idris elba is the ***** man that is all.

I was serious. I was seriously enthralled by the movie the entire time. I really enjoyed it. The actual poker scenes were better in Rounders but there was something about this story line that kept me hooked the whole time.

I loved Rounders, but the poker scenes in it were all terrible, to the best of my memory.

I saw it today. Very good movie. As mentioned, a couple weird poker things, but that’s to be expected.

I didn’t even know about this story so I’m interested to now read the book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Decided to see this instead of Star Wars on Xmas day....epic movie, even my non-poker friends loved it and are saying it should win the oscar.

I found it entertaining, and someone who barely plays Poker who went with me thoroughly enjoyed it. If you're going to see it just for the Poker you'd probably be disappointed, but as a package deal I think it did a good job. I personally liked the speedy narrative style. I think that's a good way to pull in people who aren't that familiar with the game to understand better.

Green Cherokee was like a hats off to Rounders move I guess? lol.

Anyway, it's like a solid 4 out of 5 in my book. I think the majority of you would enjoy it.

Some worse than others, but indeed, almost every poker scene in Rounders is pretty laughable through 2017 eyes, particularly from a bet-sizing standpoint.

That said, it makes me want to now watch all of these:

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.

In fairness to Rounders, at the time it was made there were all sorts of ridiculous things like those bet sizes happening in HS games everywhere, even by winning pros.

I remember even in 2007 when I started playing, a specific winning pro would 3x fold at 10bbs regularly in the end game of a 5k HUSNG. A $15 level winner today wouldn't make that mistake.

Sorkin seems like a good type of writer for this kind of a movie. I really enjoyed him growing up, he does a lot of the soapbox stuff where a character sort of does a "gotcha," takes a stand and tells people off with a paragraph or 3 of dialogue. I disliked that style in Newsroom but I think it works well for a poker movie like this where it's individualistic and dialogue heavy and there's less risk of it feeling too corny or unrealistic for the setting.

Not really sure how something as ridic as raising 100k over a 200k bet could make it through the final cut, why do you even hire a poker consultant if you're going to ignore their advice on a basic poker error that will make anyone who knows anything go wtf?

Poker scenes in Rounders had a few weird bets but they were overall solid

I mean every other dumb**** movie has some stupid cooler to end the movie and Rounders goes with flop the nuts but check 3x to trap the lagtard who has nothing. Much better

Just came back from an 8:15 showing of Molly's game at the Arc light in LA and I absolutely loved it. It was definitely long, less about the game of poker (as compared to Rounders) but had a very compelling story.

There was one poker scene that they could have done particularly better and would have led to a much more dramatic effect.

"Harlan Eustice", the supposed card shark that Player X invited to the game, called an all-in with QQ on a Q77 flop. His opponent held AK in a $750,000 pot. There really wasn't any mention of how far ahead Eustice actually was. If Molly in the narration had said something like "AK had only a 1 in 300 chance of winning with the two cards to come" non-poker players would better understand the gravity of the situation. I had to explain this to my non-poker playing girlfriend afterwards.

I did a little googling and Harlan Eustice supposedly represented producer Houston Curtis. Obviously the QQ hand was an offshoot from what Phil Hellmuth described here:

http://philhellmuth.com/hollywood-poker/

"Back to the story: The flop came down 10-6-5, and Curtis bet out $5,000. Thompson called with his 10-2 and the turn was a 6. Now Curtis bet out a whopping $101,500 — all of his remaining chips — and Thompson called. The last card was a 10 — to make Thompson a higher full house with a 10-6-5-6-10 board — and Curtis nearly fell out of his chair."

The rest of that "Hand of the "Week" article from 2007 is also quite a trip.

3 in Minneapolis - I will wait a week and drive less


what is up with this 'limited release'? does it have to do with Oscar eligibility by showing in 2017?

I liked the book and so did many reviewers and readers. 173 Amazon posters collectively gave 4.5 out of 5 stars.


The movie is mostly getting fine reviews from the critics and viewers. I have not seen the movie yet.

Farm Fresh Tomato:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mollys_game_2017/

A look at some of the celebrity players in the game:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ebrity-stories

Yes. Usually that’s the case. Sneak it in 2017 for Oscar consideration but then have it’s full release a little later so it doesn’t have to compete with all the other Christmas releases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My personal favorite is the last hand of the MTT in Casino Royal where everyone "had it" in ascending order to the str8 flush to win. Other than the defunct Ultimate Bet online, I never have seen such a run-out!

was there a poker consultant? i watched the credits closely and didn't see one.

not sure you can even call it a poker movie but i really enjoyed it.

I'm referencing this thread, mostly

I wonder if the hands are written realistically or if there is frequent 10x pre flop raises.

Pretty sure there's a hand where Mike opens to $1000 (20bb) with kings, Teddy KGB 3bets to $5000, Mike shoves for $10000 and Teddy folds.

Haven't seen the movie, but am still fairly confident in agreeing with this:

And this:

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.

LOL

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:

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.

I haven't watched the movie for at least 10 years. And I immediately found it ridiculous that he knew all the stud hole cards. And also that everyone stayed in until the end then suddenly folded for one bet to the 7th street bluff. Still a good movie though.