first hand of rounders: did he have to go broke?

[themilkmanishere 0]

if you've ever seen rounders, you know the first hand of the movie. Matt Damon gets nines full of aces, Teddy KGB flps over pocket aces for aces full, and matt loses all his money. If you haven't seen the movie, Ii recomend it. Anyway while watching the movie, my friend asks me "is there any way he could have not gone broke that hand"? I wasn't sure, but after analyzing it, I think he could have saved his last 15K. Here is my analysis of the hand.Matt picks up ace nine suited, and raises. KGB, who I assume is a blind, remarks to the table "it's a position raise" and calls. Flop comes down A 9 3, with two spades. Matt thinks to himself " I want to overbet, make it look like im tryin to steal it, so i get paid off". It's a good move, and he overbets. KGB calls. Turn comes another 9, and now matts got nines full. he thinks "im puttin KGB on a flush draw, so i want a spade to fall so he can pay me off w/ my nines full". KGB checks, matt checks. neway river comes a low spade. Matt assunmes KGB just hit his flush, as KGB bets a HUGE amount (I'm not sure what it was, but i know it was a gigantic amount, about half of matt's stack"). Matt acts like hes thinking, then RERAISES ALL IN, and KGB calls. Now watching this movie, it looks like at first glance there was no way matt could have saved his money, but i think he could have. First of all, there was a small chance KGB was on the come with a flush draw. the first reason is that he called a huge bet on the flop. Matt knows KGB is an extremely good player, and its unlikely a great player is going to call on the come heads up when the pot odds are extrmeely in favor of folding. One could make the arguement for the implied odds, but i dont see how a flush draw could call this bet, especially in a cash game.Even if he did factor in implied odds, KGB stil lcouldnt have the flush draw. the reason being is that he played the hand EXACTLY LIKE A FLUSH DRAW! Someone as tricky as KGB wouldn't make his hand that obvious. Of course it looked like to Matt KGB was onthe come, with check, call, check. However, Matt should have realized that there was no way KGB would play a flush draw likethat. Finally, KGB probably didn't have the flush draw because of the way matt played the hand. Matt's play is typical of a flush draw. A semi-bluff on the flop, and a free card on the turn. Matt should have realized how much his play looked like a flush draw to KGB. He should have thought "Theres a good chance KGB thinks i have a flush draw. Therefore, when a spade came on the river, completing a hypothetical flush draw, and yet hes betting, that means that either he a.has the nut flush or b.has the nut flush beat. Realizing this and the above matt should have thought "ok if hes not on the flush draw and doenst have the flush, then hes gotta have somthing to callthe huge flop bet, and to bet the river when a spade hits" So then matt should weigh which hand KGB could have that in this situation. Basicially, the hands would be a smaller two pair off the flop, the nut flush made on theriver, or a set off the flop. Based on KGB's play, theres a reasonable chance that he has a boat, just like matt, since it isnt likely hes on the flush draw and he bet when the flush was made. There are two other boats, one of them being lower and one of them beng higher. the boat that was higher though, would be pocket aces.AT this point matt should have thought "Based on the way he played the hand, could he have aces." And the answer is absolutley yes! KGB's play is one of setting an extrmeely deep trap. Does this mean matt should have folded? NO. No way you can make that lay down. Too many hands KGB could have. He could have the nut flush, the smaller boat, or some weird bluff. However, when KGB bets a huge amount on the river, just calling would have been the better move, considering there was one posible hand that had A9 beat that KGB could have. Overall, Matt put too much weight on his read of KGB being on the come. He should have just called on the end. He was outplayed. Matt even admits to Knish later in the movie that he was "outplayed". Unfortunatley, it cost him his whole bankroll.What do you think? Am i off in some places, and if so, where? It's a really interesting hand.Dave

[NortonFan 0]

Yea, otherwise there would be no movie.

[econ_tim 0]

longest second post everif someone writes the Cliff's Notes, PM DNA

[KowboyKoop 0]

if you've ever seen rounders, you know the first hand of the movie.  Matt Damon gets nines full of aces, Teddy KGB flps over pocket aces for aces full, and matt loses all his money.  If you haven't seen the movie, Ii recomend it.  

