Poker in the new 007 movie |
|
Posted Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:53 pm GMT by JokerHigh
so what did you guys think about it? i think thats the first movie where they did not win with a royal flush.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:42 pm GMT by Dave B
Sean Connery would have had the royal.
SUCKIT TREBEK!
Posted Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:04 pm GMT by supafrey
pretty well done.
obvious and ridiculous (rare and unlikely?) situations abound, ofcourse, but atleast everything seemed professional. All the dealers were sounding true to form, as was the tourney director (explaining the rules of texas holdem to people playing for 15 million each was a bit funny...)
didn't make poker seem like voodoo. i'm happy for that, even.
Posted Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:02 pm GMT by raisebot
probably gonna see the movie today
Posted Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:41 am GMT by MasterShake
Had to be better than Shade. They pay the money for Stallone, Griffith, Byrne and Foxx, but they can't bother to research how poker is played? I mean, are there really high stakes players who play pocket stakes anymore? "I know you don't have enough to call, so I'm just going to bet more than you have and I win automatically."
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:57 am GMT by BMG13
| MasterShake wrote: | | Had to be better than Shade. They pay the money for Stallone, Griffith, Byrne and Foxx, but they can't bother to research how poker is played? I mean, are there really high stakes players who play pocket stakes anymore? "I know you don't have enough to call, so I'm just going to bet more than you have and I win automatically." |
But how can you call when they don't have that much? That's unfair if one player is putting in more $ than another! 
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:18 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I personally found it cliche and very cheesy... there will be a whole rant about it with spoilers in my blog.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:50 pm GMT by lwestatbus
Wasn't the final showdown sequence out of order?
I thought that multi player showdowns go in the order of the person being called. My recollection of the players in the pot from the dealer's left were:
1. Guy with flush
2. Guy with eights full of aces
3. Evil villian with aces full of eights
4. Bond
The showdown went in that order.
But my recollection was that the players went all in in this sequence:
1. Flush guy
2. Eights full
3. Bond
4. Evil villian
Shouldn't showdown have been in that order?
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:09 pm GMT by Geno
The only problem with it might be that when you review it in 10 years and poker may not quite be as chic as it is now, it might look fairly ridiculous.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:14 pm GMT by aaronw
How about the part where Bond busts out and then rebuys for half of the original buy in. Despite having less chips than everyone else and feeling he is a superior player, he asks to raise the blinds?
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:16 pm GMT by raisebot
| lwestatbus wrote: | Wasn't the final showdown sequence out of order?
I thought that multi player showdowns go in the order of the person being called. My recollection of the players in the pot from the dealer's left were:
1. Guy with flush
2. Guy with eights full of aces
3. Evil villian with aces full of eights
4. Bond
The showdown went in that order.
But my recollection was that the players went all in in this sequence:
1. Flush guy
2. Eights full
3. Bond
4. Evil villian
Shouldn't showdown have been in that order? |
didn't see the movie yet..
what did Bond have?
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:31 pm GMT by Dave B
Board A  8 8  6 4
one had K for the king high flush, another had a boat (66 44 I think) bad guy had A8 for higher boat, bond has 7 5 for the straight flush.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:31 pm GMT by aaronw
| raisebot wrote: | | lwestatbus wrote: | Wasn't the final showdown sequence out of order?
I thought that multi player showdowns go in the order of the person being called. My recollection of the players in the pot from the dealer's left were:
1. Guy with flush
2. Guy with eights full of aces
3. Evil villian with aces full of eights
4. Bond
The showdown went in that order.
But my recollection was that the players went all in in this sequence:
1. Flush guy
2. Eights full
3. Bond
4. Evil villian
Shouldn't showdown have been in that order? |
didn't see the movie yet..
what did Bond have? |
Straight flush- he had 57 and on the board there was 468 all spades and 2 other cards.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:32 pm GMT by lwestatbus
It wouldn't be fair to give it away. But clues abound in the post. It is an entertaining movie.
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:04 pm GMT by VisualCSharp
Actually, the first dude had K , second dude had pocket 8s, third dude had A6 and Bond had 5 7 .
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:45 pm GMT by raisebot
heh, Bond is a river rat 
Posted Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:40 pm GMT by aaronw
| raisebot wrote: | | heh, Bond is a river rat |
I am pretty sure he had it on the turn...
|
|
