The most ridiculous poker hand in Rounders is when Mike walks into the middle of a hand in his professor's seven-card stud game; he immediately knows exactly what everyone's hole cards are, and then everyone folds to a single bet.

Well, the movie tries to make us believe he was so scary that he made a guy fold the nuts. No where in there did it make us seem like he had the second nuts or something like that.

The Card Counter I turned off halfway. The “USA!” Guy was ridiculous

Rounders was just so great that we can forgive many things, the characters and story was great, as was the score. But afaik there was a flop in that Chan hand. However, I’m sure his bluff with rags was not pio approved

It also made no sense. These were WSOP Circuit events, where almost everyone is likely to be American. As I posted in the other thread, this would be like cheering "Go Aggies" at a Texas A&M-Utah State game.

Damn, you're right. I think I got fooled by the "wired aces or kings" question, but now that I look, you can see a flop out there plus there is a pot that got pulled in from the preflop action. Funny that I've seen that movie so many times yet always assumed it was preflop action.

Bond and bad guy are worse IMO. Bond picks up an incredibly obvious tell. Bad guy finds out that bond picked up the tell because omg collusion so he decided to use it to disinform. Cool. He picks the worst possible spot ' one of the few spots where a glaring unrealistic tell would be absolete. Bond has the nut boat vs. bad guy with quads. After they get it all in, bad guy reveals the cooler with an epic slow role, and then says to 'yiy must ha be e thought I was bluffing.' This implies that Bond thinks bad guy only ever value bets quads here. Wow.

in real life mike and worm were the fish. and kgb was half a fish too.

The poker consultant on the movie said he tried to convince them to change this line and basically was told to shut up. It's a tiny bit of dramatic license in wording that doesn't make a difference in whether it's a good movie about poker or not.

https://cardplayerlifestyle.com/inte...y's%20Game.

"I explained on set that poker people would call “bullshit” on this. During my explanation for Aaron and the crew, Aaron stopped me mid-sentence and just said “Josh, thank you. We are doing it like this.”

He knew something. He knew the process. Filming the scene in cuts and pieces I have to say that it felt wrong. It felt like I’d sacrificed my reputation. I immediately knew that my own buddies would be like “what was that?” But when a director tells you “enough” – after you’ve offered input – you simply must stand down.

Aaron later approached me and apologized for cutting me off. He explained that in editing it would flow a lot better than it looked or felt. He also cited “Hollywood creative license.” After seeing the final product, I have to agree. It was of course caught by the most discerning of viewers, but I contend that the movie was made for the masses and to a much larger degree the viewing audience would know what we were after. That did not necessarily mean catering to the .001% of the audience who would grade the film on that particular bit of accuracy."

Mollys Game was a poker movie
Rounders was a poker movie
Cincinnati Kid I can’t say as never seen

The Card Counter is not a poker movie

Poker is just a vehicle to carry the characters. Could have been most professional circuit: bowling, rodeo, chess, Bridge etc. The gambling aspect helps the plot in some ways

Thanks for that.

Also an interesting (and not surprising) tidbit:

This is explains so much when it comes to movies and TV. Consider the following onscreen inaccuracies that are such cliches that we almost never see them portrayed accurately:

• Trial attorneys entering the well to pace and gesticulate in front of a jury, or to get in a witness' grill during the direct/cross/redirect/recross examinations.

• Police officers reading the Miranda rights upon the initial arrest.

• Medical personnel or responders using a defibrillator to revive a patient in asystole (always referred to as a "flatline" on screen).

• Every suppressor ever used on a gun in movie history.

• The immediate sound of a dial tone when the other party ends the phone call.

There are more, obviously, but those rate among the most common. You just know that at some point, an on-set advisor told the director that the depiction is woefully incorrect. (Well, maybe not the last two, as those are sound effects that get added in post.) And I'm sure said director simply decided, nope, we're doing it this way.

The thing is, I get why they do it. Cutting back and forth between the lectern and the jury box strips away the drama (although it didn't seem to hurt in A Few Good Men). Mirandizing the suspect on the walk to the cruiser looks cooler than some detective doing so in a sterile squad room. The flat line on an ECG looks scarier and is easier to understand for audiences than VT or VF. The muffled pop of a shot through a silencer is in no way as badass as the Doppler-induced "pewwwww" (and never mind the mere click you'd hear with subsonic ammo). As for the dial tone, well, it's a world where people never end calls with a "goodbye," so how the hell are we supposed to know they're done talking?

In fewer words, inaccuracy sometimes just plays better on screen.

But when it comes to other elements in movies, why not just get it right? I had a mini-rant in the Card Counter thread about this, but it applies here. You don't need four different color chips in a $10-20 or $20-40 stud game (Rounders). A game with a $10K buy-in will not use $50 ABS dice chips, even if it is supposed to pale in comparison with the stakes at the Plaza suite (Molly's Game). For that matter, one may not raise a $300K bet by $200K (also Molly's Game). And players will not signal hit/stand/double-down before the dealer reveals the up card (The Card Counter).