WEBVTT - What Movies Get Right and Wrong About Poker

0:00:15.604 --> 0:00:30.164
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making

0:00:30.284 --> 0:00:33.044
<v Speaker 1>better decisions. I'm Maria Kanakova.

0:00:32.964 --> 0:00:35.804
<v Speaker 2>And I'm Nate Silver. Today in the show, Marie's working

0:00:35.844 --> 0:00:39.124
<v Speaker 2>on a TV show. She's been very coy about it,

0:00:39.204 --> 0:00:42.044
<v Speaker 2>even with me, frankly, but now she has no more

0:00:42.804 --> 0:00:44.244
<v Speaker 2>need to be. We're going to talk a little bit

0:00:44.244 --> 0:00:44.644
<v Speaker 2>about that.

0:00:45.364 --> 0:00:47.724
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that's going to be the lead in to the

0:00:48.124 --> 0:00:50.724
<v Speaker 1>to the meat of the episode, which is, you know,

0:00:51.044 --> 0:00:55.404
<v Speaker 1>poker and gambling are big topics in movies and shows,

0:00:55.444 --> 0:00:58.324
<v Speaker 1>but Nate, honestly, there are not that many good poker movies.

0:00:58.524 --> 0:01:00.004
<v Speaker 2>There are a lot of bad. Yeah, there are a

0:01:00.044 --> 0:01:01.644
<v Speaker 2>lot of bad poker movies.

0:01:01.844 --> 0:01:04.404
<v Speaker 1>There are a lot of really bad poker movies out there.

0:01:04.444 --> 0:01:06.124
<v Speaker 2>So we're gonna talking about some of the tropes and

0:01:06.164 --> 0:01:10.124
<v Speaker 2>cliches that annoy Maria and I as actually poker players.

0:01:10.124 --> 0:01:13.364
<v Speaker 2>But like, tell us more about this very exciting First all,

0:01:13.404 --> 0:01:14.804
<v Speaker 2>does it have a title? Can you share that?

0:01:14.964 --> 0:01:17.484
<v Speaker 1>Or is that no, this does not have a titled.

0:01:17.764 --> 0:01:22.084
<v Speaker 1>I am working on the most exciting untitled. Okay, it

0:01:22.124 --> 0:01:23.484
<v Speaker 1>is called untitled.

0:01:24.604 --> 0:01:29.164
<v Speaker 2>That could be a title. Yeah, absolutely, what's the show about, Maria,

0:01:29.204 --> 0:01:31.644
<v Speaker 2>It's it's a gambling adjacent.

0:01:32.524 --> 0:01:35.444
<v Speaker 1>Is it is, so we're going to be when we

0:01:35.644 --> 0:01:40.164
<v Speaker 1>start talking about actually good poker movies. The names that

0:01:40.204 --> 0:01:43.044
<v Speaker 1>are going to come up are Brian Koppleman and David Levine,

0:01:43.244 --> 0:01:46.604
<v Speaker 1>who were the creators of Rounders, which, as we will

0:01:46.764 --> 0:01:49.924
<v Speaker 1>tell you, is probably the best poker movie that has

0:01:50.004 --> 0:01:52.524
<v Speaker 1>been made, and the two of them have teamed up

0:01:52.604 --> 0:01:58.604
<v Speaker 1>with Martin Scorsese to a TV He's just a guy, yeah, cigure,

0:01:58.804 --> 0:02:01.324
<v Speaker 1>he's new. He's he's kind of young, like newcomer to

0:02:01.484 --> 0:02:04.964
<v Speaker 1>the you know, to the world of screen. It's okay

0:02:05.004 --> 0:02:07.284
<v Speaker 1>that you haven't heard of him. You know, he might

0:02:07.324 --> 0:02:12.164
<v Speaker 1>as well be untitled. They are teaming up to do

0:02:12.244 --> 0:02:15.764
<v Speaker 1>a TV show about Vegas and about the world of

0:02:15.964 --> 0:02:19.964
<v Speaker 1>casinos and gambling and you know, all of all of

0:02:20.004 --> 0:02:23.604
<v Speaker 1>those fun, high stakes things. And we I'm one of

0:02:23.604 --> 0:02:25.884
<v Speaker 1>the writers on the show, and we've been working on

0:02:25.964 --> 0:02:30.724
<v Speaker 1>it since September, I guess is when the writer's room started.

0:02:30.764 --> 0:02:33.644
<v Speaker 1>But yes, I've been very coy about it because you know,

0:02:33.684 --> 0:02:35.564
<v Speaker 1>it's it's something that we really didn't want to talk

0:02:35.564 --> 0:02:38.724
<v Speaker 1>about until the show was picked up. Nate, I don't

0:02:38.724 --> 0:02:42.204
<v Speaker 1>know how much you know about the inner workings of Hollywood.

0:02:42.444 --> 0:02:43.284
<v Speaker 2>But even when.

0:02:45.404 --> 0:02:51.044
<v Speaker 1>Even if we have such no name people as exactly exactly,

0:02:51.484 --> 0:02:54.244
<v Speaker 1>even if you have people whose name Martin Score score

0:02:54.244 --> 0:02:57.844
<v Speaker 1>what Yeah, even if you have Scorsese and Koppleman and

0:02:57.924 --> 0:03:01.164
<v Speaker 1>Levine and like all of these heavy hitters who have

0:03:01.884 --> 0:03:07.404
<v Speaker 1>a lot of you know, not just sway, but proof

0:03:07.484 --> 0:03:10.004
<v Speaker 1>that they can do things that people want to watch, right,

0:03:10.044 --> 0:03:12.004
<v Speaker 1>which is what which is what Hollywood wants, which is

0:03:12.004 --> 0:03:14.964
<v Speaker 1>what Netflix want. They want people who can bring eyeballs,

0:03:15.164 --> 0:03:17.564
<v Speaker 1>and you have and you have this team who definitely

0:03:17.884 --> 0:03:21.204
<v Speaker 1>has a really good track record and doing this. You know,

0:03:21.244 --> 0:03:24.284
<v Speaker 1>these are these are people who can really make sure

0:03:24.324 --> 0:03:27.284
<v Speaker 1>that viewers come and they they've they're known for making

0:03:27.324 --> 0:03:31.524
<v Speaker 1>good television, good good films. And yet right even still

0:03:31.884 --> 0:03:34.004
<v Speaker 1>that's not a guarantee that something's going to be made

0:03:34.044 --> 0:03:37.724
<v Speaker 1>these days. It's a really, really tough market. So we

0:03:37.724 --> 0:03:40.404
<v Speaker 1>were just waiting until you know, the green light, the

0:03:40.404 --> 0:03:43.884
<v Speaker 1>official announcements, the go aheads and that's where we are

0:03:43.964 --> 0:03:46.764
<v Speaker 1>right now. But it's something that's really exciting. It is

0:03:46.924 --> 0:03:50.164
<v Speaker 1>such a rich world, as you know, you know, I

0:03:50.204 --> 0:03:53.884
<v Speaker 1>spend at least half my year in Vegas and have

0:03:54.004 --> 0:03:56.244
<v Speaker 1>been doing that for a number of years now, and

0:03:56.444 --> 0:04:00.204
<v Speaker 1>I'm really excited to kind of have content that actually

0:04:00.964 --> 0:04:05.364
<v Speaker 1>shows Vegas the way it is and that understands, you know,

0:04:05.884 --> 0:04:09.684
<v Speaker 1>what this world actually entails, because I feel like so

0:04:09.844 --> 0:04:13.404
<v Speaker 1>much out there is written and told by people who

0:04:13.484 --> 0:04:16.444
<v Speaker 1>have no fucking clue to be perfectly honest, right, they're

0:04:16.444 --> 0:04:19.284
<v Speaker 1>not of Vegas, they're not of the gambling world. They

0:04:19.284 --> 0:04:22.924
<v Speaker 1>don't understand the dynamics here, and it shows. So I'm

0:04:22.964 --> 0:04:24.804
<v Speaker 1>really excited. I think we have a great team in

0:04:24.884 --> 0:04:28.164
<v Speaker 1>place of people who actually know what they're talking about.

0:04:29.724 --> 0:04:31.444
<v Speaker 1>I have no idea how the show's going to come out,

0:04:31.484 --> 0:04:33.444
<v Speaker 1>but I'm proud and happy.

0:04:33.604 --> 0:04:36.684
<v Speaker 2>What's it like actually in the writer's room, You're like,

0:04:36.724 --> 0:04:37.924
<v Speaker 2>are you actually in a room?

0:04:38.844 --> 0:04:40.124
<v Speaker 1>Oh, we're actually in a room.

