26 replies to this topic

[JCRendle]

This podcast, linked to from that website, points out that there may have been some problems with the poker scenes.

(Strangly enough, from the site that says Craig shouldn't be Bond - why would they link to a podcast that says "Daniel Craig, in my opinion, is the Best Bond since Sean Connery")

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Well, that gentleman gets the details he is complaining about wrong. First, the bleeding eye is not the tell, it is the slight double twitch/blink of the eye that Le Chiffre tries to cover by putting his finger to his temple that is the tell. (And they pronounce the name Le SHEEFr not Le Chef.) Also the ending money is $115 million dollars not $150 million. The fantastic cards I won

[JCRendle]

Yea, I heard the dealers one before, the rest were just Hollywood poker, not actual mistakes.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Yeah, even though this fellow has a some valid points it is hard to take his nitpicking of the details seriously when he gets the details wrong.

Still got me wondering who else bought back in. Obviously Bond and not Leiter, and fairly obviously not Le Chiffre. I

[Four Aces]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='683531' date='8 January 2007 - 09:00'][mra]...The fantastic cards I won

Edited by Four Aces, 08 January 2007 - 04:28 PM.

[Garmt]

2. If they are in Montenegro then the money does not have to be Euros - Montenegro is not in the Euro system.

Although Montenegro is not in the Eurozone, it does use the euro as its official currency. It had used the German Mark as its (de facto) legal currency, and switched to the euro in 2002. Although Montenegro adopted the euro unilaterally, this practice is tolerated by the EU.

But as you say, since this is a private tournament, they could have played with any currency they liked.

I'm wondering, BTW, whether the decision to set the game in Montenegro was made before or after its becoming independent in June last year.

[Four Aces]

...
Although Montenegro is not in the Eurozone, it does use the euro as its official currency. It had used the German Mark as its (de facto) legal currency, and switched to the euro in 2002. Although Montenegro adopted the euro unilaterally, this practice is tolerated by the EU.

But as you say, since this is a private tournament, they could have played with any currency they liked.

I'm wondering, BTW, whether the decision to set the game in Montenegro was made before or after its becoming independent in June last year.

True it does use the Euro, but the way the announcer in the podcast puts it, sounds like it would be mandatory. Since Montenegro is outside of the EU, they are not bound by the same monetary rules as the EU members. This makes a big difference with respect to a whole bunch of currency use rules. The announcer in the podcast was just trying to engage in one-upmanship over the writers of the movie, of which he did a poor job.

Hmmm. Not sure about the decision to choose Montenegro as the location. The location does add a bit of exotica to the situation.

Off-topic but of interest, casinos in unregulated environments are havens for money laundering.

Cheers,

4A

[Mister Asterix]

1. Over the last several years I have won with straight-flushes twice. Once at Coushatta Casino in Kinder, LA and once at Golden West Casino in Bakersfield, CA. Both wins entailed me beating another flush and a full-house at each seating. Great hands like a flush and a full-house are COMMON when a straight-flush is the winner. The reason for this is that the remaining players will seldom fold a full-house or a flush, since hands that beat those are very rare. They play them to the end. Hence when those hands lose it's either to a 4-of-a-kind, a straight-flush, or a royal-flush. The commentator must not be a very experienced player, even if he does host a gambling show. If he had ever won with a straight flush, then he would know that there are always other strong hands at the table that remain until the river card and final show.

Yes, exactly. But even if the hands are a bit outrageous, if the commentator did not want to see something outrageous and over-the-top then he should not have gone to a James Bond movie.

[Mike00spy]

I guess he'd feel better if Bond won with a pair of Threes, and Mads had a pair of 2s.

[Four Aces]

1. Over the last several years I have won with straight-flushes twice. Once at Coushatta Casino in Kinder, LA and once at Golden West Casino in Bakersfield, CA. Both wins entailed me beating another flush and a full-house at each seating. Great hands like a flush and a full-house are COMMON when a straight-flush is the winner. The reason for this is that the remaining players will seldom fold a full-house or a flush, since hands that beat those are very rare. They play them to the end. Hence when those hands lose it's either to a 4-of-a-kind, a straight-flush, or a royal-flush. The commentator must not be a very experienced player, even if he does host a gambling show. If he had ever won with a straight flush, then he would know that there are always other strong hands at the table that remain until the river card and final show.

