MovieChat Forums > Lucky You (2007) Discussion > Gaping plot hole???

Gaping plot hole???

posted 17 years ago by Techer11
16 replies | jump to latest

During the game where the dealer forgets to burn (lol) and he subsequently doesn't secure his spot in the WSOP Main Event, are we supposed to believe that they are both on EXACTLY the same chip stack?

Having the same number of chips is the only possible explanation for the events that transpire: They are both all-in, Eric Bana wins the pot, and begins to walk away, indicating that he has beaten the other dude (taken all of his chips). However, when it is revealed the the other guy has actually won the pot, Eric Bana walks away having now LOST!? Is it just me, or is it HIGHLY unlikely that they would be sitting on the EXACT SAME chip stack that far into the tournament?

Sorry if this has been discussed. It probably has, considering the mistake is so blatantly obvious for anyone who has played any poker of any variation.

[–] abinferno 17 years ago

Not really a plot hole, just poorly handled. Was it likely they had the exact same chip stack? No, not likely. However, they could have been very close with Bana having the guy covered by a small amount. After finding out he lost the hand, you could make an argument he was so disgusted and so crippled by the loss that he just gave up anyway. However, they don't portray it this way in the movie. I assume they didn't want to waste the movie time by playing out one more hand where the blind would have put Bana all in anyway.

[–] AdamtheGerberBaby 17 years ago

actually, the gaping plothole in this scene is that the hand would enver have counted

-----I know the answer blowin in the wind. I also know what it sounds like when doves cry. I rule!

[–] brazezig 17 years ago

That answer makes the most sense. I haven't checked out the rules and I guess they could vary at different establishments.

The whole reason to burn a card is to prevent the possibility of the dealer feeding an accomplice the top card. That's why I thought it was strange the tournament director had the dealer burn the river card and made the top card live. I thought he should've burned the river card AND the next top card, since the dealer held the deck for a few minutes and had time to manipulate it.

[–] bj_e 17 years ago

brazezig wrote:
I haven't checked out the rules and I guess they could vary at different establishments.
---------------

Burn before the flop, turn and river. Always!

[–] brazezig 17 years ago

Yeah, I know the burn is required in hold-em. I was agreeing with AdamtheGerberBaby that the hand might not have counted at all.

But, do you agree with me that the dealer should have burned the top card, in addition to the river card that was mis-dealt? He held the deck for a good while, without being watched. Just not counting the hand at all seems like the fairest way to handle it.

[–] marcjacobspants 9 years ago

I just watched this scene and they actually did have pretty even stacks. Maybe not exactly the same but very close, they each had 2 stacks and a few extra chips. The dealer was trying to count them and knocked them over, and the other player (who had a big role in Boardwalk Empire) told the dealer each stack was 20 chips.

[–] fksdrexyl 17 years ago

Any professional player knows that you keep playing no matter how bad a loss you just suffered, no matter how small your chip stack. If the big blind is 100 and you only have 25 (for example), you're just all in for 25. If you can't cover the big blind, you're all in. You play til you are out of chips, not until you can't cover the blind.

[–] uninerd 17 years ago

Watch more closely guys. You have no way of knowing that he instantly walks away after that hand. You know that he walks away without winning. They may have played a hand or two where the other dude took the rest of Huck's crippled stack, but it was of no interest, so they jumped to him walking out. We needed to know that he lost, and the hand that practically knocked him out. Not the hand that finally lost him his last chips.

[–] steve-1401 17 years ago

This made me laugh. I mean, didn't the guy have only 5000 or so chips? There were 44 (I think) players in that game - you had to assume they started with 1000 each so Huck would have still been winning with the loss. To have been crippled by the hand they would have had to have a starting stack of about 200-300? Not very likely.

[–] jfiduccia-1 16 years ago

I posted separately about this...(starting with $200).

Some "Satellite Pro" claimed that starting with $200 is the case in these types of tournaments.

[–] opromppainen 17 years ago

Huck was playing a multi-table Super Satellite with 44 other entries when he registered a couple minutes before the beginning of the tournament. He pays 'two and a quarter' buy-in which I assume is $225.

Now I'm not sure with how many chips each player starts in a WSOP Main Event satellite but it sounds too silly to distribute 10 200 chips between 45 players (assuming no-one registered after Huck). At the beginning of the last hand the stacks look equal, reckoning the blinds and the chips Huck is handling.

You may not have meant the satellite in the movie was a tournament with ten entrants but I just wanted to point out how much they paid attention to details that might look irrelevant to people who don't give a damn about poker but which look disturbing to people who closely follow poker. So like mentioned earlier, a very poorly handled scene (well, the trend is pretty much the same throughout the entire movie).

[–] indyjones32 16 years ago

anyone who thinks the hand wouldnt count obviously shows their lack of real poker knowledge. stick to the online rooms guys....

what would happen is exactly what happened. the blank river that was supposed to be a burn card is treated as an exposed burn card. it is shown to everyone and then burnt allowing the actual river card to come. theres no debate here. every house in vegas would handle it the exact same way

[–] Natsu21 11 years ago

Actually the real gaping plot hole is the ending. Since they were both all in Huck would have had to turn over his cards it's a rule in poker tournaments in situations like that. So Huck couldn't have let his father win since it would be against to rules for Huck not to have turned over his cards showing the 2 aces. So the movie completely fails at the end trying to show a meaningful things because it could not have happened that's the real plot hole.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Please read up on the proper meaning of 'plot hole.'

IMDb: The Reason There Can Never Be Peace In The Middle East.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]