0:04:40.204 --> 0:04:42.364
<v Speaker 2>Yes, we actually you have to have right in front

0:04:42.364 --> 0:04:42.964
<v Speaker 2>of other people.

0:04:43.444 --> 0:04:45.724
<v Speaker 1>No, you don't write in front of other people. The

0:04:45.764 --> 0:04:49.084
<v Speaker 1>way a writers room works is you sit in a

0:04:49.164 --> 0:04:52.924
<v Speaker 1>room with a bunch of people and you brainstorm, and

0:04:52.964 --> 0:04:56.924
<v Speaker 1>you kind of you throw ideas back and forth and

0:04:56.964 --> 0:04:59.444
<v Speaker 1>you develop things. You try to figure out you know,

0:04:59.444 --> 0:05:01.404
<v Speaker 1>what's the shape of an episode going to look like.

0:05:01.604 --> 0:05:03.764
<v Speaker 1>There are lots of whiteboards around and you know you're

0:05:03.764 --> 0:05:06.404
<v Speaker 1>write on those, but it's Yeah, it's more of a

0:05:06.924 --> 0:05:12.644
<v Speaker 1>you don't start saying like scene one, Nate Silver says, Maria,

0:05:13.084 --> 0:05:18.044
<v Speaker 1>what are we talking today about today on Risky Business? Maria, Nate,

0:05:18.164 --> 0:05:19.484
<v Speaker 1>are we going to do this again?

0:05:20.164 --> 0:05:20.444
<v Speaker 2>Nate?

0:05:20.804 --> 0:05:22.084
<v Speaker 1>What are you talking about?

0:05:22.284 --> 0:05:22.644
<v Speaker 2>Maria?

0:05:22.964 --> 0:05:27.884
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that's not how a writer's works. It is much

0:05:27.964 --> 0:05:32.644
<v Speaker 1>more of a kind of back and forth collaborative, like

0:05:32.764 --> 0:05:35.364
<v Speaker 1>let's get ideas going off each other.

0:05:35.884 --> 0:05:38.324
<v Speaker 2>Who actually writes the actual script though, someone's like, I'm

0:05:38.324 --> 0:05:40.804
<v Speaker 2>just gonna take all your inpoint into account and write

0:05:40.844 --> 0:05:41.204
<v Speaker 2>the show.

0:05:41.484 --> 0:05:44.484
<v Speaker 1>It depends. It depends on the show. It depends on

0:05:45.964 --> 0:05:48.444
<v Speaker 1>It depends on how things are set up so far.

0:05:48.604 --> 0:05:51.684
<v Speaker 1>For I actually don't know if I'm allowed to have

0:05:51.844 --> 0:05:54.204
<v Speaker 1>how much I'm allowed to say, but I believe I

0:05:54.244 --> 0:05:56.844
<v Speaker 1>think that this is actually pretty public for this show

0:05:56.844 --> 0:05:59.164
<v Speaker 1>so far. Brian and David, you know, we'll be taking

0:05:59.164 --> 0:06:02.284
<v Speaker 1>the lead on writing all of the episodes because they're

0:06:02.324 --> 0:06:03.924
<v Speaker 1>both really excited about this show.

0:06:04.044 --> 0:06:06.164
<v Speaker 2>So can they just like passively aggressively say oh, I

0:06:06.164 --> 0:06:08.164
<v Speaker 2>appreciate that feedback and then ignore it.

0:06:08.844 --> 0:06:12.164
<v Speaker 1>Oh? Sure, absolutely, But they wouldn't. They wouldn't do that

0:06:12.204 --> 0:06:15.044
<v Speaker 1>if they don't like very They would tell you that

0:06:15.124 --> 0:06:15.844
<v Speaker 1>they don't like it.

0:06:16.524 --> 0:06:19.364
<v Speaker 2>Yes, when's so, what's the timeline for, like when this

0:06:19.404 --> 0:06:19.924
<v Speaker 2>would air?

0:06:21.204 --> 0:06:27.924
<v Speaker 1>Ha ha okay, okay, okay, okay, that's not me, that's Hollywood.

0:06:28.204 --> 0:06:31.564
<v Speaker 2>Okay, No, we yeah, it's.

0:06:31.404 --> 0:06:35.484
<v Speaker 1>It's very early in the process, and so it's unclear.

0:06:35.644 --> 0:06:40.124
<v Speaker 1>I mean, and I you know, I'm not Brian or David,

0:06:40.244 --> 0:06:42.404
<v Speaker 1>so I am not kind of in the driver's seat

0:06:42.484 --> 0:06:45.084
<v Speaker 1>of any of those decisions. So I just know what

0:06:45.124 --> 0:06:47.444
<v Speaker 1>I'm told, and I have no idea when this is

0:06:47.484 --> 0:06:50.244
<v Speaker 1>going to be on air. But yes, this is really fun.

0:06:50.884 --> 0:06:54.204
<v Speaker 1>It's been a great experience. I love the I love

0:06:54.244 --> 0:06:57.644
<v Speaker 1>the team, and I've loved working with them, and I'm

0:06:57.684 --> 0:07:00.044
<v Speaker 1>excited for it too, you know, for it to be

0:07:00.124 --> 0:07:03.884
<v Speaker 1>on everyone's TV screens and or computer screens or phone

0:07:03.924 --> 0:07:08.044
<v Speaker 1>screens or however you consume your content. And on. On

0:07:08.084 --> 0:07:10.604
<v Speaker 1>that note, let's talk a little bit more about, you know,

0:07:11.004 --> 0:07:15.004
<v Speaker 1>poker and gambling movies more broadly, which ones we like,

0:07:15.204 --> 0:07:17.884
<v Speaker 1>which ones we don't like, the good, the bad, the ugly.

0:07:17.924 --> 0:07:20.964
<v Speaker 1>Because Nate, there are a lot of really bad poker

0:07:21.004 --> 0:07:21.804
<v Speaker 1>movies out there.

0:07:21.964 --> 0:07:26.124
<v Speaker 2>We're gonna have like an escalating pyramid of like sins

0:07:26.164 --> 0:07:30.484
<v Speaker 2>against poker that are sometimes depicted in bad poker movies,

0:07:30.524 --> 0:07:33.924
<v Speaker 2>movies that include poker scenes that aren't about poker, you

0:07:33.964 --> 0:07:36.404
<v Speaker 2>know number one, some of whose don't even understand the

0:07:36.444 --> 0:07:39.284
<v Speaker 2>notion of like table stakes, right, they have the notion

0:07:39.324 --> 0:07:42.084
<v Speaker 2>that like, okay, yeah, somebody better it's not gonna call

0:07:42.124 --> 0:07:45.684
<v Speaker 2>my investor, pause the hand, right, we call my investors

0:07:45.844 --> 0:07:48.884
<v Speaker 2>because of a good hand getting million dollars. That's one trope, right.

0:07:48.924 --> 0:07:53.684
<v Speaker 2>Another trope is like the you know, royal flush versus

0:07:54.004 --> 0:07:57.524
<v Speaker 2>for a kind kind of thing where you're your cold.

0:07:57.284 --> 0:08:00.244
<v Speaker 1>Decks, Nate, have you seen a casino royal?

0:08:00.684 --> 0:08:04.524
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this is an example, right, but yeah, a weak

0:08:04.564 --> 0:08:07.324
<v Speaker 2>flush against the busted draw kind of thing, right, And

0:08:07.404 --> 0:08:09.364
<v Speaker 2>the vast majority of the time, like I've never liked,

0:08:11.204 --> 0:08:14.444
<v Speaker 2>I ever lost with quads. Probably not in all the

0:08:14.444 --> 0:08:16.204
<v Speaker 2>poker hands that I've played. I'm trying to think if

0:08:16.204 --> 0:08:18.204
<v Speaker 2>they've sure lost with full houses to quads, right, but

0:08:18.244 --> 0:08:21.324
<v Speaker 2>maybe not lost with quads let alone, you know, straight

0:08:21.364 --> 0:08:23.684
<v Speaker 2>flush over straight flush or things like that, And that's

0:08:23.724 --> 0:08:25.764
<v Speaker 2>that's not realistic. You know. Another big one that like,

0:08:25.844 --> 0:08:29.804
<v Speaker 2>I get annoyed because I'll sometimes deal amateur backyard poker

0:08:29.844 --> 0:08:32.484
<v Speaker 2>games with one group of friends, right, people picking their

0:08:32.524 --> 0:08:35.204
<v Speaker 2>cards up way off the table to look at them

0:08:35.284 --> 0:08:36.764
<v Speaker 2>like that's super Oh my god.

0:08:36.804 --> 0:08:40.804
<v Speaker 1>But that no, Nate, that happens all the time. Yeah,

0:08:40.844 --> 0:08:41.644
<v Speaker 1>with bad players.

