And I'm Looking For ... The Toronto Kid

[shipitfish]

Although my wife cannot understand why I refuse to remove it from the TiVo, perhaps my other readers can. My wife is the biggest film buff that I know, and keeps a online movie review journal, so perhaps even she can reap some benefit from my discussion here of this film. Perhaps it will make up for it floating around the TiVo for as long as it has. A few months ago, The Cincinnati Kid aired on Turner Classic Movies. I've saved it, watching parts of it from time to time over the past few months, and I watched parts of it again this morning. I have seen it more times than any other poker movie, and I have seen just about every one of them. I do have a bit of goofy, pointless pride about my connection to this one, though, as I first saw it in graduate school while sitting in my living room in the middle of the actual Cincinnati, just after returning from a conference in New Orleans. (The actual action of the film takes place entirely there; The “Kid” himself is a transplant, hence the name.)

This movie has often been criticized, because for some, much of the “poker isn't real enough“. I actually disagree pretty strongly; I frankly think that everyone is quibbling about the wrong things.

I am going delve into some analysis of the movie, but not from the perspective you usually see it. The poker accuracy isn't all that bad, frankly, despite the years of debate about it. I think most tend to look too much at the technical details and not its thematic study of poker.

Most of the constant discussion of this film centers around the final hand, which many argue is too improbable. The DVD release led to two articles in Card Player about the subject. Some argue that the hand is nearly statistically impossible in five card stud, and if the situation came up, cheating had to be going on. Others argue that maybe it is ok, because of the unique way that implied odds work in non-table-stakes games might cause this sort of outcome sometimes. I say none of it matters.

What matters is the deep poker theme expressed in that final hand. The Kid has spent the two day session waiting for his spot. It's no-limit, so as we know even in today's games, it's about trapping your opponent. Since they don't play table stakes, it means trapping your opponent not only for all their money, but for as much of his future earnings as you might be able to get a marker for.

That fundamental aspect — trapping — is the heart of the scene. Yes, there is only one card in the deck that can beat the Kid. But haven't all of us who have played lots of poker been in that spot where there is only one card that can be in the opponent's hand that can beat us? It's a real situation that comes up every few sessions, so it's not that unrealistic, even given that straight flushes are extremely uncommon in five card stud.

Should the kid consider that Lady Fingers cheated him? Maybe, but that's not the point. The point is that the Kid doesn't need to call off with that huge $5,000 (remember, it's 1965!) marker. He knows the way the hand went down that he was beat on the river when Lancey reraises. But he can't help but call, because he has become so too obsessed with becoming the Man; he can only beat a bluff and the Man is not dumb enough to bluff here.

Some have argued, of course, that no good poker player would want to face Lancey in the first place; he'd want to continue to beat soft games and make good money. But this is addressed clearly in the film, too. The Kid points out that you get substantially bigger action when you are the Man, because people want to say they played with you. Indeed, it's not much different than the reasons people want to play the best in the world to win the World Series of Poker these days.

Also, the Kid has pointed out that it's difficult for him to find games where he doesn't hold markers on people. He needs very much to move up to a level where he is sought after. Notice how throughout the film, the Kid is scrounging around New Orleans for a game and the Man rolls into town and suddenly juicy games are running for him (to which the Kid isn't invited)! The film clearly establishes that The Kid needs to beat the Man, not necessarily because of bravado, but because it's the only way to advance.

The bravado aspect is important, but it isn't presented incorrectly. Great players do experience that desire to play with the best, and it can be the death of many players. The Kid isn't without his flaws, and while his match with Lancey is justified, he wants it a bit too much, and that's what causes him to lose in the end.

As for the rest of the poker in the movie, it's just wonderful. It shows the frustration of mediocre players more than anything I've seen. It shows the depths of tilt, and what someone will go through to beat someone, even to the point of descending into true evil. It shows that even the best have to study, as The Kid sits down for a quick odds review before his big match.

Some will always argue that we should discount that because the film's poker is unrealistic. The item that makes it unwatchable, they'll say, is the absence of table stakes rules. It makes no sense to modern poker players that you could raise someone more than they have, requiring them to take the marker or fold. First of all, there is some evidence that poker was played this way sometimes in higher stakes private games where only opulent amateurs and serious pros played. However, even if that isn't true, the nature of the implied odds situation and the way it's used is pure poker, even if it is fantasy. When Lancey represents three jacks to the tight-weak amateur who holds three sevens, he does a wonderful poker move of reducing his final bet to something the weak player can call, further convincing the fellow that his three sevens are no good. (Do you think Lancey really failed to realize he was over-raising his opponent when he made the initial bet?) That's an artful play and well written, even if we will never see it in real life because these non-table-stakes games don't (or, perhaps, no longer) exist.

I suppose the only thing that I don't like about the movie is how women (save Lady Fingers) are portrayed. Shooter's wife is written too stereotypically for that performance to be anything but sexist. But, the whole is good enough to overcome this flaw.

The last word on the subject is that I have yet to see a better poker movie. The Cincinnati Kid shows with nuance and depth what poker is. Poker changes people's lives; it becomes a confined space where their deepest fears and aspirations manifest. The Kid, both the film itself and the character (played flawlessly by Steve McQueen) gives us a window into how poker takes hold and subtly changes people as they face the personal challenges that were once concealed, and are now made obvious in the game. If you see only one poker movie in your life, see this one. BTW, leave Rounders last on your list, as it's deeply overrated even if the poker is more “accurate”.

Comments

[roryk.livejournal.com]

the best movie i have ever seen about poker is "the hustler" even though it is about pool

it is bad compared to the book, but good. it generated a good portion of my poker philosophy.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I could probably find a better “poker” movie if I extended it to include movies that aren't literally about poker. Poker is a place where a lot of large, long-term human themes play out, and therefore so much is about poker that isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

obv, love the movie.

hustler is great.

-lanceyhoward