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

[joeyshin]

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

He bubbles and loses all his money in cash games. Moved back home dejected. His ex Jo is a lawyer now and he begs her to stake him. She reluctantly does and he gets his game busted bc worm is taking a rake. Worm doesn’t wanna go back to jail so he rats everybody out. Mike goes to jail. Jo loses her license.

Leaves room for another sequel where the whole thing happens all over again.

By the 8th movie Mikey has changed his name to Jason Bourne and is jumping out of helicopters.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

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.

Na its Hollywood lol, there would be a learning curve, a montage of him grinding in smokey off-strip joints, winning a Moneymaker type satellite and winning the main event cause he's got plot armor.


Either that, or the phrase "Always leave yourself with outs" takes a dark turn because he gets crushed a few times and can't handle the ego death.

 

[Chanceman]

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.

I think this shows that Mike has gotten his money through aggression and it stops working once the weakness is detected by a seasoned player. He just hasn't seen enough hands at those stakes to know when he is in trouble.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think this shows that Mike has gotten his money through aggression and it stops working once the weakness is detected by a seasoned player. He just hasn't seen enough hands at those stakes to know when he is in trouble.

This angle is very relatable for me.

My earlier days playing NHLE were mostly in games with weak players that I could reliably beat with an extreme LAG strategy. I'm talking raising every other hand preflop, c-betting almost every flop, and taking down more than half my wins uncontested.

I came out of that with a massively inflated sense of how good I was. I was quickly put in my place in games that weren't even that tough, but just weren't full of people I could push around with no consequences.

 

[Dbxela]

Good hypothetical not-too-serious chat! In that tone:

Remember its 1998ish! Brunson was probably playing no better than Mike back then. Theory was full of gaps. 10 years later Dwan was able to run over pros with reading + not folding. IDK if we have any solve that deep and for that pre-flop action, but I'd not be surprised if A9 is a shove, or at least its close - can we not find 1 other combo KGB can bet call here?

Mike has good mixed game experience, that would probably still be good enough in today's private games.

He wasn't an over-matched amateur, not in 1998. There are some thin story-telling tricks used to get it all through in 90mins, I think they're reasonable.

 

[Jacks]

The idea of measuring Mike against the current status quo of a game that has evolved in no small part to this movie itself, is pretty silly.

 

[Jacks]

My take is just the tldr of @Dbxela

 

[Jimulacrum]

Good hypothetical not-too-serious chat! In that tone:

Remember its 1998ish! Brunson was probably playing no better than Mike back then. Theory was full of gaps. 10 years later Dwan was able to run over pros with reading + not folding. IDK if we have any solve that deep and for that pre-flop action, but I'd not be surprised if A9 is a shove, or at least its close - can we not find 1 other combo KGB can bet call here?

Mike has good mixed game experience, that would probably still be good enough in today's private games.

He wasn't an over-matched amateur, not in 1998. There are some thin story-telling tricks used to get it all through in 90mins, I think they're reasonable.

Yeah, as far as the A9 play, it wasn't that bad as these things go. It was only as big a mistake as it was because he had gambled his whole roll.

What makes Mike an over-confident amateur isn't his skill at poker, but his decision making overall. Putting his whole roll in play, tolerating Jo, getting involved with the Russian mob, expecting to scratch up $15K in two days, re-gambling his win near the end of the movie.

Let's also not forget that Mike and Worm used to cheat together, prior to Worm being in prison. Mike didn't win all that $30K clean. At least some of it was the fruit of him and Worm doing their thing.

 

[Dbxela]

I think we can find enough examples of people who are certainly considered pros in real life with CVs similar to that.

Side note, I wonder how KGB plays 98 - flat pre, flat flop, check turn, big river lead sounds rather reasonable. Does he fold to the shove? That's 3 combos. He snap-called 2nd nuts with no hesitation.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think we can find enough examples of people who are certainly considered pros in real life with CVs similar to that.

Dig around YouTube for a bit, and you'll find a growing body of AI-generated videos explaining how a lot of them ruined their lives.

 

[surfik]

Just poped in my radar.....Can not denied compeling argument

 

[doublebooyah85]

It’s a movie you guys lol

 

[surfik]

whatever you say I can not blame Casino Royale for my addiction...

 

[Mushmanchuman]

It’s a movie you guys lol

That’s the best part. Analyzing characters in a fictional story.

Bout the same as investing in pro sports or soap operas. All fake all 4 fun.