0:08:41.684 --> 0:08:42.044
<v Speaker 2>I see.

0:08:42.124 --> 0:08:46.244
<v Speaker 1>So I just played in a charity event last week,

0:08:46.684 --> 0:08:49.204
<v Speaker 1>great great school charity, but there were tons of people

0:08:49.244 --> 0:08:52.004
<v Speaker 1>who don't know how to play poker, and the first thing,

0:08:52.084 --> 0:08:53.804
<v Speaker 1>or who play it but like not that well, the

0:08:53.804 --> 0:08:55.564
<v Speaker 1>first thing they do is they take their cards up

0:08:55.564 --> 0:08:56.884
<v Speaker 1>and they put them in our face. I'm like, no,

0:08:57.044 --> 0:09:00.084
<v Speaker 1>put that shit down, right, like, that is not how

0:09:00.124 --> 0:09:02.604
<v Speaker 1>you look at your cards. But I've had that happen

0:09:03.364 --> 0:09:06.204
<v Speaker 1>in tournaments as well, Like there are players who just

0:09:06.364 --> 0:09:09.004
<v Speaker 1>do that, and I'm like, you have no business playing

0:09:09.044 --> 0:09:12.324
<v Speaker 1>a thousand dollar tournament or whatever, you know, five thousand

0:09:12.364 --> 0:09:14.404
<v Speaker 1>dollars tournament if that's how you look at your cards,

0:09:14.444 --> 0:09:17.084
<v Speaker 1>because people can see that. And I do try to

0:09:17.124 --> 0:09:20.484
<v Speaker 1>warn people, you know, not to do it, but sometimes

0:09:20.524 --> 0:09:23.324
<v Speaker 1>they just won't listen and they just keep keep putting

0:09:23.364 --> 0:09:26.484
<v Speaker 1>them up. But in these movies, oftentimes that's how everyone

0:09:26.604 --> 0:09:29.084
<v Speaker 1>looks at their cards, and I think that that it

0:09:29.484 --> 0:09:32.204
<v Speaker 1>is very frustrating when you see that. You're like, no,

0:09:32.204 --> 0:09:35.124
<v Speaker 1>no professional player would actually ever look at a hand

0:09:35.124 --> 0:09:37.484
<v Speaker 1>that way, and yet you see all the time, hmm,

0:09:38.044 --> 0:09:41.404
<v Speaker 1>let's see what do I have here, Let's show it

0:09:41.444 --> 0:09:42.404
<v Speaker 1>to the cameras.

0:09:43.084 --> 0:09:45.644
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, you're trying to conceal information, right, that's the name

0:09:45.644 --> 0:09:47.284
<v Speaker 2>of the game. And like, yeah, you know the people

0:09:47.284 --> 0:09:49.524
<v Speaker 2>who unintentionally at their cards up too high, but like

0:09:49.564 --> 0:09:52.724
<v Speaker 2>that's that's like bad antiquette. There's very little awareness in

0:09:52.804 --> 0:09:57.124
<v Speaker 2>poker movies of like what the stack sizes are, right,

0:09:57.484 --> 0:09:59.604
<v Speaker 2>you know, yes, what is the amount that you have

0:10:00.204 --> 0:10:03.004
<v Speaker 2>behind you? Relatively amount in the pot, which can like

0:10:03.124 --> 0:10:05.524
<v Speaker 2>radically change strategy. Right, if there's a hundred thousand dollars

0:10:05.524 --> 0:10:07.124
<v Speaker 2>in the pot and you have a million dollars behind you,

0:10:07.764 --> 0:10:11.124
<v Speaker 2>very different than if you have only quote unquote another

0:10:11.164 --> 0:10:14.884
<v Speaker 2>fifty thousand dollars with In fact, early poker broadcasts you

0:10:14.884 --> 0:10:20.244
<v Speaker 2>watch like early early World Series coverage or early WPT coverage, right,

0:10:20.684 --> 0:10:22.884
<v Speaker 2>and they often don't list the stack sizes, which makes

0:10:22.884 --> 0:10:27.844
<v Speaker 2>it like to a first approximation approximately useless to professional

0:10:27.844 --> 0:10:29.764
<v Speaker 2>book a player. But and you don't have It's like

0:10:29.964 --> 0:10:31.564
<v Speaker 2>it's like watching a mess we and you don't know

0:10:31.604 --> 0:10:33.204
<v Speaker 2>what the score is. Right, There's a really exciting play

0:10:33.204 --> 0:10:35.244
<v Speaker 2>and we're not sure which team won. So that's like

0:10:35.284 --> 0:10:37.884
<v Speaker 2>another trope that needs to be needs to be killed.

0:10:38.724 --> 0:10:40.644
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and I think that a lot of times. By

0:10:40.644 --> 0:10:42.764
<v Speaker 1>the way, Casino Royale is a fun movie. I like

0:10:42.844 --> 0:10:45.764
<v Speaker 1>that movie. I think it's a great movie. Daniel Craig

0:10:45.884 --> 0:10:48.644
<v Speaker 1>is wonderful. But one of the things that that movie, like,

0:10:48.724 --> 0:10:51.644
<v Speaker 1>it really bugs me is if you think about kind

0:10:51.644 --> 0:10:54.284
<v Speaker 1>of the sizes of those pots and those steaks, like

0:10:54.444 --> 0:10:57.724
<v Speaker 1>no one has anything behind, right, Their buy ins are

0:10:57.764 --> 0:11:02.244
<v Speaker 1>completely illogical when it comes to the stakes of the game, Like, wait,

0:11:02.364 --> 0:11:05.444
<v Speaker 1>if we're playing that much a hand, then everyone, then

0:11:05.564 --> 0:11:07.244
<v Speaker 1>you're not buying in for a million dollars. You have

0:11:07.284 --> 0:11:09.484
<v Speaker 1>to buy in for a lot more, right, Like that

0:11:09.644 --> 0:11:13.164
<v Speaker 1>stacked to pot ratio should not be happening at these intervals,

0:11:13.164 --> 0:11:15.764
<v Speaker 1>and so people really do lose that sense of perspective

0:11:15.764 --> 0:11:18.164
<v Speaker 1>because they're like, oh, a million sounds like a big number, right,

0:11:18.204 --> 0:11:20.444
<v Speaker 1>And this sounds like a big number, but there is

0:11:20.604 --> 0:11:23.804
<v Speaker 1>a lack of kind of knowledge about what the number

0:11:23.844 --> 0:11:26.364
<v Speaker 1>should be. And let me then add on to that.

0:11:26.444 --> 0:11:30.244
<v Speaker 1>Things that can frustrate me is that movies tend to

0:11:30.284 --> 0:11:34.244
<v Speaker 1>conflate tournament and cash poker, right, like there's no clear

0:11:34.364 --> 0:11:37.484
<v Speaker 1>they don't really understand that the two are very different games,

0:11:37.844 --> 0:11:39.884
<v Speaker 1>and that you can play poker where chips have no

0:11:39.964 --> 0:11:42.964
<v Speaker 1>monetary value. And so it really frustrates me when you

0:11:42.964 --> 0:11:46.564
<v Speaker 1>see people playing a tournament and they're announcing their bets

0:11:46.564 --> 0:11:51.124
<v Speaker 1>in terms of dollars and they're basically kind of carrying

0:11:51.124 --> 0:11:53.044
<v Speaker 1>on as if it's a cash game. But I'm like, wait, no,

0:11:53.124 --> 0:11:55.804
<v Speaker 1>you're in a tournament. That's not how this works, right,

0:11:56.004 --> 0:11:57.644
<v Speaker 1>You're not betting ten dollars.

0:11:57.324 --> 0:11:59.564
<v Speaker 2>Or you're not now my mom, my mom is a

0:11:59.644 --> 0:12:03.364
<v Speaker 2>victim of So I was playing in some World Poker

0:12:03.404 --> 0:12:06.124
<v Speaker 2>taur tournament two years ago, right, and like whatever, you

0:12:06.124 --> 0:12:09.364
<v Speaker 2>start out with sixty thousan chips, a hundred thousand pips thing,

0:12:09.404 --> 0:12:11.284
<v Speaker 2>maybe an impt and like I wound up with like

0:12:12.204 --> 0:12:13.724
<v Speaker 2>four hundred and fifty thousand SCHIPs at the end of

0:12:13.764 --> 0:12:15.724
<v Speaker 2>day one, was one of the chip leaders. It got

0:12:15.724 --> 0:12:17.684
<v Speaker 2>circular on social media. My mom was like, you made

0:12:17.684 --> 0:12:19.844
<v Speaker 2>four to few thousand dollars. I'm like, no, Mom, might

0:12:19.884 --> 0:12:23.644
<v Speaker 2>have made I've made zero dollars so far. I think

0:12:23.684 --> 0:12:26.324
<v Speaker 2>I eventually catched that hearing it for seven thousand dollars

0:12:26.764 --> 0:12:30.044
<v Speaker 2>or something, right, which is probably your modal expectation. After

0:12:30.164 --> 0:12:31.324
<v Speaker 2>day one, even with a big.

