Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
I don't remember any bet sizing issues; the most ridiculous thing was Damon's character walking in on his professor's 7 card stud game and after a minute or less of watching knowing exactly what every player had in the hole. The headsup super cooler loss with the second nuts to the nuts was kind of silly as well, and of course the Oreos tell.
I don't have the movie in front of me right now, but a couple things that come to mind (besides what is already mentioned):
1. After facing something like a 20x open, Teddy KGB three-bets to half of his stack HU against Mike McD, who has KK. Mike "can't call and let him catch." He can fold, if he believes KGB has aces, or... SHIP. KGB folds. So WTF hand could KGB have that can three-bet to 100x pre but fold to a 200x shove?
2. One of Doug Polk's videos details it well, but the postflop bet sizes tend to fall in the ranges of 2.5x to 4x pot.
3. At the end of the movie, Mike and KGB are playing heads-up, as already mentioned. The button acts first pre, which is correct, but then also acts first post, which is off. I know it throws off Polk's ability to do a true hand analysis, so he has to amend a few things.
4. In the hand with Johnny Chan, what hand does Johnny have that he can three-bet but fold to a four-bet... in limit? (Or maybe I'm doing something wrong there.)
5. In the aforementioned stud hand in the judges' game, wouldn't the guy with two pair call, even though he's told he's beat? The pot odds alone are certainly worth the chances that Mike McD's "made his two pair but knows they're no good... so the professor's bet is $20" line is just him leveling.
Meh, apologies for derailing this into a Rounders discussion (can't imagine how many there are already on 2+2), but it does support the notion that even some of the best poker movies have flaws when it comes to the actual poker.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildspoke
This is revisionist history. ANYONE who did not get a charge out of these three scenes when they saw them in the theater is just being disingenuous and is seeing the movie from a 2017 perspective.
David Levien and Brian Koppelman did a phenomenal job creating a believable story.
Amazing to believe we are coming up on the 20-year anniversary of the movie.
Agreed. We're looking back at the poker technicalities through 2017 lenses (as stated already). Even with that, most 2+2ers still rate Rounders high on their personal lists EVEN through such lenses. So I'm willing to go into Molly's Games ready to look past a couple nitpicks.
Hell, I already do it with almost every sports movie ever made.