(Rounders) Is Mike McDermott the Sucker? (1 Viewer)

[Jimulacrum]

Came across an interesting take in a YouTube video today.

Summary: Mike from Rounders is actually just an over-confident amateur who's good enough to grind out an hourly at mid stakes but lacks the decision-making acumen and discipline to be any better than that.

I found the argument pretty compelling.

 

[Tonysquander]

But he didn’t have to spend the rest of his life with Jo, the most soul-sucking, passive-aggressive, fun anchor girlfriend of all time. #winner

 

[bergs]

I’ve always thought it was weird that he played one game way over his bankroll and successfully ran one bluff against a known pro and then immediately decided to risk his whole roll in an underground game with shady characters.

 

[Nitterdonker]

But he didn’t have to spend the rest of his life with Jo, the most soul-sucking, passive-aggressive, fun anchor girlfriend of all time. #winner

That really was the most +EV decision of the entire film

 

[Jimulacrum]

But he didn’t have to spend the rest of his life with Jo, the most soul-sucking, passive-aggressive, fun anchor girlfriend of all time. #winner

True, true, though it was actually Worm who made that happen for him by accident while exploiting one of Mike's weaknesses, so hard to give Mike credit for it.

Good for him anyway, though.

"If you need a lawyer." Right, yeah, if I need a lawyer I'm going to call my wet-blanket ex-girlfriend who was so ready to leave me that she made it happen literally overnight. Still can't believe he gave her the envelope full of cash to give to Petrovsky.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I’ve always thought it was weird that he played one game way over his bankroll and successfully ran one bluff against a known pro and then immediately decided to risk his whole roll in an underground game with shady characters.

Seriously. His idea of taking a shot is buying in for like 15 big bets in a limit game and almost immediately 4-bet bluffing a known pro preflop.

 

[Kain8]

Came across an interesting take in a YouTube video today.

Summary: Mike from Rounders is actually just an over-confident amateur who's good enough to grind out an hourly at mid stakes but lacks the decision-making acumen and discipline to be any better than that.

I found the argument pretty compelling.

I agree and disagree with the opinion regarding the opening hand. What else can Mike put Teddy on besides a flush draw? If you have top two pair on the flop, you almost have the board on total lockdown besides a draw. You're not going to give credit to the one combo of flopped top set. And after the turn, you know that you're ahead of a flopped bottom set AND a flopped middle set is impossible now.

I do agree with (as this hand has been discussed ad nauseum for the past couple decades) that you don't re-raise the overbet here on the river. Your equity has been fully realized by Teddy's initial wager so call and be happy to take it down, unless they show you the one combo that does win against you.

Rest of the video makes sense from a poker and plot perspective that I never considered before. In the end, we should all aspire to be like Joey. Be affable to everyone, target the games / players you know you can beat, and leave your ego at home.

But he didn’t have to spend the rest of his life with Jo, the most soul-sucking, passive-aggressive, fun anchor girlfriend of all time. #winner

Never mind the fact that he had freaking Petra throwing herself at him.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I agree and disagree with the opinion regarding the opening hand. What else can Mike put Teddy on besides a flush draw? If you have top two pair on the flop, you almost have the board on total lockdown besides a draw. You're not going to give credit to the one combo of flopped top set. And after the turn, you know that you're ahead of a flopped bottom set AND a flopped middle set is impossible now.

I do agree with (as this hand has been discussed ad nauseum for the past couple decades) that you don't re-raise the overbet here on the river. Your equity has been fully realized by Teddy's initial wager so call and be happy to take it down, unless they show you the one combo that does win against you.

Yup, same assessment.

Rest of the video makes sense from a poker and plot perspective that I never considered before. In the end, we should all aspire to be like Joey. Be affable to everyone, target the games / players you know you can beat, and leave your ego at home.

Yeah but Joey doesn't have the stones.

Never mind the fact that he had freaking Petra throwing herself at him.

My suspicion is that Jo knows Petra and Mike have a history, and this is part of why she insists Mike never play poker again for the rest of his life, instead of a compromise like limiting his bankroll exposure. She's just trying to keep him away from a perceived threat. Always something with chicks, man.