0:12:31.164 --> 0:12:34.924
<v Speaker 1>Stack, And so, yeah, your mom can be forgiven, because

0:12:34.924 --> 0:12:37.164
<v Speaker 1>a lot of times movies make it seem that way

0:12:37.364 --> 0:12:39.644
<v Speaker 1>with like the dollar signs and all of that. But yes,

0:12:39.724 --> 0:12:41.644
<v Speaker 1>I've had people be like, oh my god, why can't

0:12:41.684 --> 0:12:43.404
<v Speaker 1>you just take it and leave at the end of

0:12:43.444 --> 0:12:45.844
<v Speaker 1>the day. I'm like, because this isn't money, Like this

0:12:45.884 --> 0:12:49.444
<v Speaker 1>is play money. These are play chips, and I can't know,

0:12:49.604 --> 0:12:51.884
<v Speaker 1>of course, Like believe me, if I could not, if

0:12:51.884 --> 0:12:55.444
<v Speaker 1>I could cash out a million right now, then then

0:12:55.484 --> 0:12:58.484
<v Speaker 1>I'd be I'd be out of there. By the way.

0:12:58.884 --> 0:13:00.884
<v Speaker 1>Great poker movie that I would put in my top

0:13:00.924 --> 0:13:03.084
<v Speaker 1>three and eight, I'm wondering if you've seen this one

0:13:03.484 --> 0:13:09.284
<v Speaker 1>is California Split, which is a classic by Robert Altman,

0:13:09.564 --> 0:13:13.484
<v Speaker 1>and it's about two friends, one of whom's a degenerate gambler,

0:13:13.484 --> 0:13:17.284
<v Speaker 1>one of whom becomes a degenerate gambler by association. But

0:13:17.524 --> 0:13:20.644
<v Speaker 1>there's a there are some great poker scenes in there,

0:13:21.644 --> 0:13:23.804
<v Speaker 1>and I think that that also one of the things

0:13:23.804 --> 0:13:27.404
<v Speaker 1>that gets right is it really depicts kind of that

0:13:28.204 --> 0:13:32.564
<v Speaker 1>the mentality of the gambler who is up and makes

0:13:32.604 --> 0:13:37.084
<v Speaker 1>money and won't walk away right, who thinks that okay,

0:13:37.124 --> 0:13:39.604
<v Speaker 1>you know, but then at the end, I mean, I'm

0:13:39.644 --> 0:13:42.364
<v Speaker 1>gonna spoiler this. This movie came out decades ago. If

0:13:42.404 --> 0:13:45.324
<v Speaker 1>you haven't seen it, Like, just watch the movie. It's

0:13:45.324 --> 0:13:47.324
<v Speaker 1>a good movie. But at the end, one of them

0:13:47.364 --> 0:13:50.204
<v Speaker 1>does walk away, right, He does actually make that decision

0:13:50.604 --> 0:13:55.004
<v Speaker 1>after winning in this huge game with Amarillo. Slim actually

0:13:55.004 --> 0:13:58.564
<v Speaker 1>an amoralos. Slim has a part in the movie and

0:13:59.044 --> 0:14:01.684
<v Speaker 1>ends up ends up walking away winner and then splitting

0:14:01.804 --> 0:14:04.844
<v Speaker 1>the winnings and just saying I'm done. And I think

0:14:04.884 --> 0:14:08.364
<v Speaker 1>that that's very cool, and that does happen as well,

0:14:08.524 --> 0:14:11.284
<v Speaker 1>but it does depict to that kind of mental calculus

0:14:11.324 --> 0:14:13.924
<v Speaker 1>also of is this a good spot? Is this a

0:14:13.964 --> 0:14:18.084
<v Speaker 1>good game? Right? Can I make more money here? When

0:14:18.124 --> 0:14:20.804
<v Speaker 1>should I walk away? When did I get lucky? Because

0:14:20.844 --> 0:14:22.804
<v Speaker 1>I just beat players who were a lot better than

0:14:22.844 --> 0:14:25.484
<v Speaker 1>I was a lot of people don't have that discipline

0:14:25.484 --> 0:14:28.164
<v Speaker 1>and don't have that self awareness, and a lot of people,

0:14:28.524 --> 0:14:31.044
<v Speaker 1>as we've talked about in the past, night end up

0:14:31.244 --> 0:14:34.164
<v Speaker 1>having an overblown sense of their own edge and their

0:14:34.204 --> 0:14:37.364
<v Speaker 1>own skill. And so it's such a good poker skill

0:14:37.444 --> 0:14:39.404
<v Speaker 1>to know, Okay, you know what, I'm just going to

0:14:39.444 --> 0:14:41.644
<v Speaker 1>take this money and I'm going to leave. You don't

0:14:41.644 --> 0:14:44.244
<v Speaker 1>see that often depicted correctly in movies.

0:14:44.644 --> 0:14:46.404
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's not quite a poker movie, but as a

0:14:46.444 --> 0:14:49.644
<v Speaker 2>gambling movie. The movie twenty one, which is based on

0:14:49.684 --> 0:14:52.004
<v Speaker 2>the book Bringing Down the House by Ben Mezrick, that

0:14:52.044 --> 0:14:54.164
<v Speaker 2>came out kind of right when it was getting into poker,

0:14:54.204 --> 0:14:56.404
<v Speaker 2>and like that, I guess the book could come out

0:14:56.444 --> 0:14:59.004
<v Speaker 2>the movie was maybe later, right, And I know Jeff

0:14:59.044 --> 0:15:03.284
<v Speaker 2>ma one of the principles behind this Good Guy, you know,

0:15:03.404 --> 0:15:05.964
<v Speaker 2>that depicted a very romantic idea of like you kind

0:15:05.964 --> 0:15:10.484
<v Speaker 2>of fly into Vegas and you're literally bringing home suitcases

0:15:10.524 --> 0:15:13.284
<v Speaker 2>of cash, right and kind of staying up all night.

0:15:13.324 --> 0:15:15.644
<v Speaker 2>And when I talked to Jeff for my book about

0:15:15.644 --> 0:15:17.604
<v Speaker 2>his experience the MIT black Jack Team, which is what

0:15:17.644 --> 0:15:19.804
<v Speaker 2>it's about, it's like, yeah, no, right, we would kind

0:15:19.804 --> 0:15:22.204
<v Speaker 2>of like you know, we would go and this is

0:15:22.284 --> 0:15:25.564
<v Speaker 2>before you even had nightclubs in Las Vegas, right, we

0:15:25.604 --> 0:15:27.364
<v Speaker 2>were when it was always going to Vegas. We're going

0:15:27.364 --> 0:15:30.324
<v Speaker 2>to some fucking casino and like Dubuque, Iowa half the time.

0:15:30.444 --> 0:15:32.444
<v Speaker 2>So we thought it was a sharper or a less sharp,

0:15:33.764 --> 0:15:35.964
<v Speaker 2>you know, less detection of card counters, which is what

0:15:36.004 --> 0:15:39.844
<v Speaker 2>they were doing. Right. So, like you know, real gambling

0:15:40.764 --> 0:15:44.644
<v Speaker 2>is a grind most of the time, right, And like

0:15:44.724 --> 0:15:46.004
<v Speaker 2>one thing you see too, like this is a problem

0:15:46.044 --> 0:15:47.644
<v Speaker 2>with like movies in general, Like Maria, I would like

0:15:47.644 --> 0:15:51.004
<v Speaker 2>for there be like a movie or this TV show

0:15:51.084 --> 0:15:57.564
<v Speaker 2>right where like there are complications that unfold and then

0:15:57.604 --> 0:16:01.804
<v Speaker 2>they kind of unravel themselves in a very non dramatic way.

0:16:01.804 --> 0:16:05.284
<v Speaker 2>It's like, oh, that was just a misunderstanding. That was

0:16:05.284 --> 0:16:08.804
<v Speaker 2>just a misunderstanding. Actually, right, let's just make up and

0:16:08.844 --> 0:16:10.924
<v Speaker 2>you know, and nothing much happens to the anti clima.

0:16:10.964 --> 0:16:13.764
<v Speaker 2>Actually know all that foreshadowing. Those are just weird coincidences.

