Talk:Rounders (film)

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Stub?[edit]

At the end of the trivia section it is said that Malkovich's character is throwing the "stub" on the table. What does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.19.215 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In poker, "stub" refers to the cards that remain in the dealers hand during play of a round, having not yet been dealt. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i always thought Teddy KGB was holding pocket 10s in the last hand - making trip 10s on the flop. this makes more sense as he slow plays his pocket pair and then gets aggressive with the trips. Once he convinces himself Mike is on a draw he puts more and more pressure on him to fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.21.46 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 nines, 5 aces?![edit]

Am I missing something here? The article states that "However, Mike's nines full of aces are beaten by KGB's aces full of nines and he loses everything." Nines full of aces would be a full house with 3 nines and 2 aces, right? And aces full of nines would be a full house with 3 aces and 2 nines, right? So they're playing poker with a deck with at least 5 nines and 5 aces? Phanatic 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they are playing Texas hold 'em where there are 5 shared community cards which any player can use to make his/her hand and thus can be double counted your way. --Rajah 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mike?[edit]

Who the f is Mike? He is mentioned without being said who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.54.214 (talk • contribs)

Mike McDermott is the main character, and this is described in the article. Kasreyn 22:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Johhny Chan - Rounders.jpg[edit]

Image:Johhny Chan - Rounders.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Teddy KGB is holding in the final heads up hand[edit]

I noticed that if one looks close enough and goes through the portion when Teddy KGB slamms his cards and the deck on the table, we can see that he was holding the two red tens (that is the ten of hearts and the ten of diamonds), meaning that he flop top set (three of a kind) -- the second best hand possible (second of course only to what Damon is holding -- a straight). Should this be added? I'm not too sure why the speculation is necessary when I think it's quite clear what he is holding (i.e. you can see his cards!).

Heymanamen (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go back a bit further on the movie and look at the cards that are flopped on that final hand. They are, in order, the six of diamonds, the seven of spades and the ten of hearts, so KGB couldn't have had the ten of hearts in his hand. And if you move a bit forward from when he throws the stubs and starts to walk away, you can see that his hole cards are still face down on the table. Now granted, that could very well be an edit from another take, but there's no denying the ten of hearts on the flop. Let the speculation continue!

Pbxguy (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a poker nerd here but the ace of Spades comes off on the river, meaning that if he did have pocket tens he'd have the third nut behind Mikes straight and a set of aces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.203.99 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in the DVD commentary Phil Hellmuth, Chris Ferguson and Johnny Chan speculate on this and their conclusion is that he was holding pocket Aces, which would be a further nice symmetry with the hand that busted Mike at the beginning of the film. So then there are three key hands: Mike and Teddy KGB at the beginning, Seidel and Chan in the middle, and Mike and Teddy KGB at the end, where Teddy KGB has the same holding as at the beginning, but where Mike beats him by using the same play (three street check-call bluff with the nuts) as Chan did in the WSOP final hand. Seanhunter (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why when the ace comes on the river Teddy says "That ace could not have helped you". He knows the ace couldn't have helped Mike because he has a pair of aces himself. 204.4.131.140 (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, going all in with AA would be really dumb, no? What's to gain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.152.111 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the oreos really mean[edit]

The plot description says that KGB is using the Oreos to decide what he should do. But I think the Oreos are actually his "tell" -- if he breaks the Oreo beside his ear (or possibly if he eats it), he has a good hand. If he breaks it in front of him or doesn't eat it, he's bluffing. At the end of the movie, it's made clear that Mike notices KGB breaking the Oreo by his ear and eating it and comes to some sort of realization. I have only seen the movie, I haven't heard the audio commentary or anything else, so I don't want to change the article if what's currently in the plot description has been confirmed elsewhere... help? Autonerd (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Autonerd[reply]

Articles[edit]

to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism of final scene[edit]

It should be mentioned that the final hand between Mike and Teddy mirrors the final hand of Chan and Seidel, complete with the flopped straight, the three checks by Chan/Mike, and the all in bet by the loser on the river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.119.229 (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

This is about the legal case, I'm sure there are other sources too. Hell there is even an article on it: Grosso v. Miramax. (Emperor (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]