 

[Kain8]

Yeah but Joey doesn't have the stones.

 

[joeyshin]

I agree and disagree with the opinion regarding the opening hand. What else can Mike put Teddy on besides a flush draw? If you have top two pair on the flop, you almost have the board on total lockdown besides a draw. You're not going to give credit to the one combo of flopped top set. And after the turn, you know that you're ahead of a flopped bottom set AND a flopped middle set is impossible now.

I do agree with (as this hand has been discussed ad nauseum for the past couple decades) that you don't re-raise the overbet here on the river. Your equity has been fully realized by Teddy's initial wager so call and be happy to take it down, unless they show you the one combo that does win against you.

Rest of the video makes sense from a poker and plot perspective that I never considered before. In the end, we should all aspire to be like Joey. Be affable to everyone, target the games / players you know you can beat, and leave your ego at home.



Never mind the fact that he had freaking Petra throwing herself at him.

Well knowing KGB. He makes the comment “That’s a position raise”. Which he doesn’t need to say anything if he was just calling it light. But he intentionally says it so Mike thinks he’s holding light. That should have been a giveaway he was holding stronger than letting on.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Well knowing KGB. He makes the comment “That’s a position raise”. Which he doesn’t need to say anything if he was just calling it light. But he intentionally says it so Mike thinks he’s holding light. That should have been a giveaway he was holding stronger than letting on.

True, bet plus excuse is usually strong.

Mike might know this if he were trying to interpret ranges and the big picture instead of diving head-first in the direction of his first guess.

 

[demonnic]

I mean... if they wanted to make Mike relatable to your average poker player they nailed it then didn't they?

 

[joeyshin]

I mean... if they wanted to make Mike relatable to your average poker player they nailed it then didn't they?

Exactly. Even knish knew he wasn’t on that level. Tried to speak some sense into his visions of grandeur.

I always took it as the point of the movie was the delusions of the average poker player

 

[surfik]

But he didn’t have to spend the rest of his life with Jo, the most soul-sucking, passive-aggressive, fun anchor girlfriend of all time. #winner

 

[Jimulacrum]

Exactly. Even knish knew he wasn’t on that level. Tried to speak some sense into his visions of grandeur.

I always took it as the point of the movie was the delusions of the average poker player

Looking through this lens, it does seem that way. They did a really good job of selling the perspective, making him seem a lot better than he is from the angle of the viewer, until you start picking apart the details.

The judge's game in particular, Mike shows some impressive skill, but later he reveals it's more ego than skill—"I'll play it blind" in his later conversation with Petrovsky, when he's talking about 7 Card Stud, which relies a lot more on careful hand selection, card tracking, strategic betting, etc., than about playing the player. But he thinks he can override all that and push everyone around because he's just so pro.

In fact the whole judge's game scene has always been weird to me. We're really supposed to believe that he managed to fold out a whole table of loose, clueless stud players with basically just his speechplay? A few of them seemed prepared to call that last bet, but then all decide to pitch their cards in after his spiel. Right.

(He also flat makes up the thing about someone folding a 3 on fourth street. He didn't walk into the room until sixth street. But that's more on the writer/producer than on Mike's character.)

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The judge's game in particular, Mike shows some impressive skill, but later he reveals it's more ego than skill—"I'll play it blind" in his later conversation with Petrovsky, when he's talking about 7 Card Stud, which relies a lot more on careful hand selection, card tracking, strategic betting, etc., than about playing the player. But he thinks he can override all that and push everyone around because he's just so pro.

I agree with everything except the part about playing it blind, I took that as him not checking his own down cards and instead using the up cards and betting of others to play. I think playing blind is much more viable in 7stud versus hold'em, so many betting streets and information out there that others won't pick up on.

You're right though, writers just wanted him to look like a superhero.

Good video, I told my wife and buddies that were watching it that Mike was going to lose it all in Vegas pretty quickly if he doesn't get off that high.

