I recently had a discussion with a colleague of mine that orbited around the Hollywood portrayal of gamblers, and the casino culture in general. Specifically, how wrong the writers get it when determining how advantage play actually goes down in casinos. In general terms, the Hollywood description is romanticized to the point where anyone who actually has had any type of success as a professional gambler merely shakes his head in disbelief. Here I’ll look at a few of the myths that are forwarded by some of the movies, then discuss how things really are. Finally, I’ll explore some of the reasons why these misconceptions are put into the movies.
In 1988, MGM released the feature film Rain Man. The movie focuses on an autistic man played by Dustin Hoffman. A central theme in the film takes place in Las Vegas at Caesars Palace. In the film, card counting is used by Hoffman’s character to win copious amounts of money from the casino in a short period of time. Tom Cruise’s character determines that Hoffman’s character is able to memorize which cards have been played and which cards are yet to be played. The misconception peddled by the movie in this case is that every card must be memorized for card counting to be effective.
It is well known that all of the cards need not be memorized. The only thing that needs to be kept track of is the proportion of high cards to low cards (using the high-low system). When a preponderance of high cards remain, it benefits the player. This is the case for three reasons. First, double downs become more valuable (and a high card is usually desired when a double opportunity happens). Secondly, because naturals occur more often, and because the payout is asymmetric (player gets paid 3-2 when he gets a natural, and player loses only his original wager if the dealer gets a blackjack), this benefits the player. Lastly, the player can alter his strategy, but the dealer is bound by the rules of the game to keep his strategy constant. These three factors give the player a distinct advantage when an excess of high cards remain.
The second movie that gets it wrong is the 2009 comedy The Hangover. Toward the end of the film the three main characters engage in card counting and win a substantial amount of money to pay the ransom to have their friend returned safely. After withdrawing a few thousand dollars from one of their bank accounts they proceed to play. During the play montage they show obvious plays that would never be executed by a professional. Some of the plays are the splitting of 5s and the splitting of tens. There is no situation in a counting game that calls for splitting 5s. The correct play is to double. But to be fair there are situations that call for spitting tens, but no professional ever does that because it draws way to much attention.
The last movie that gets is completely wrong is the movie 21, which is based on the escapades of the MIT blackjack teams. As many things in Hollywood are, it was over-the-top false. Throughout the movie, the players on the team were constant winners. They never lost a session until the point at which they decided to stray from the system. Any player will tell you that this never happens and results aren’t even mathematically relevant until the number hands approaches approximately 10,000. Any results before this number are just noise and players should expect to experience all sorts of ups and downs before this amount of play is reached. That is just the nature of the game.
These three examples of how the movies get it wrong beg the question: Why is this an ongoing theme in Hollywood movies? The likely reason is it provides entertainment value to the movie patron. Another possible reason is that in order for the studios to be granted permission to use these locations, the casinos insist that such misplays be incorporated into the storyline so that viewers are induced to mimic what they see on screen and lose more money. This is more plausible when considering studios like MGM, because they own several casino properties around the globe and its return on investment can be hedged with the bad play promoted in the movie.
The actual reason is probably some composite of these two scenarios as well as some unrealized reasoning. The truth of the matter is the life of a professional advantage player is very tempered and very calculated. Most of the time, APs are focused on playing and trying to blend into the casino environment. The objective is to NOT draw too much attention to yourself, and more specifically to try to fly under the radar of the pit bosses and surveillance. This is a complex task, as the player has to put on a convincing act while maintaining perfect concentration and, more importantly, having complete awareness of what’s going on in terms of being evaluated by casino personal. It’s vital that potential APs realize that what they see in the movies has almost no relationship with what actually happens during real play.
Never miss another post
It’s not entirely true that splitting 5’s is never the correct play. Haven’t you played a next card game recently?
Sure, but the game they were playing in the movies was a standard count game not a next card game. splitting 5s is never an option in this scenario. Context is important here.
These are three examples of how the movies get it wrong. So this begs the question: Why is this an ongoing theme in Hollywood movies?
It’s an ongoing theme in Hollywood flicks because Hollywood & the casino industy have to spin and craft the propaganda/movie a certain way, the wrong way and they do it on purpose.
