MovieChat Forums > The Cincinnati Kid (1965) Discussion > Lady Fingers (spoilers ahead)

Lady Fingers (spoilers ahead)


Don't you think Lady Fingers gave the right cards to Edward G. Robinson in the last game as well as Malden was giving them to McQueen until Steve realized what was happening?

Oh,yes, I believe so. Lady Fingers and Edward G. Robinson were "playing together"

reply

Malden was the one who suggested Lady Fingers to co-deal.

I dont think so, but that would have been a good twist at the end.

reply

No I don't think so. Stiener and "the Man" both were portrayed as having peronal honor, and pros don't need to cheat. No one's going to go through all the poker games they've been through and not have it come out in the wash at some point. Besides it would be absurd for Shooter to suggest LF for a fixed deal since that would of worked to the detriment of his interest. Slade was betting $25 grand on his behalf in the side action.

DMJ

reply

Also, Lady Fingers called out The Man on raising a grand with a lousy 3 flush. That made it seem like she wasn't in on it.

reply

Its funny because The Kid wanted to win fairly right? Because thats honorable. But earlier in the movie the hot blonde was talking about that French film where the soldiers cared more about their lives than their honor and The Kid says "What good is honor if you're dead." I realize losing didnt kill him but it sure did break his spirit.

reply

Well, anybody want to run the odds of one person getting a straight flush and the other person getting a full house in the same hand heads up?

Besides it would be absurd for Shooter to suggest LF for a fixed deal since that would of worked to the detriment of his interest.


Well, how would he know if she was going to be cheating for the other side?

reply

Lady Fingers does nothing but try to make Lancey feel bad, like he's on death's door--bringing up other people they've known who have died and then saying things like "Wasn't he younger than you?" I don't think she wants him to win.

reply

I once had a full house and lost to a royal flush. I have been playing poker for years and that has only happened once, but it does happen.

reply

Did it happen if five cards? That's incredibly improbable. Someone on a different thread did the math. Maybe in seven cards, but five is ridiculous. Tough enough to hit a full house or straight flush, but to have them both at the same time is outrageous.

reply

Not outrageous in the least. Good hands seem to come in bunches as do bad ones, although not as often.

I quit playing Texas hold em' 30 years ago when my aces full lost to four kings.

reply

That's no reason to quit.


The things you own end up owning you.

reply

can not for the life of me undestand the lack of logic of some people. like this fackin aceholes comment right here:-

I quit playing Texas hold em' 30 years ago when my aces full lost to four kings.

as tyler said, its not a reason to quit (unless yr house/wife/kids were wagered), and you're talking about quads as opposed to a straight flush. the chances are so much more incredible in the cincinatti situation than you're own 30 years ago - and were you playing 5 card stud or hold 'em..?
whatever the case old man, have the balls to ante up and get right back in there-for the last 29 years it might've been you holding the quads.

;->


...
Zeta Reticulli, home of the grey.



reply

Granted...Texas Hold 'em is a 7 card game, however, just this year on ESPN in the 2008 WSOP a guy caught his fourth ace on the river, he shoved all in and got called and beat, because the caller made a royal flush with the same card. I wonder what the odds are of THAT happening? Catching four aces...and losing on the river card? Also how bad does it suck to be in a $10,000 dollar tournament, catch four aces and go home? ouch...gotta be the bad beat of all time!

reply

The unlikely nature of the final hand is discussed by Anthony Holden in his book Big Deal: A Year as a Professional Poker Player, "the odds against any full house losing to any straight flush, in a two-handed game, are 45,102,781 to 1," with Holden continuing that the odds against the particular final hand in the movie are astronomical (as both hands include 10s). Holden states that the chances of both such hands appearing in one deal are "a laughable" 332,220,508,619 to 1 (more than 332 billion to 1 against) and goes on: "If these two played 50 hands of stud an hour, eight hours a day, five days a week, the situation would arise about once every 443 years."

reply

[deleted]

Maybe it's the fact that he's still alive? If he was going to die then he'd cheat, but he wasn't going to die so he was honourable.

reply

There is absolutely no way that Lady Fingers was cheating for Lancey. The only way that would make any sense would be if that was revealed at the end of the movie. It wasn't.

Lancey and the Kid were not cheaters, they were highly skilled pros. The Kid wasn't cheating, Shooter was cheating and once the Kid figured it out, he wanted to beat the hell out of Shooter.

Lancey didn't need to cheat, nor would he have been party to such a scheme. Lady Fingers and Lancey hadn't even seen each other for 10 years prior to the game, there was no chance they'd get together to fix the game.

Nope, Lancey won it fair and sqaure.

reply

Yeah, I think Lady Fingers was in on it, too. All her barbed comments to Lancy were to throw off the scent. Think of the odds of the two hands coming up at the same time, plus Lancy staying in the hand and raising, waiting for the strait flush to miraculously appear, and I think it's plausible Ladyfingers was dealing for Lancy.

Someone else mentioned the point about the Kid talking about honor not being worth your life, but in the end, his honor or pride prevented him from letting Shooter help him win. Way I see it, the Kid had honor and Lancy just wanted respect from people, especially the way his first scene is shot with him entering the hotel. The Kid has self-respect, Lancy wants other's respect, and if Lancy was cheating (and I think he was), then it was ultimately honor that separated him from the kid.

reply

The reason these two hands came up is because it is a movie and a full house losing to a straight flush is more exciting than what usually happens in a 5 card stud game, namely 2 pair kings and nines losing to 3 sevens. If you know anything about poker you now that in a 5 card game anything over 3 of a kind is rather rare. In fact, you will probably see more hands higher than a straight in a 90 minute poker movie (which gives you what, maybe 20 minutes of actual poker time) than you would see in a 5 hour poker game. I used to play a lot of 5 cards stud and I would say the vast majority or times the winning hand was no better than 2 pair and if you had a 2 pair with one pair being aces you won the pot at least 90% of the time.

People have a tendency to way overthink these movies. It's a movie and the final scenes are set up for suspense. There is nothing more to it and to think any other way IMO ruins a very good movie.

reply

[deleted]

Possible because it is a movie, but in the book, Lady Fingers was not "in on it".

reply

Surely, Lady Fingers is a cheater, and Lancey Howard too.
She talks of a possible straight flush, when she only served two cards...
Possibly "Tricky Bob" is even member of the gang....( Because he receives a bribe of Lancey ).

reply