0:16:13.804 --> 0:16:16.484
<v Speaker 2>Nothing actually happened, just to keep people on their toes,

0:16:17.204 --> 0:16:21.084
<v Speaker 2>just to have some like gto bluffing frequency when you're

0:16:21.084 --> 0:16:23.404
<v Speaker 2>having the more predictable I guess outcome, you know what

0:16:23.404 --> 0:16:26.204
<v Speaker 2>I mean. But that probably won't happen. But yeah, Jeff's

0:16:26.204 --> 0:16:29.564
<v Speaker 2>biggest complain about the book, particularly the movie. I mean

0:16:29.604 --> 0:16:33.044
<v Speaker 2>the book itself and is a althor another person I

0:16:33.164 --> 0:16:36.284
<v Speaker 2>met friendly guy, you know. Ben says, this is kind

0:16:36.284 --> 0:16:39.404
<v Speaker 2>of a popular book and I wouldn't say inspire bat

0:16:39.404 --> 0:16:42.004
<v Speaker 2>toy story, but it's trying to to make a little

0:16:42.004 --> 0:16:44.964
<v Speaker 2>more cinematic and the movie goes further. Right, Jeff says, look,

0:16:45.364 --> 0:16:48.404
<v Speaker 2>the movie didn't depict so Heet really mad. When a

0:16:48.524 --> 0:16:52.964
<v Speaker 2>scene depicts him or his character on tilt, the character

0:16:53.124 --> 0:16:58.524
<v Speaker 2>like loses every single hand he plays, Whereas conversely, when

0:16:58.524 --> 0:17:01.764
<v Speaker 2>they're doing things the right way right, they win every

0:17:01.764 --> 0:17:03.884
<v Speaker 2>single hand. They might literally not be a hand that

0:17:03.924 --> 0:17:06.244
<v Speaker 2>they don't win. Right. Similarly, in like rain Man, it

0:17:06.284 --> 0:17:08.924
<v Speaker 2>doesn't Hoffman character right, he goes and they win every hand.

0:17:09.004 --> 0:17:11.644
<v Speaker 2>And like blackjack, even if you kind of know how

0:17:11.684 --> 0:17:13.924
<v Speaker 2>many cards you're in the bet, yeah, you might have

0:17:13.964 --> 0:17:17.004
<v Speaker 2>a fifty two, fifty three to fifty four percent edge,

0:17:17.004 --> 0:17:18.884
<v Speaker 2>which is very big for gambling, right, but you're not.

0:17:18.884 --> 0:17:21.004
<v Speaker 1>Going to be winning huge by the way, Yeah, yeah, but.

0:17:21.044 --> 0:17:22.404
<v Speaker 2>You're not gonna be winning every bet.

0:17:22.484 --> 0:17:22.604
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:17:22.604 --> 0:17:26.284
<v Speaker 2>It's very hard to depict like randomness, and it's hard

0:17:26.284 --> 0:17:27.564
<v Speaker 2>in real life. It's hard to say I made a

0:17:27.564 --> 0:17:30.564
<v Speaker 2>good forecast, I made a good bet. There was a

0:17:30.564 --> 0:17:32.604
<v Speaker 2>fifty five to forty five bet, which is great. You're

0:17:32.604 --> 0:17:35.124
<v Speaker 2>still going to lose that bet forty five percent of

0:17:35.204 --> 0:17:36.924
<v Speaker 2>the time. Right. The notion of a sure thing, the

0:17:36.964 --> 0:17:39.844
<v Speaker 2>notion of you know, variance, goes out the window, and

0:17:39.924 --> 0:17:41.564
<v Speaker 2>randomness goes out the window. It's all the kind of

0:17:41.564 --> 0:17:45.124
<v Speaker 2>a morality play, and like that's another unrealistic component of

0:17:45.204 --> 0:17:49.044
<v Speaker 2>like of movies in general, but especially gambling adjacent movies.

0:17:49.764 --> 0:17:52.164
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, absolutely, I mean I think that a lot

0:17:52.204 --> 0:17:57.644
<v Speaker 1>of things have to change in service of storytelling and

0:17:58.444 --> 0:18:02.284
<v Speaker 1>creating a story that's both visually compelling and also has

0:18:02.324 --> 0:18:08.004
<v Speaker 1>a compelling kind of storyline and that seems plausible to people. So,

0:18:08.764 --> 0:18:10.644
<v Speaker 1>you know the part of what you were talking about,

0:18:10.684 --> 0:18:12.804
<v Speaker 1>how like the actual trips did not look at all

0:18:12.884 --> 0:18:15.964
<v Speaker 1>like that, you know, not flying to Las Vegas for

0:18:16.004 --> 0:18:18.764
<v Speaker 1>these glamorous weekends every time and you're obviously like in

0:18:18.764 --> 0:18:21.844
<v Speaker 1>the middle of nowhere and like not very glamorous casinos,

0:18:21.884 --> 0:18:24.204
<v Speaker 1>doing not very glamorous things. That's part of it. That's

0:18:24.284 --> 0:18:26.124
<v Speaker 1>kind of part of the visual appeal and kind of

0:18:26.124 --> 0:18:29.724
<v Speaker 1>the story. But the other part of it, the randomness.

0:18:30.004 --> 0:18:35.124
<v Speaker 1>I think that that is something that you know, the

0:18:35.204 --> 0:18:40.324
<v Speaker 1>human mind just completely struggles with. And poker. We've talked

0:18:40.364 --> 0:18:43.644
<v Speaker 1>about this before, as I spoke about with Frank Lance,

0:18:43.684 --> 0:18:47.164
<v Speaker 1>who who studies games. He's a game designer. He teaches

0:18:47.204 --> 0:18:51.404
<v Speaker 1>games at NYU. You know, he loves poker because poker

0:18:51.524 --> 0:18:54.564
<v Speaker 1>is a game that teaches you what true randomness looks

0:18:54.644 --> 0:18:57.524
<v Speaker 1>like and he told me that you can't do that

0:18:57.644 --> 0:19:00.804
<v Speaker 1>in a game that's designed, you know, like a computer game,

0:19:00.884 --> 0:19:04.364
<v Speaker 1>because true randomness doesn't seem random to the players, right,

0:19:04.404 --> 0:19:07.524
<v Speaker 1>So they actually have like random number generators that aren't random,

0:19:07.804 --> 0:19:10.004
<v Speaker 1>where you have like, okay, like if this person has

0:19:10.124 --> 0:19:13.844
<v Speaker 1>lost this many times, you know, then you need to

0:19:13.884 --> 0:19:16.564
<v Speaker 1>have him win now because they're gonna think that the

0:19:16.604 --> 0:19:20.404
<v Speaker 1>game is rigged. And so it's just disconnect where when

0:19:20.404 --> 0:19:23.444
<v Speaker 1>the game isn't rigged, it feels rigged, and when it's rigged,

0:19:23.484 --> 0:19:27.284
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't feel rigged because the actual way that randomness

0:19:27.364 --> 0:19:30.164
<v Speaker 1>works can feel rigged right to the human mind. Just why,

0:19:30.164 --> 0:19:32.324
<v Speaker 1>by the way, so many people are like, oh, Booker's rigged,

0:19:32.404 --> 0:19:34.564
<v Speaker 1>like this is rigged. That's rigged, because they're like, how

0:19:34.564 --> 0:19:37.364
<v Speaker 1>improbable is I'm like, no, it's not fucking rigged, Like

0:19:37.444 --> 0:19:39.884
<v Speaker 1>this is just character like this is how probable it

0:19:39.964 --> 0:19:43.724
<v Speaker 1>can be, yes, but yeah, this is how like this

0:19:43.804 --> 0:19:48.724
<v Speaker 1>is how probabilities actually work. But now, like if you

0:19:48.804 --> 0:19:53.444
<v Speaker 1>can't grasp that when you yourself are playing a game, now,

0:19:53.524 --> 0:19:57.724
<v Speaker 1>imagine like the poor filmmaker trying to make something seem

0:19:57.804 --> 0:20:02.884
<v Speaker 1>realistic and trying to make randomness and variants look real, like,

0:20:03.324 --> 0:20:05.524
<v Speaker 1>oh man, that's a thankless task, right.

0:20:05.404 --> 0:20:05.724
<v Speaker 2>You can't.