Awhile back I asked a fellow poker player why he liked the movie Rounders. I innocently mentioned that the two main characters are cheats and they go around cheating people at poker. He gleefully responded back saying, “That’s why I like the movie.”
The one the directors got SO wrong was John Malkovich’s dreaded bridge shuffle in the movie Rounders. Is he supposed to scare away his opponents with such technique? Who is supposed to be scared of that? What a laughing stock of what was supposed to be serious poker play! LMAO! What a joke! John’s flashing cards and giving away info to opponents all while trying to put on a Hollywood class act. He’s a hardcore Rounder alright.
“Exuberant” amounts of money? Me, I prefer to win yuge piles of chips. But anyway…
It’s real simple. Advantage play is boring. Anybody eking out a 1% over the house is going to be doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over, and at the end, he’ll (hopefully) be like that baseball team that managed to go 83-81 over the course of the season. Winner. Whee!
Also, the vast, vast majority of APs have the personality of a potted plant. Partly because of cover, and partly because of having the stoic, cooked-oatmeal personality that is needed to grind out the aforementioned 1%. A movie star couldn’t accurately play an AP. Well, maybe Keanu Reeves.
Original edit on “exuberant” didn’t take. Now repaired.
The baseball team that manages to go 83-81 would result in an investigation as to how they played more than the standard 162 games.
The main character in “Rounders” is not a cheater but his best friend is. Symbolic of how we tend to create obstacles for ourselves by clinging to toxic friendships.
I saw that but had no way to edit it after the fact, but wasn’t worried, thinking that no one would be so trivial as to point out that I should have said 82-80, the exact number being pretty much irrelevant to the point I was making. But I keep fergettin’, this is the Internet.
I have a name for that sort of thing. I call it “Spocking.” Captain Kirk: You’ve got to give me more power, Scotty! The giant space goat will catch and devour us in two minutes!” Spock: “Two point one three five nine minutes, actually.” Kirk: (dirty look)
The main character in Rounders is a cheater! Anyone who goes along with a plan to screw over unsuspecting players in poker and who works in collusion with a partner in poker is a cheater.
I was referring to the scene with the state troopers. I haven’t seen the movie in a long time so maybe there is another scene I’m forgetting about. If that is the case, then you would be right and I stand corrected.
About the scene with the state troopers, Damon knew what Norton was up to early on when he wandered in the lodge, no good. That’s how the director crafted his character, he’s a cheater. Don’t forget the game with the trust fund babies.
“Rounders” is no way the best gambling/poker movie of all time, no where near close. The ending is all wrong and the internal dialogue doesn’t fit the true edge that is given by a weak opponent that does not know how to protect himself in a poker game. That’s 99.999999999999 % of poker players amateur and pro alike when you can get them in a position where they have NO protection, NO house dealer/crutch to keep them propped up at the table. These people just give the game away and the vast majority don’t even realize it, they’re idiots.
If you want proof, find John Malkovich and put a deck of cards in his hand and ask him to shuffle. I bet he still has the same bad habit from 1998. Nothings changed.
Wow. First of all, I appreciate the direct response but I have to admit I’m rolling my eyes at this point. I don’t know where to begin.
Like I said I haven’t seen Rounders in a long time but remember that the deal with the troopers was that Worm (Norton) would not play at all. Then when Worm enters the game, Damon’s character clearly does everything to send him the message that he will have none of his shenanigans. He goes out of his way to get him to stop. If my memory is correct, then how does that scene prove that Damon is a cheater? Again, maybe there are other scenes that prove he might have been but certainly not that one.
I do not believe that Rounders is the best gambling movie of all time but as a whole I like it for what it is: a movie that tells a story about life using poker as its setting. I enjoy it but also understand that movies are entertainment not instruction.
As for your comment about Malkovich, I have no idea what you mean. The guy is an actor. His proficiency, or lack thereof, at shuffling has nothing to do with the movie’s authenticity or what you are trying to explain in your previous paragraph.
Two quick questions: I’m curious to know why you say Rounder’s ending is all wrong and what do you think would have been the right one? Also, assuming you play poker for profit, why are you complaining that 99.9999999% are idiots?