They make the scene more dramatic with hundreds instead of chips. Worth noting, on the river it's already an $11,000 pot. Lancey bets $1000. Kid re-raises to 4500 which is still LESS than half the pot. After the final re-raise of another $5,000 , despite the drama , its STILL less than a pot size bet. I suppose it wouldn't be as dramatic if the kid just went all on without checking because he only had $4,500 left on the table on a pot that had swelled to $11,000.
The key part was on 4th street. The Kid ONLY bet 3k, I don't think it was enough. He should have bet more like 4500 or 5500 or even ALL IN to protect his hand. Lancey called the 3k because the price was right.
On 3 is where The Kid lost the big hand. Meaning on the 3rd card. When he got raised 1k, he needed to raise Lancey on that betting round. If he had raised, got Lancey out, the hand would have been over. Instead he just called and let him get there.
The Kid's mistake was check-raising. He should have just flatted the $1k river bet by Lancey. There was a 4 card straight flush possibility on the board. He foolishly got greedy. Instead, he lost $8,500 (which is worth $83,000 in today's money, this movie came out in 1965) that he shouldnt have lost. In today's money, that was one HUGE pot. No way would it be safe for players to carry that kind of cash around....no doubt would a game like that attract robbers. The reason it was stupid raise by The Kid...was because the only way he was going to get called...would be if Lancey had the jack of diamonds. If he had a regular flush, he'd have folded....or just called The Kid's $3,500 re-raise instead re-raising The Kid an additional $5k.
I love how Hollywood often shows poker. Completely unrealistic because in 5-stud, not only is a straight flush next door to impossible to make, any stud player knows you never draw to a 4-card flush when a pair shows. Yes, he also had an inside straight draw, but it's still bad. Not only that, but he also had to call the prior bet (not shown here), where he only had three to the flush with 10's showing. Even in hold 'em you would rarely see a draw like this, at least not at these stakes, and it's a lot easier to make straights and flushes (and it's still damn-near impossible to make a straight flush) with 7 cards. This scene could have been just as dramatic, and much more realistic, if they'd've shown him make trips over a pair or 2-pairs at the end.
So did you know in 5-card stud that a 4 card flush is a valid hand, did you know a 4 card strait is a valid hand? A 4 card flush beats a pair, a 4 card strait beats a pair, otherwise, the game would be boring as hell. So there are more possible hands in this version of poker.
I can't see Spencer in this role. Robinson helped make this movie a classic. Tracy was great, but you needed someone you could not help but like, yet still have a twinge of evil within him. Robinson pulled it off masterfully.
in no limit hold'em, you're correct. But in five card stud, the odds of getting your boat sunk is almost zero. But that's why it's called gambling and not collecting.
