Jump to content

rounders questions


Recommended Posts

I'm sure this has been all discussed before...but anyways, does anyone else agree on the following things about the first big hand that blew away Mike in Rounders againsts KGB?1. Mike raises to $150 on the button (it looked to be 3x bb?) with a modestly good hand . He gets called. Thus we can assume KGB has a semi-decent hand. 2. Flop comes A98 with two spades. Mike flops two pair and bets $2000. This would have been literally 2x the pot of about $1025. Ok, that's fine that he overbet the pot, but already suspicious. A) who bets $2k on a $1k pot. B) mike should've realized HE GOT CALLED for $2k. WAKE UP. THen he thinks KGB is on a flush draw?? Ok, who calls 2x the pot for a flush draw. Then, if the dude called, we can assume he's at least got a GOOD HAND, with possibly more outs than just a flush draw, or hmm, how about A MADE HAND already?? KGB could have had pocket 8s, pocket 9s, or even pocket aces here...3. turn comes 9 to fill up mike. check check. ok...great, he wants kgb to make his flush, ok that's fine, i can see the logic there. 4. spade comes on the river. so KGB bets $15k into a pot that is only about $5025. already a suspicous bet....so who cares, ok, so Mikey....WITHOUT the nuts (99) and not even the SECOND nuts (AA)..lo and behold with re-raises ALL IN for another $33000 with a very strong hand but nowhere near worth ALL IN for that much more because if he gets called, he's going to be beat. ok duh mikey, if the dude calls you he's got more than a fkn flush with the board paired. why didn't he just call? and depending on how much KGB had in front of him, he might consider a raise to put him all in only if he didn't have that much more. STUPID RERAISE ALL IN!! i know it's a movie and easier from outside but i just dont understand mike's putting him on a flush draw on an over bet of the pot and i don't understand the reraise all in. a call would have been fine.Any thoughts??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to take Rounders on the entertainment value, but kudos on the hand analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True true, gotta agree with that. he did play like a donk and thus deserved to lose it. but part of the movie also seems to portray that Mike thinks he's a freaking awesome player and 'outplayed' johnny chan at the table and had nothing (which they didn't describe that hand that much)...how mike can read everyone, brags to the professor that he can play without even looking at cards....ok well true then, yea it shows what happens if you're a donk. lose it like a donk. but he portrats himself like a 'shark' sitting at the Taj beating tourists. well sharks don't play like donks in general. yea. just voicing it, but yea entertainment value indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever listen to the commentary on the DVD? It has Johnny Chan, Chris Fergusen, Phil Hellmuth, and Chris Moneymaker. They all said they'd go broke on that hand too. I guess you're better than them though. TP/MM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I promise you every single hand in Rounders has been examined ad nauseum on this forum.  Search function is your friend.
can I do it now? MY FIRST ZIIIING.. Did I get it right?Did I?Did I?
you zinged him right in the zinger!! awsome job!!as for the hands i like the entertainment value comment. But also you say think logically...well he wasn't that was the whole plot line, he didn't think correct and that's what put him off the game, didn't leave himself outs! hello plot builder!!Me
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a frickin movie!
Now we can lock it up.... This one is heading to the OTC...
+1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...