Yes, exactly. But even if the hands are a bit outrageous, if the commentator did not want to see something outrageous and over-the-top then he should not have gone to a James Bond movie.

Exactly!

I guess he'd feel better if Bond won with a pair of Threes, and Mads had a pair of 2s.

LMAO!

Edited by Four Aces, 09 January 2007 - 04:22 PM.

[bond_girl_double07]

The buy in question is an interesting one.. if I'm not mistaken, they began with 12 players at $10 million a player - equaling $120 Million. Bond at least bought back in - totaling $125 Million in the pot. He tipped the dealer $500,000 so the total Bond won presumably should have been $124.5 Million (unless other players bought in later)..

Not that any of this matters, the accountants do NOT rule my Bond world

[MarcAngeDraco]

I thought it started with ten players...

[Mister Asterix]

It was ten players. Apparently three bought in, Bond and two others.

So 4A, can you explain why Bond would play a 5 7 on suit on the draw in that situation? Perhaps he was the big blind?

[Fro]

It was ten players. Apparently three bought in, Bond and two others.

So 4A, can you explain why Bond would play a 5 7 on suit on the draw in that situation? Perhaps he was the big blind?

He had a chance at a straight, flush, or both (straight flush). Everyone going "all-in" didn't happen until the river.

It's basically low risk, high potential reward if you catch the right card.

[Mister Asterix]

It was ten players. Apparently three bought in, Bond and two others.

So 4A, can you explain why Bond would play a 5 7 on suit on the draw in that situation? Perhaps he was the big blind?

He had a chance at a straight, flush, or both (straight flush). Everyone going "all-in" didn't happen until the river.

It's basically low risk, high potential reward if you catch the right card.

I was trying to remember at what point Mathis says that the pot is $24 million. I guess that was after the turn. If that was the case the bets may have been pretty low on the draw, which would explain why Bond would play two low cards even suited, particularly if Bond was one of the blinds. But then again it may just show that Bond has great poker instincts after all.

[Four Aces]

It was ten players. Apparently three bought in, Bond and two others.

So 4A, can you explain why Bond would play a 5 7 on suit on the draw in that situation? Perhaps he was the big blind?

He had a chance at a straight, flush, or both (straight flush). Everyone going "all-in" didn't happen until the river.

It's basically low risk, high potential reward if you catch the right card.

That's pretty much correct. I would never go for a flush draw with non-connected suited low-value pocket cards, UNLESS I already have a good feeling how the other players play. We have to remember that in the movie we do not see the entire game, just portions of it, so we do not get to appreciate how Bond develops his analysis of the other players.

It was ten players. Apparently three bought in, Bond and two others.

So 4A, can you explain why Bond would play a 5 7 on suit on the draw in that situation? Perhaps he was the big blind?

He had a chance at a straight, flush, or both (straight flush). Everyone going "all-in" didn't happen until the river.

It's basically low risk, high potential reward if you catch the right card.

I was trying to remember at what point Mathis says that the pot is $24 million. I guess that was after the turn. If that was the case the bets may have been pretty low on the draw, which would explain why Bond would play two low cards even suited, particularly if Bond was one of the blinds. But then again it may just show that Bond has great poker instincts after all.

That's a good point. Bond also may have thought that the players were playing too tight along with not being agressive on their bets. When a table is tight, quite often the player who loosens up first, like with 5/7 offsuit, can take the pot because everyone else is folding unless they have face cards.

In fact, the two straight-flushes that I had won with, as mentioned earlier, had no face cards. The card players who who went to the river with me did have face cards. Hence they were playing tight, and hence again why a straight-flush usually wins over other very good hands.

The scripting of the game was very sound. In fact the more I think about it, the more brilliant I think it was. I will have to dig up who their consultants were.

[Mister Asterix]

That's a good point. Bond also may have thought that the players were playing too tight along with not being agressive on their bets. When a table is tight, quite often the player who loosens up first, like with 5/7 offsuit, can take the pot because everyone else is folding unless they have face cards.

In fact, the two straight-flushes that I had won with, as mentioned earlier, had no face cards. The card players who who went to the river with me did have face cards. Hence they were playing tight, and hence again why a straight-flush usually wins over other very good hands.

The scripting of the game was very sound. In fact the more I think about it, the more brilliant I think it was. I will have to dig up who their consultants were.

