I was watching Rounders again last night and when Matt Damon was rethinking of his beat against TeddyKGB, Matt said, I forgot the Cardinal rule because I was blinded by my High Stakes dreams. "Always leave yourself with outs." I understand outs etc., but what could of that possibly meant since he had 2nd nuts and it was almost impossible to see that TeddyKGB would have AA.

Also, I read somewhere that the symbolism of TeddyKGB eating the Oreo was KGB's way of 'feeding off his enemy' when he had a hand. That is how Matt Damon picked up the bluffs etc. Sounds correct?

He was talking about his whole bankroll which he lost..

Ok thanks, I thought he was talking about that but wasn't quite sure.

BR Management FTW.

thanks i couldnt figure out how he was reading him

OT, of course, and long beaten into the ground, but always bears mentioning, along with the whole Petra thing.

Now WTF's my DVD...?

Every movie is supposed to have a moral, and the only moral I find in Rounders is "to thine own self be true."

However, up until the end, you could argue it is proper money management. The intro creates Damon's problem because he lacked proper management skills. Then Worms reappears in his life and absolutely incarnates this flaw in Damon character. Then Damon tries to save his friend, and once again falls victim to improper money management.

I suppose they were trying to make Damons character like Clint Eastwood (which Worm hints at) and hes gonna fight the good fight whatever the odds. Good movie, poor message.

Why is the message poor exactly?

because poker players should only fight the fights they can win

Ok that isn't the message the guy I replied to was getting at in any way... So that's more what my question was relating to there...

As for fighting only the fights you know you can win, I really disagree with that. How will you ever find out if you can win a fight w/o trying? How will you ever get better w/o fighting people who are better than you and FORCE you to adapt to get better to beat them?

the movie talks about proper bankroll management and how people grind but if you never take a shot, "your whole ****ing life will be a grind". i find this somewhat true to a point but i'm sure there are a lot of grinders out there that moved up correctly and are sitting hefty not really having to grind anymore but for people sitting at the botom, if you take your shot and hit, it is nice. i took some shots and moved up quick than i took another shot at moving up again and that didn't fare well so it's a so-so statement.

I started w/ $100 and am at like $4k in about 2-3 months "grinding" 2 jobs+poker hardcore. BR management FTW.

Because it romanticizes the reckless gambler. When he goes to KGB to play him headsup to save his friend...fine. Extreme, but fine. Its when he sits back down to win back his original $30k thats insane.

He's not only risking his entire bankroll in one game, but if he loses, he (and his friend) presumably die. I understand, "oh thats Hollywood" and I agree, its a great movie, great ending. But, the moral of risking everything on basically a matter of pride is foolish. He begins the movie as a reckless gambler, and ends the movie as a reckless gambler...the middle of the movie is just him coming to terms with this.

Maybe the message is actually then "Once a fool, always a fool" ?

you have a great point but you are missing one of the most important parts of the movie. when he talks to the judge at the bar where the judge tells him about his calling as a rabbi(sp?). the judge had amazing knowledge of the religion but it was not his calling. matt damon was becoming a lawyer but it was not his passion even though we know he WAS a good law student because he is lead council. poker was his passion and it was the idea of either you are not living if you are not doing what you want to do or you can take your chance in life, you just might make it. yes that is a horrible way they portrayed it because you are not supposed to risk your life but it was obvious that he was not a passionate lawyer(him being late, him missing the lawyer meetings all due to poker, his passion). of course for the movie sake, it has to be a do or die situation and for some poker players, it almost is.

it wasn't 100% pride that made matt damon go back, it was because matt was able to read KGB and matt knew he was better than him and was ready for the shot of a lifetime. the movie could of ended with matt up and with what he had left, he could of grinded but that would of been very anti-climatic. there's a saying, it's better die on your feet than live on your knees and that was what he was representing.

What does the "Petra thing" mean?

Petra thing????

Also I think that really a story doesn't have to have just one message. There are tons of other messages that can be intertwined into one and I don't really feel that Rounders had 1 big one that I seemed to feel.

i can watch this movie 50 times - and i probably have - and it will never get old

disagree with this

the manner in which he plays regarded only through BRM is indeed reckless and i agree with you 100% in that, but..... the idea, and is repeated over and over during the movie... is that he was a super hand reader ( aka negreanu and esfandiari, best two still kicking) and from that comes his confidence of playing reckless brm.

super movie

I guess you mean when she comes to his apartment to tell about Worm and wants a little more than that ('I can stay')? I never really understood what the point of that part of the movie was.

to show that she wants his **** or matt was just so focused with poker, maybe just something for the movie.

You hit this one on the ****ing head. I think it's a great movie, but even if you were the absolute, very best single player in the world, this is asinine. Ever heard of a thing called a bad beat? The better player does not always win.

Obviously, a Hollywood ending was needed, so you just have to accept the wild, heroic endings.

What I think is funny is how in this movie (from the late 90's, right?) he says the same guys end up at the final table of the WSOP every year, yet basically every year since then, it's been nothing but amateurs and (relatively) unknowns winning the thing.

In some ways, I liked it better before Moneymaker had to prove that any old Blue Collar Comedy reject could step up and become the "best" poker player in the world. But there's been a lot more fish donating money since then, too, so I guess you take the good with the bad.

*assanine

;P Sorry had to. But what I really hate is when I say 2003 is when I got into poker and everyone was like "Great a Moneymaker boom kid" and I'm really don't like that assumption, even if it does help them think I entirely suck. It just happens to be the year HS ended, college looked like a waste, and I watched it for the first time and loved watching Negreanu play. I really don't think I'll ever win the WSOP ME, and I don't care. I will definitely try, but I'm not setting my heart on any of that. I am about grinding, getting a savings up, and next year looking to turn poker into a living. If I make it big money a few times awesome, if not it's still better then the ****ty jobs I've been working.

We all have a lot to thank Moneymaker for. Hes the single greatest thing to ever happen to Texas Holdem. Before him you couldnt find a game anywhere. Everything was Stud. If they even had Poker.

As for the WSOP Main Event. Yea, I mean, its insane. Things like Johnny Chan winning '87, '88, and then going 2nd in '89 is never gonna happen again. Or Doyle going back-to-back, and then going 2nd to Stu Ungar, who won the thing 3 times. Thats not gonna happen. The closest is Dan Harrington who won in '95, got 3rd in '03, and then 4th in '04.

But, you do have the HORSE Event, if you wanna see a lotta Pros.

Really? Are you sure?

Is your work as a spell-checker one of those "****ty jobs" you mentioned? Just stick to poker and you'll be much better off.

;P