I can stone-cold guarantee to you that 99 of the people on this forum have seen Rounders....'Themilkmanshire'........THEMILKMANSHIRE.......COME ON!!!!!!

[bm99 0]

Well Im stunned someone put that much analysis into a hand from a movie.On a side note, last night I watched Rounders with the commentary from Johnny Chan, Hellmuth, Moneymaker, and Ferguson and I thought it was ****in hilarious!!!. Hellmuth brought up his win about 15 times and Chan had some funny one liners. If you havent seen this yet, pick up the dvd.

[DerekTah 0]

Lets be honest, how come Matt couldn't make the cookie read. I really liked parts of that movie but a cookie is the tell, grrrrrrrrrrr.Anyway, on the most part you are right. Thought it had to do with Matt's character wanting to make the money for the WSOP event (he tasted it so bad he didn't realize when he was being suckered in).

[KoRnholio 2]

KGB could have played 33 the same way. Check-call the flop with a set looking to slowplay against Matt's likely AK/AQ/KK etc. The turn brings his full house so he checks looking to check-raise it, but Matt checks behind. River completes the flush so he bets hard to get some value out of the boat.I don't think there's any way not to go broke there, unless you feel like just calling the river with the 2nd nuts.

[loxo 0]

I haven't seen the movie!Just thought I'd let you know Koop.

[pokerplayer24 0]

33 would be a much more likely holding then AA. So no he cant help but lose all his chips here.

[pckt10s 0]

What is this Rounders?

[na3r0k 0]

Didnt even bother to read that long post, but just so you know it was a movie...

[KTW 0]

MD could have easily had 99 to KGB's AA and visa versa. So; Yes probably.

[jlgosse 0]

33 would be a much more likely holding then AA. So no he cant help but lose all his chips here.

hahahahaha, you're kidding right? RIGHT?Seriously, you better be kidding. AA is not less likely than 33.

[Pupsta 0]

matt damon

[Smasharoo 0]

One, it's a movie.Two KGB folding to the all in when Mike has KK is far more ludicrous than the opening hand."Oh, I syee myike. You put me awl ein. I am onlee gettiiing 3 to one to cawl meaning I have to cawl with 23 off sue it. I fald."

[Suited_Up 2]

if you've ever seen rounders, you know the first hand of the movie.  Matt Damon gets nines full of aces, Teddy KGB flps over pocket aces for aces full, and matt loses all his money.  If you haven't seen the movie, Ii recomend it.  

I can stone-cold guarantee to you that 99 of the people on this forum have seen Rounders....'Themilkmanshire'........THEMILKMANSHIRE.......COME ON!!!!!!

Just thought you should know....His name is "TheMilkManIsHere" Read a bit closer.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

33 would be a much more likely holding then AA. So no he cant help but lose all his chips here.

hahahahaha, you're kidding right? RIGHT?Seriously, you better be kidding. AA is not less likely than 33.

Right, because a player wouldnt typically re-raise with AA heads up....Anyway, why the fuck is this hand even being debated? It never happened.It had to happen the way it did or the movie's 32 minutes long.You guys understand that right?

[Magsugal 0]

33 would be a much more likely holding then AA. So no he cant help but lose all his chips here.

hahahahaha, you're kidding right? RIGHT?Seriously, you better be kidding. AA is not less likely than 33.

Considering matt damon has A9 ?

[Pupsta 0]

Matt Damon

[Smasharoo 0]

It'd have been much better if Mike had AA and moved in with his whole bankroll and KGB called with 22 and hit a set.Then Kanish would punch Mike in the face and the russian thugs would ass rape for hours in time to "yakkity sax"