[mra]Thanks, 4A. That

[DanMan]

The poker scenes worked great because it was about the players trying to feel eachother out, rather than focusing completely on the cards. The best moment has to be after Bond buys back in and Le Chiffre tries to bluff and Bond raises. Le Chiffre, realizing that Bond has him figured out, throws his cards in our direction and the scene transitions into the martini glasses. Has to be my favourite moment of the movie.

[mkkbb]

Loved these scenes, however was there not one mistake possibly.

Le Chiffre goes "all-in" at the end, so does Bond, so this must mean that they both had exactly the same amount of chips to hand. Else...

1) If Le Chiffre had more chips why would he go all in and not just match Bond's hand?
or
2) Bond had more chips, in which case why didn't he match the amount Le Chiffre put in?

Could anyone keep up with the number of chips each player had?

[Four Aces]

Loved these scenes, however was there not one mistake possibly.

Le Chiffre goes "all-in" at the end, so does Bond, so this must mean that they both had exactly the same amount of chips to hand. Else...

1) If Le Chiffre had more chips why would he go all in and not just match Bond's hand?
or
2) Bond had more chips, in which case why didn't he match the amount Le Chiffre put in?

Could anyone keep up with the number of chips each player had?

I'm not sure what you cite above is correct.

All I can say right now, as an experienced player, is that I saw no inconsistencies or rules violations in the games. So you have given me an excuse to go see the movie again, and again, and again

When I get the DVD, I will do a hand's analysis and break down each of the games and hands.

[Mister Asterix]

Loved these scenes, however was there not one mistake possibly.

Le Chiffre goes "all-in" at the end, so does Bond, so this must mean that they both had exactly the same amount of chips to hand. Else...

1) If Le Chiffre had more chips why would he go all in and not just match Bond's hand?
or
2) Bond had more chips, in which case why didn't he match the amount Le Chiffre put in?

Could anyone keep up with the number of chips each player had?

[mra]Bond went all-in first. Le Chiffre, with slightly less chips, had to go all-in to call.


Just a thought, it might have been interesting had Infante had the best hand and Bond the second best hand. This would have given Infante the smaller pot of $20 million and Bond with $95 million, and it would have knocked Le Chiffre and Fukutu out. Beating Infante would just be a technicality at that point (for Bond anyway). This would leave us with a scene of Bond watching Le Chiffre leave as he continues to play.

Of course, it would have confused the audience, so probably for the best that it didn

[Andrew]

The only thing I didn't like about the poker was the hands. All face cards? Come on! I would've liked to have seen the poker scenes be more like Rounders, based on skill.

I would've also liked to have seen just Le Chiffre and Bond for the last hand.

[Mister Asterix]

The only thing I didn't like about the poker was the hands. All face cards? Come on! I would've liked to have seen the poker scenes be more like Rounders, based on skill.

[mra]I didn

[Andrew]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='684814' date='10 January 2007 - 14:57'][mra]I didn

[Mister Asterix]

No need to get smart

Sorry about that, Chief.

[Four Aces]

I just saw it again today. Only $4!

All the poker play was clean. No technical errors, and based on my experience all very believable. There are plenty of games like that out there that become legendary in the world of poker.

[CardSenseJimmyBond]

Loved these scenes, however was there not one mistake possibly.

Le Chiffre goes "all-in" at the end, so does Bond, so this must mean that they both had exactly the same amount of chips to hand. Else...

1) If Le Chiffre had more chips why would he go all in and not just match Bond's hand?
or
2) Bond had more chips, in which case why didn't he match the amount Le Chiffre put in?

Could anyone keep up with the number of chips each player had?

Bond doesn't just straight up match Le Chiffre's raise because he senses that Le Chiffre believes he is going to win this pot. Le Chiffre holds an Ace and a nine, giving him a Aces full of Nines Full House, a very high hand. But Bond wants Le Chiffre to think he is bluffing when in fact he hold the straight flush, the second highest hand in the whole game. Bond's raise would trick Le Chiffre and cause him to go all in and thus lose to Bond.

As for chip count.....

When the scene begins with the turn card.....

Pot: $24 million

Futuku: $6 million
Infante: $5 million
Le Chriffe: $39.5 million
Bond: $40.5 million

Total: $115 million