0:20:05.764 --> 0:20:09.644
<v Speaker 1>You can't, like, for the sake of storytelling, you need

0:20:09.684 --> 0:20:13.564
<v Speaker 1>to actually play around with it so that it seems

0:20:14.004 --> 0:20:16.804
<v Speaker 1>random even though it's not actually random, and that's not

0:20:17.044 --> 0:20:21.324
<v Speaker 1>how randomness works. And so you do have this constant

0:20:21.364 --> 0:20:24.044
<v Speaker 1>tension where like you understand what it should be like

0:20:24.084 --> 0:20:26.324
<v Speaker 1>in reality, but you can't do it right. You're making

0:20:26.364 --> 0:20:28.644
<v Speaker 1>a movie. You have to keep the audience engauge, and

0:20:28.724 --> 0:20:31.364
<v Speaker 1>even when you're a game designer, you can't do it,

0:20:31.604 --> 0:20:35.404
<v Speaker 1>which is once again why Frank Lance likes the purity

0:20:35.444 --> 0:20:38.564
<v Speaker 1>of poker, because you know the game is what it is,

0:20:39.284 --> 0:20:41.844
<v Speaker 1>and you can't fuck with it by by being a

0:20:41.964 --> 0:20:45.124
<v Speaker 1>game designer who you know, decides, Oh, you know this person,

0:20:45.484 --> 0:20:48.524
<v Speaker 1>this person has lost a flip Nate ten times in

0:20:48.564 --> 0:20:51.644
<v Speaker 1>a row. They've got to win it this time around.

0:20:52.044 --> 0:20:55.524
<v Speaker 1>Oh man, this person has gotten their aces cracked three times,

0:20:55.564 --> 0:20:57.724
<v Speaker 1>you know, and they're supposed to win seventy five percent

0:20:57.724 --> 0:21:01.084
<v Speaker 1>of the time. We're gonna we're gonna have to make

0:21:01.124 --> 0:21:03.684
<v Speaker 1>sure that the next time that he's dealt a says

0:21:03.964 --> 0:21:06.204
<v Speaker 1>he's going to win. That ain't how it works. It

0:21:06.204 --> 0:21:12.164
<v Speaker 1>would be nice if it were, but it's not. And

0:21:12.244 --> 0:21:29.124
<v Speaker 1>we'll be back right after this. What's the first movie

0:21:29.124 --> 0:21:32.244
<v Speaker 1>that you remember seeing that's kind of a poker movie?

0:21:32.324 --> 0:21:34.004
<v Speaker 1>And I don't think it has to be like a

0:21:34.004 --> 0:21:36.684
<v Speaker 1>movie where poker is the plot, because there aren't very

0:21:36.684 --> 0:21:39.084
<v Speaker 1>many of those, but a movie where poker plays like

0:21:39.124 --> 0:21:40.324
<v Speaker 1>a pivotal role.

0:21:40.844 --> 0:21:42.804
<v Speaker 2>I mean, yeah, I'm trying to think more broadly about

0:21:42.844 --> 0:21:45.204
<v Speaker 2>like what my image of poker was like before I

0:21:45.244 --> 0:21:48.324
<v Speaker 2>started playing, and then before I started playing kind of seriously.

0:21:49.644 --> 0:21:52.044
<v Speaker 2>But yeah, I did see Rounders, which is a movie

0:21:51.684 --> 0:21:55.724
<v Speaker 2>by of course, Brian Koppleman and David Levine, who you're

0:21:55.764 --> 0:21:57.244
<v Speaker 2>working with on this new show.

0:21:57.484 --> 0:22:00.964
<v Speaker 1>Yes, Brian and David are wonderful, and Rounders is the

0:22:01.004 --> 0:22:02.484
<v Speaker 1>first poker movie I ever saw.

0:22:02.724 --> 0:22:05.604
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean Rounders is so Brian is a real

0:22:06.164 --> 0:22:10.244
<v Speaker 2>poker player I've played. He is. It's Brian. I don't

0:22:10.284 --> 0:22:14.724
<v Speaker 2>think Brian would describe himself as like an expert poker player,

0:22:14.724 --> 0:22:16.724
<v Speaker 2>but he loves the game, right, you know. He talked

0:22:16.764 --> 0:22:21.004
<v Speaker 2>to me about like the exhilarating sense that you get

0:22:21.044 --> 0:22:24.204
<v Speaker 2>when you're kind of like doing this thing that's kind

0:22:24.204 --> 0:22:26.564
<v Speaker 2>of in this liminal space poker right where you're playing

0:22:26.604 --> 0:22:29.524
<v Speaker 2>late at night in an underground room somewhere where it's

0:22:29.524 --> 0:22:31.524
<v Speaker 2>literally underground or not depends. Sometimes it's on a high

0:22:31.604 --> 0:22:34.724
<v Speaker 2>rise or something, right, and having the shared experience of

0:22:34.764 --> 0:22:37.564
<v Speaker 2>like taking risks and so like in general, like his

0:22:38.964 --> 0:22:42.604
<v Speaker 2>poker scenes get things. I mean, if you wanted to

0:22:42.604 --> 0:22:45.244
<v Speaker 2>get them fully right, I'm sure he would, right, but

0:22:45.284 --> 0:22:48.804
<v Speaker 2>they get things most of the way right, you know,

0:22:48.924 --> 0:22:54.484
<v Speaker 2>I mean look, Rounders famously exaggerates the importance of tells.

0:22:54.564 --> 0:22:58.644
<v Speaker 2>There there's a tell involving an Oreo cookie, for example,

0:22:58.844 --> 0:23:06.324
<v Speaker 2>right that the John Mackowich character exhibits. Let's play some CODs.

0:23:07.564 --> 0:23:10.644
<v Speaker 3>The rule is this, you spottom to tell, you don't

0:23:10.644 --> 0:23:14.804
<v Speaker 3>say a fucking word. I finally spotted KGB's and usually

0:23:14.804 --> 0:23:16.764
<v Speaker 3>I'd have let him go on chewing those oreos till

0:23:16.804 --> 0:23:19.084
<v Speaker 3>he was dead broke. But I don't have that kind

0:23:19.124 --> 0:23:19.524
<v Speaker 3>of time.

0:23:21.164 --> 0:23:23.844
<v Speaker 2>It's usually not quite it's a movie. It's a movie.

0:23:23.924 --> 0:23:27.844
<v Speaker 2>It's a movie, right, you know, I kind of came

0:23:27.884 --> 0:23:31.484
<v Speaker 2>of age and like the Rounder's mini boom for poker,

0:23:31.524 --> 0:23:34.204
<v Speaker 2>where like you know, geeky twenty something meant but like

0:23:34.404 --> 0:23:36.004
<v Speaker 2>this seems really cool, right, This is a way to

0:23:36.084 --> 0:23:38.764
<v Speaker 2>like have this experience where is a nerd you can

0:23:38.804 --> 0:23:39.564
<v Speaker 2>kind of make good.

0:23:39.844 --> 0:23:44.884
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think that Rounders definitely captivated me. Now, I

0:23:44.924 --> 0:23:47.324
<v Speaker 1>did not start playing poker after I was pretty young,

0:23:47.844 --> 0:23:50.724
<v Speaker 1>so I couldn't play poker when Rounders came out, But

0:23:50.804 --> 0:23:54.084
<v Speaker 1>I do remember seeing it and just loving the movie.

0:23:54.204 --> 0:23:56.444
<v Speaker 1>I think my favorite thing about the movie was probably

0:23:56.444 --> 0:24:01.004
<v Speaker 1>Matt Damon back then it's just me perfectly honest and yeah,

0:24:01.084 --> 0:24:05.924
<v Speaker 1>I know, I know, and you know, John Malkovich like

0:24:06.004 --> 0:24:09.084
<v Speaker 1>the since you know, since I'm Russian and like his

0:24:09.404 --> 0:24:11.364
<v Speaker 1>should act. It was just hilarious, like it was just

0:24:11.404 --> 0:24:14.484
<v Speaker 1>a fun movie. But it definitely stayed with me because

0:24:14.604 --> 0:24:17.604
<v Speaker 1>you can tell that Brian and David both play poker,

0:24:17.644 --> 0:24:20.084
<v Speaker 1>both love the game. By the way, Brian has a

0:24:20.084 --> 0:24:22.924
<v Speaker 1>cameo in the movie which is a lot of fun

0:24:23.044 --> 0:24:26.724
<v Speaker 1>at Borgata. He's at the poker table, so that's you know,

0:24:26.884 --> 0:24:29.884
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a fun little moment in there. And

0:24:30.084 --> 0:24:31.924
<v Speaker 1>ask any poker player, and I think you're going to

0:24:32.004 --> 0:24:34.564
<v Speaker 1>get Rounders as one of the top ones.

0:24:34.764 --> 0:24:37.164
<v Speaker 2>So I mean, obviously every kind of poker player's same.

0:24:37.204 --> 0:24:39.564
<v Speaker 2>As quote is from Rounders.

0:24:39.964 --> 0:24:42.284
<v Speaker 1>Well play a clip for our audience.