 

[Mushmanchuman]

Well knowing KGB. He makes the comment “That’s a position raise”. Which he doesn’t need to say anything if he was just calling it light. But he intentionally says it so Mike thinks he’s holding light. That should have been a giveaway he was holding stronger than letting on.

I made a comment on the poker bounty video saying the same thing. Classic fish tell.

“I’ll call but only cuz Pete is in the hand and the Giants are winning.”

Yeah…has nothing to do with the cards you’re holding.

I’ll call people out at the table sometimes when they say something like this. Fish especially.

 

[joeyshin]

I made a comment on the poker bounty video saying the same thing. Classic fish tell.

“I’ll call but only cuz Pete is in the hand and the Giants are winning.”

Yeah…has nothing to do with the cards you’re holding.

I’ll call people out at the table sometimes when they say something like this. Fish especially.

I don’t tap the glass

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I made a comment on the poker bounty video saying the same thing. Classic fish tell.

“I’ll call but only cuz Pete is in the hand and the Giants are winning.”

Yeah…has nothing to do with the cards you’re holding.

I’ll call people out at the table sometimes when they say something like this. Fish especially.

Don't comment on YouTube videos, protip. Nothing good ever exchanged.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I’ll call people out at the table sometimes when they say something like this. Fish especially.

I sometimes have this urge too but have learned to resist it. Some people exhibit this tell a lot, and it's dead reliable.

 

[donkSTRIKER]

Bankroll Management skills 0/10
Ability to launch a poker boom100/10

Pro.

 

[BKisback]

Not hooking up with Petra was folding-the-nuts-on-the-river-after-villain-shoves bad.

 

[Legend5555]

TBF, it didn't take much to be better than the other players in 1998.

 

[joeyshin]

I just watched the video in OP. He already covered everything I said. I should have watched it before commenting Lol

 

[ekricket]

I was in a home game once and two players started arguing about who was the better poker player.
They finally decided that on the next hand they would both shove all their chips in blind preflop, and then whoever won that hand would be the best poker player.

Makes as much sense as this movie did. But when you try to condense months of real time into a two hour movie you tend to leave stuff out.

Superman is stronger than Mighty Mouse because Mighty Mouse is a cartoon and not real.

 

[Daniel Albarran]

The most insane thing he does is sitting back after beating KGB the first time. His life is on the line, but whatever!

 

[Jimulacrum]

The most insane thing he does is sitting back after beating KGB the first time. His life is on the line, but whatever!

Right? Pure hubris, gambling his whole stake again, when 0% of it is even his money and 3/4 of it is keeping him from being owned by mobsters.

Then he takes his win and immediately goes to Las Vegas to gamble it all in the WSOP, where he barely has a chance because he's purely a cash player.

Rounders 2 never made it to market, but plot summary: Mike goes busto in a week, Worm turns up with a new plot, the plot goes south, and both of them end up hustling Hearts and Bid Whist for cigarettes in prison. Fin.

 

[Daniel Albarran]

Right? Pure hubris, gambling his whole stake again, when 0% of it is even his money and 3/4 of it is keeping him from being owned by mobsters.

Then he takes his win and immediately goes to Las Vegas to gamble it all in the WSOP, where he barely has a chance because he's purely a cash player.

Rounders 2 never made it to market, but plot summary: Mike goes busto in a week, Worm turns up with a new plot, the plot goes south, and both of them end up hustling Hearts and Bid Whist for cigarettes in prison. Fin.

He HAD the 10k buy-in at the start of the movie plus 20k.
If they ever do the sequel, I would have Worm be a rich cryptoscammer and Mike busted first on the final table and never won a bracelet.

And he passed on Famke Janssen!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[joeyshin]

He HAD the 10k buy-in at the start of the movie plus 20k.
If they ever do the sequel, I would have Worm be a rich cryptoscammer and Mike busted first on the final table and never won a bracelet.

And he passed on Famke Janssen!!!!!!!!!!!

He should bubble

 

[Jimulacrum]

He should bubble

Then, when he goes back to his place, a lingerie-clad Petra is there waiting for him, but he asks her to leave.