship?

Are you saying that you disagree with doordonot's interpretation of the meaning of the film? Or , given that it is an accurate interpretation, you do not like it?

Sure, I think D0DN's reading of the movie is a plausible account of what it is about. It is a pretty classic story archetype. Young man rebels against social strictures or expectations which force him to be something he doesn't want to be, which initially leads to suffering and trials, but eventually triumphs by finding his true inner strength and ends happy because he is now able to live a life of meaning and purpose.

My criticism is not of the narrative logic of this kind of story, but of the framing used to tell the story. If you take the actual events and people outside of the narrative rules of story-telling, where the hero needs to succeed in some way, be a sympathetic or attractive character, foreshadowing, etc., then the story of Mike is actually of a degen poker player who keeps playing in games way over his bankroll, hangs out with criminals and allows them to suck him into their lifestyle, screws over his friends, foolishly quits law school, and has completely unrealistic dreams of a poker career that will almost surely end in unhappiness.

I like Rounders, it is probably my favorite poker movie (admittedly a low bar). But, just like the actual poker played is unrealistic, the depiction of Mike having a happy ending is based more on Matt Damon being good-looking and charismatic and the aura of coolness associated with being a professional poker player than the reality of being a professional poker player. Actually being a professional poker player is kind of a not-so-great career, generally worse than being a lawyer with a Columbia law degree, especially for people who lack self-discipline like Mike. At minimum, he should finish law school and then go off to Vegas, at least then he has something to fall back on. His lack of self-discipline in just giving it up is not praiseworthy in real life.

There is also a middle-ground approach, by acknowledging that the movie simply contains basic misunderstandings about the game of poker. After all the movie is about single games of poker and even single hands, anyone who has dabbled a bit above beginner level know that sitting down in a single game and depending on a profit is probably a bad idea.

If you chose to let that slide, the movie is perhaps more enjoyable. It could also be reasonably argued that even if you knew how successful professionals approach the game, it wouldn't necessarily make for the best movie.

It isn't exactly rare either, movies rarely get professions / careers / sports very correct. If you watch the latest Freddy Mercury biopic, the descriptions of the creative process of making music aren't exactly instructional. But showing a composer making 10 garbage songs he throws away or showing up at practice with a piece that sounds like crap when your guitarist kicks in might be a bit confusing to a layman. It is perhaps an acceptable "liberty" to give a more idealistic description.

I would say this is half of why Rounders is so popular. The other half is because of Mike elevating intuition and meaning over rationality and practicality. That’s appealing because it maps onto the Grand Narrative (GN) as I call it.

The self discipline and wisdom that you are talking about comes later in the GN. First comes the decision to risk partaking in the story. That’s why Rounders was so successful and enjoyable to not only poker players but the general audience. If in the movie Mike would have balanced a career as a lawyer along with his poker like you mentioned, it would have ruined it - not because it would ruin a shallow, naive fantasy but because it would ruin a deep, meaningful truth.

There is the danger of people watching Rounders and not being able to disentangle the meaning they feel from the poker lifestyle depicted in the movie, but that is true of many things.

Edit: Also, ethics are secondary to intuition/meaning in the GN in the same way that rationality/practicality are secondary. That is why Mike, despite his ethical mistakes, is still a heroic character.

when i still played live, i remember some 21 year old genius that speaks like 10 languages opted to go into playing poker full time (LIVE lol) as a career, and all i could think was "what the f*** are you doing?"
i could maybe see it being viewed as cool 20 or 30 years ago, but now? i see it as no cooler than being a low level twitch streamer. it's just lame bandwagon career.