0:24:43.564 --> 0:24:48.244
<v Speaker 3>Listen here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker

0:24:48.644 --> 0:24:52.124
<v Speaker 3>in your first half hour at the table, and you

0:24:52.164 --> 0:24:52.604
<v Speaker 3>are the.

0:24:52.524 --> 0:24:56.084
<v Speaker 2>Sucker by the way, do you leave it to be true?

0:24:57.364 --> 0:24:57.484
<v Speaker 2>Is that?

0:24:59.924 --> 0:25:02.164
<v Speaker 1>No, I don't think. I don't think that's true. I

0:25:02.204 --> 0:25:05.764
<v Speaker 1>think that, but I do think that there's truth in it.

0:25:05.884 --> 0:25:09.924
<v Speaker 1>Like with so many sayings, right that the moment I

0:25:09.964 --> 0:25:14.244
<v Speaker 1>always caution people against overconfidence, right, and the moment that

0:25:14.284 --> 0:25:18.324
<v Speaker 1>you think that you kind of have the edge over everyone,

0:25:18.364 --> 0:25:21.324
<v Speaker 1>you should be very careful. And I would also say

0:25:21.364 --> 0:25:23.404
<v Speaker 1>that it's not true for me because I play in

0:25:23.404 --> 0:25:27.524
<v Speaker 1>tournaments right where your seat draw is random. Matt Damon

0:25:27.724 --> 0:25:32.564
<v Speaker 1>Rounders is about cash games, and there you actually I

0:25:32.564 --> 0:25:35.244
<v Speaker 1>think there's much more truth there because you have to say, like,

0:25:35.804 --> 0:25:40.124
<v Speaker 1>especially if it's a cash game where like there's some

0:25:40.164 --> 0:25:43.284
<v Speaker 1>good spots, or like you know, or you were invited

0:25:43.404 --> 0:25:45.404
<v Speaker 1>for some reason and it's a game that is hard

0:25:45.444 --> 0:25:47.924
<v Speaker 1>to get into, you have to wonder, like you have

0:25:47.964 --> 0:25:51.724
<v Speaker 1>to ask the question why was I allowed to play? Right?

0:25:52.364 --> 0:25:56.164
<v Speaker 1>Is it because of my charming personality and my witty

0:25:56.204 --> 0:26:01.004
<v Speaker 1>banter and table conversation. Maybe, but maybe they just think

0:26:01.044 --> 0:26:04.084
<v Speaker 1>that you're the spot, right, Maybe they actually think that

0:26:04.164 --> 0:26:08.084
<v Speaker 1>you are someone who's good to play with. I had

0:26:08.124 --> 0:26:12.404
<v Speaker 1>a really funny experience a few years ago where I

0:26:12.644 --> 0:26:15.684
<v Speaker 1>someone reached out to me a game runner from one

0:26:15.724 --> 0:26:18.764
<v Speaker 1>of the high stakes games in Las Vegas that is,

0:26:18.804 --> 0:26:20.524
<v Speaker 1>at one of the casinos. I'm not going to mention

0:26:20.564 --> 0:26:23.084
<v Speaker 1>who the runner was or what the game was, and

0:26:23.164 --> 0:26:25.284
<v Speaker 1>it was like, you know, hey, like we'd love for

0:26:25.324 --> 0:26:28.204
<v Speaker 1>you to join us anytime, like when we're when we're

0:26:28.204 --> 0:26:30.444
<v Speaker 1>playing this game, Like we're happy to like pay for

0:26:30.484 --> 0:26:35.284
<v Speaker 1>your airfare to Vegas. And I was like, and I'm

0:26:35.324 --> 0:26:38.124
<v Speaker 1>going to go ahead and say no. And it turned

0:26:38.124 --> 0:26:41.804
<v Speaker 1>out that another friend of mine who's a female poker player,

0:26:42.124 --> 0:26:46.004
<v Speaker 1>got the same invitation, and we were like, huh, like

0:26:46.044 --> 0:26:48.044
<v Speaker 1>do they just really want a girl at the table

0:26:48.204 --> 0:26:50.484
<v Speaker 1>or what does it say about their impression of how

0:26:50.524 --> 0:26:53.924
<v Speaker 1>we play poker at those higher stakes. But the moment,

0:26:54.044 --> 0:26:56.564
<v Speaker 1>you know, you get that invitation and I asked a

0:26:56.604 --> 0:26:58.364
<v Speaker 1>few people about it, They're like, it's a good game,

0:26:58.684 --> 0:27:00.844
<v Speaker 1>and I was like, yeah, you know, I'm still still

0:27:00.844 --> 0:27:03.524
<v Speaker 1>not going to do it. Like so that's kind of

0:27:03.524 --> 0:27:04.964
<v Speaker 1>one of the I think that that's some of the

0:27:05.004 --> 0:27:06.524
<v Speaker 1>truth in that Matt Damon quote.

0:27:06.604 --> 0:27:08.124
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, if it's a TV game, it might be that

0:27:08.204 --> 0:27:09.884
<v Speaker 2>might be one of the weird exceptions where like, maybe

0:27:09.924 --> 0:27:13.924
<v Speaker 2>we believe this was not a team again, Okay, that's

0:27:13.964 --> 0:27:16.964
<v Speaker 2>more believe it or not. Relative to the poker world,

0:27:17.844 --> 0:27:21.804
<v Speaker 2>we are normies believe it or not. Right, But yeah,

0:27:21.884 --> 0:27:24.524
<v Speaker 2>you should always be asking like, why have I invited

0:27:24.564 --> 0:27:26.724
<v Speaker 2>to be played in this game that inevitably will be

0:27:27.724 --> 0:27:29.484
<v Speaker 2>portrayed to me? Is very good. The other thing you

0:27:29.484 --> 0:27:33.404
<v Speaker 2>have to watch for, which is not necessarily bad but

0:27:33.524 --> 0:27:36.164
<v Speaker 2>something to be aware of, right, is that if you

0:27:36.404 --> 0:27:40.844
<v Speaker 2>exhibit any reluctance about how high the stakes are, assume

0:27:41.604 --> 0:27:45.604
<v Speaker 2>the de facto steaks are at least two acts higher

0:27:45.604 --> 0:27:49.964
<v Speaker 2>than then the person in body of the game is projecting.

0:27:50.084 --> 0:27:52.564
<v Speaker 2>I think it's a good heuristic to look at. In

0:27:52.884 --> 0:27:56.164
<v Speaker 2>it is a tournament, to say, like to look around

0:27:56.164 --> 0:27:59.764
<v Speaker 2>the table and say where am I making my my

0:28:00.084 --> 0:28:03.924
<v Speaker 2>money from? Right? Or am I making money? If you're

0:28:03.924 --> 0:28:06.964
<v Speaker 2>not making money, then a cash game. If you're having fun,

0:28:07.644 --> 0:28:10.844
<v Speaker 2>stay right. Otherwise leave it a tournament that might affect

0:28:10.884 --> 0:28:12.924
<v Speaker 2>your strategy. It might actually depends on if it's late

0:28:12.964 --> 0:28:15.844
<v Speaker 2>at night. If it's late at night and get a

0:28:15.924 --> 0:28:17.564
<v Speaker 2>new table the next day, you might say, you know what,

0:28:17.604 --> 0:28:20.204
<v Speaker 2>I'm just gonna kind of be a little bit of

0:28:20.204 --> 0:28:21.764
<v Speaker 2>a knit here. I need to. I can wait for

0:28:21.764 --> 0:28:23.964
<v Speaker 2>a better table tomorrow. Right, But in general, actually it's

0:28:23.964 --> 0:28:26.564
<v Speaker 2>the opposite. In general, if you're like, Okay, I'm at

0:28:26.564 --> 0:28:30.004
<v Speaker 2>a tough table. It's ten in the morning, I'm playing

0:28:30.084 --> 0:28:32.804
<v Speaker 2>until ten at night, right, you actually have to take

0:28:32.884 --> 0:28:36.164
<v Speaker 2>more more risk and look for dinner edges because you

0:28:36.164 --> 0:28:39.124
<v Speaker 2>won't find these stick, robust fish that give you big

0:28:39.164 --> 0:28:42.364
<v Speaker 2>free money basically, But I think it's kind of worth

0:28:42.364 --> 0:28:44.324
<v Speaker 2>looking around and saying, where am I making my money

0:28:44.364 --> 0:28:47.764
<v Speaker 2>from in this game? Right, And if you're making a

0:28:47.804 --> 0:28:50.964
<v Speaker 2>lot of money, you might actually pick yours fustle more carefully,

0:28:50.964 --> 0:28:54.084
<v Speaker 2>like in the main event for example, sometimes was obvious.