[SpeedKills 0]

if you've ever seen rounders, you know the first hand of the movie.  Matt Damon gets nines full of aces, Teddy KGB flps over pocket aces for aces full, and matt loses all his money.  If you haven't seen the movie, Ii recomend it.  Anyway while watching the movie, my friend asks me "is there any way he could have not gone broke that hand"?  I wasn't sure, but after analyzing it, I think he could have saved his last 15K.  Here is my analysis of the hand.Matt picks up ace nine suited, and raises.  KGB, who I assume is a blind, remarks to the table "it's a position raise" and calls.  Flop comes down A 9 3, with two spades.  Matt thinks to himself " I want to overbet, make it look like im tryin to steal it, so i get paid off".  It's a good move, and he overbets.  KGB calls. Turn comes another 9, and now matts got nines full.  he thinks "im puttin KGB on a flush draw, so i want a spade to fall so he can pay me off w/ my nines full".  KGB checks, matt checks.  neway river comes a low spade.  Matt assunmes KGB just hit his flush, as KGB bets a HUGE amount (I'm not sure what it was, but i know it was a gigantic amount, about half of matt's stack").  Matt acts like hes thinking, then RERAISES ALL IN, and KGB calls.  Now watching this movie, it looks like at first glance there was no way matt could have saved his money, but i think he could have.  First of all, there was a small chance KGB was on the come with a flush draw.  the first reason is that he called a huge bet on the flop.  Matt knows KGB is an extremely good player, and its unlikely a great player is going to call on the come heads up when the pot odds are extrmeely in favor of folding.  One could make the arguement for the implied odds, but i dont see how a flush draw could call this bet, especially in a cash game.Even if he did factor in implied odds, KGB stil lcouldnt have the flush draw.  the reason being is that he played the hand EXACTLY LIKE A FLUSH DRAW!  Someone as tricky as KGB wouldn't make his hand that obvious.  Of course it looked like to Matt KGB was onthe come, with check, call, check.  However, Matt should have realized that there was no way KGB would play a flush draw likethat.    Finally, KGB probably didn't have the flush draw because of the way matt played the hand.  Matt's play is typical of a flush draw.  A semi-bluff on the flop, and a  free card on the turn.  Matt should have realized how much his play looked like a flush draw to KGB.  He should have thought "Theres a good chance KGB thinks i have a flush draw.  Therefore, when a spade came on the river, completing a hypothetical flush draw, and yet hes betting, that means that  either he a.has the nut flush or b.has the nut flush beat. Realizing this and the above matt should have thought "ok if hes not on the flush draw and doenst have the flush, then hes gotta have somthing to callthe huge flop bet, and to bet the river when a spade hits"  So then matt should weigh which hand KGB could have that  in this situation.  Basicially, the hands would be a smaller two pair off the flop, the nut flush made on theriver,  or a set off the flop. Based on KGB's play, theres a reasonable chance that he has a boat, just like matt, since it isnt likely hes on the flush draw and he bet when the flush was made.  There are two other boats, one of them being lower and one of them beng higher.  the boat that was higher though, would be pocket aces.AT this point matt should have thought "Based on the way he played the hand, could he have aces."  And the answer is absolutley yes!  KGB's play is one of setting an extrmeely deep trap.  Does this mean matt should have folded?  NO.  No way you can make that lay down.  Too many hands KGB could have.  He could have the nut flush, the smaller boat, or some weird bluff.   However, when KGB bets a huge amount on the river, just calling would have been the better move, considering there was one posible hand that had A9 beat that KGB could have.  Overall, Matt put too much weight on his read of KGB being on the come.  He should have just called on the end.  He was outplayed.  Matt even admits to Knish later in the movie that he was "outplayed".  Unfortunatley, it cost him his whole bankroll.What do you think?  Am i off in some places, and if so, where?  It's a really interesting hand.its a movie.Dave

[Pupsta 0]

Matt Damon

[NortonFan 0]

Matt Damon

[PrtyPSux 0]

One, it's a movie.Two KGB folding to the all in when Mike has KK is far more ludicrous than the opening hand."Oh, I syee myike.  You put me awl ein.  I am onlee gettiiing 3 to one to cawl meaning I have to cawl with 23 off sue it.  I fald."

I discussed this hand with a very good player. I said he shouldve called, but he said that he wasnt necesarrily wrong by folding that, his theory was that since it was a freeze out KGB probably thought he could fold and still beat mike with a 2 to 1 disadvantage. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Pupsta 0]

Matt Damon