The Movie Shade, questions about "Table Stakes" (long)

[chris b]

Ok so I have the movie Shade, the one with Sly and some others including a brief appearance by Jamie Foxx, where they are all card cheats and try and screw each other out of money.

There are 2 scenes in the movie that bother me.

The first one involves Jamie Foxx where there are a few guys playing at this country club mansion thing, any way jamie foxx pushes all of his money in with four tens, other guy raises, then jamie proceeds to grab like 80g's out of his jacket in cash, when it appears that jamie will "buy" the pot the guy asks if his "marker" is still good and the lady says yes and the guy calls and jamie loses the money cause it was a setup and the other guy had 4 jacks.

The other scene is toward the end, where sly bets a bunch of money and this other guy doesnt have enough to call, wanting to be a gentleman and actually play the hand instead of again "buying" the hand, sly takes back some of the money to make it affordable for this guy to call.

So my question is regarding this buying the pot, is this something other than table stakes? my understanding was that if I have 100 and you have 200, you go all in, I can call with my 100 and only win 100 of your 200, but in these instances it would seem that I wouldnt even be able to play because I didnt have enough and would be forced to fold, and you would "buy" the pot...... any input?

Was it a misrepresentation in the movie? I mean the movie was alright but not great.

[Banks2334]

I'll let you in on a little secret....The movies always get things wrong! Table stakes is precisely that, whatever you have on the table, not what you can come up with. If poker was played like in the movie, Bill Gates woulod win every hand.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so I have the movie Shade,




[/ QUOTE ]

That was your big mistake. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
my understanding was that if I have 100 and you have 200, you go all in, I can call with my 100 and only win 100 of your 200

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct in a table stakes game. I am not aware of any online or B&M casino that does not have table stakes rules.

It is possible in a private game to not have table stakes limitations. A hundred years ago, you could not assume that a game was table stakes without asking. Today, most players have never heard of anything else, and anyone familiar with poker assumes all games are table stakes.

A big problem with "Shade" was having non-table stakes games without any explanation of what they are, and without showing why anyone would be nuts enough to play in them, especially in a private game against a bunch of crooks.

[poker1O1]

The only reason to watch Shade is to watch the first 5 minutes of hand illusion, which is incredibly awesome. As for the movie, you are correct about your all-in thoughts, but back then things were much different.

[phish]

I believe back in the OLD days (19th century), if you couldn't match the bet, you'd lose. really stupid way to play if you ask me

[Zele]

I think I read in _Knights of the Green Cloth_ that sometimes a player would have several days to come up with call money, during which time the cards would be held in the custody of a 3rd party.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe back in the OLD days (19th century), if you couldn't match the bet, you'd lose. really stupid way to play if you ask me

[/ QUOTE ]
pretty sure thats not true.

why did i o[pen this thread tho/?

[lefty rosen]

It is true and the rule was called western rules. A Big Hand for the Little Lady shows that rule.

[sublime]

There are 2 scenes in the movie that bother me.

as opposed to 46 for the average person.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 scenes in the movie that bother me.

as opposed to 46 for the average person.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to zero for the intelligent person who knew better than to see such a bad movie.