0:28:54.124 --> 0:28:56.164
<v Speaker 2>So you make a lot of money in poker from

0:28:57.284 --> 0:29:02.284
<v Speaker 2>players who are too passive and sometimes too tight. Right,

0:29:02.564 --> 0:29:06.484
<v Speaker 2>if somebody only folds unless they have a really good hand,

0:29:06.884 --> 0:29:08.844
<v Speaker 2>and then we have a really good hand, then make

0:29:08.964 --> 0:29:12.764
<v Speaker 2>huge opus bets. Right, it's not as fun as picking

0:29:12.804 --> 0:29:14.564
<v Speaker 2>off a bluff or something. You make a lot of

0:29:14.604 --> 0:29:16.444
<v Speaker 2>money from that from that player.

0:29:16.244 --> 0:29:20.564
<v Speaker 1>You do, you do, absolutely absolutely, But yeah, so I

0:29:20.604 --> 0:29:24.164
<v Speaker 1>do think that there there's definite truth to that and

0:29:24.324 --> 0:29:28.524
<v Speaker 1>kind of it's good strategy advice to always look around.

0:29:28.684 --> 0:29:30.284
<v Speaker 1>And by the way, if you can't spot the sucker

0:29:30.284 --> 0:29:32.244
<v Speaker 1>at the table, right, if you can't spot the spot,

0:29:33.004 --> 0:29:35.124
<v Speaker 1>then you probably are the spot. And you want to

0:29:35.204 --> 0:29:37.964
<v Speaker 1>avoid getting into big pots because you will get outplayed.

0:29:41.524 --> 0:29:45.164
<v Speaker 2>And we'll be right back after this break.

0:29:57.284 --> 0:29:59.284
<v Speaker 1>They we've talked about a lot of things that you

0:29:59.324 --> 0:30:01.524
<v Speaker 1>know are bad about poker movies, because most poker movies

0:30:01.564 --> 0:30:03.764
<v Speaker 1>are kind of bad. Do you have any poker movies

0:30:03.764 --> 0:30:05.804
<v Speaker 1>that you'd put on like your bad list where you're like,

0:30:05.884 --> 0:30:09.404
<v Speaker 1>oh my god, like this is just just no, or

0:30:09.484 --> 0:30:11.204
<v Speaker 1>or do we just want to stick to our good

0:30:11.244 --> 0:30:11.804
<v Speaker 1>list here?

0:30:12.164 --> 0:30:14.124
<v Speaker 2>I haven't seen that many. I mean we haven't. You know.

0:30:14.204 --> 0:30:18.324
<v Speaker 2>I liked Rounders. I liked like Molly's Game, right, I

0:30:18.324 --> 0:30:21.244
<v Speaker 2>think that does a better job than than most.

0:30:21.444 --> 0:30:24.044
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well, Molly's Game had some really good consultants. I

0:30:24.084 --> 0:30:27.484
<v Speaker 1>actually know one of the people, David Peretti's, who is

0:30:27.524 --> 0:30:30.684
<v Speaker 1>a poker player, who consulted on some of those poker scenes.

0:30:30.844 --> 0:30:33.444
<v Speaker 1>So they actually asked real players to help them out

0:30:33.564 --> 0:30:38.084
<v Speaker 1>with the choreography of the poker and I think that

0:30:38.084 --> 0:30:40.804
<v Speaker 1>that shows for sure. I think that those those hands

0:30:40.844 --> 0:30:44.444
<v Speaker 1>in Molly's game are both dramatic but also believable, like

0:30:44.484 --> 0:30:45.044
<v Speaker 1>it could happen.

0:30:46.444 --> 0:30:48.484
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it does it, you know, as a poker player

0:30:48.564 --> 0:30:52.404
<v Speaker 2>to movie makers, right, I'm not asking for a ton, right,

0:30:52.524 --> 0:30:56.124
<v Speaker 2>like just just things that are like that are plausible ish,

0:30:56.244 --> 0:30:57.644
<v Speaker 2>you know what I mean? There are things that kind

0:30:57.644 --> 0:31:00.364
<v Speaker 2>of like and that's like couplemen. Is it like he's

0:31:00.404 --> 0:31:02.124
<v Speaker 2>doing things that are kind of like not literal, but

0:31:02.284 --> 0:31:06.124
<v Speaker 2>like at least kind of in the in the spirit no,

0:31:06.204 --> 0:31:09.044
<v Speaker 2>a nod to real poker basically, yep.

0:31:09.564 --> 0:31:12.204
<v Speaker 1>I think I think that that is the important thing.

0:31:13.404 --> 0:31:15.564
<v Speaker 1>If we were making a movie about you, who'd play you?

0:31:16.204 --> 0:31:17.604
<v Speaker 1>Or if you were if you were in a Parker

0:31:17.644 --> 0:31:19.284
<v Speaker 1>story and you were there.

0:31:20.124 --> 0:31:22.324
<v Speaker 2>I will let the audience speculate.

0:31:25.724 --> 0:31:27.164
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't have to be It doesn't have to be

0:31:27.204 --> 0:31:29.604
<v Speaker 1>someone who looks like you, just someone you know, who

0:31:29.604 --> 0:31:30.484
<v Speaker 1>do you think should play you?

0:31:32.364 --> 0:31:34.284
<v Speaker 2>Who do you think should play me? Maria? I don't know,

0:31:34.444 --> 0:31:38.764
<v Speaker 2>it's I'm weirdly I feel like the hems about who

0:31:38.764 --> 0:31:39.564
<v Speaker 2>would you have played me?

0:31:40.364 --> 0:31:41.604
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I need to think about it.

0:31:41.644 --> 0:31:44.164
<v Speaker 2>Are there good like sports betting movies?

0:31:44.204 --> 0:31:44.284
<v Speaker 1>Like?

0:31:44.364 --> 0:31:46.924
<v Speaker 2>Not really? Right? No?

0:31:47.004 --> 0:31:49.004
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so, I mean not that well no,

0:31:49.124 --> 0:31:52.804
<v Speaker 1>oh wait, no, uncut jumps like absolutely one of the

0:31:52.844 --> 0:31:56.524
<v Speaker 1>most one of the most brilliant movies, Like such a

0:31:56.524 --> 0:31:59.764
<v Speaker 1>good movie, such a stressful movie, like movie at the

0:31:59.804 --> 0:32:03.324
<v Speaker 1>edge of your seat, and like, holy shit, Adam Sandler

0:32:03.804 --> 0:32:05.684
<v Speaker 1>was great. And by the way, Adam Sandler could totally

0:32:05.724 --> 0:32:07.564
<v Speaker 1>play you unate, I would.

0:32:07.324 --> 0:32:10.204
<v Speaker 2>Approve of that. Yeah, no, look, I yeah, I should

0:32:10.204 --> 0:32:13.404
<v Speaker 2>have brought that up earlier, because that, like that captures

0:32:14.684 --> 0:32:18.164
<v Speaker 2>the degeneracy of this character is like a little bit addled,

0:32:18.484 --> 0:32:21.764
<v Speaker 2>kind of that rang true to me, right, and like,

0:32:21.844 --> 0:32:23.644
<v Speaker 2>you know, I'm not saying it's the average gambler, but

0:32:23.684 --> 0:32:25.324
<v Speaker 2>like that's a really you know, that might be the

0:32:25.324 --> 0:32:27.044
<v Speaker 2>best gambling adjacent No he's not.

0:32:27.124 --> 0:32:29.324
<v Speaker 1>I don't think. Yeah, I don't think he's the average

0:32:29.324 --> 0:32:32.524
<v Speaker 1>gambler by far. Like he is at the very very

0:32:32.564 --> 0:32:35.284
<v Speaker 1>dejense like end of the spectrum. But he just like

0:32:35.444 --> 0:32:39.124
<v Speaker 1>he kept that movie Sandler himself, and just the movie

0:32:39.604 --> 0:32:43.244
<v Speaker 1>captures that energy and kind of that mindset so incredibly well.

0:32:43.364 --> 0:32:45.244
<v Speaker 1>By the way, if you haven't seen it, we won't

0:32:45.244 --> 0:32:48.284
<v Speaker 1>spoiler here, you should watch it, but it's such a

0:32:48.284 --> 0:32:50.484
<v Speaker 1>stressful movie. Don't watch it as like a way to

0:32:50.564 --> 0:32:53.324
<v Speaker 1>relax before bed, Like it's one of those movies where

0:32:53.364 --> 0:32:57.084
<v Speaker 1>you're just like stressed the entire time, even when nothing

0:32:57.084 --> 0:33:01.644
<v Speaker 1>particularly stressful is happening. Anyway, that movie, I think is

0:33:01.684 --> 0:33:04.564
<v Speaker 1>one of the best gambling movies I've ever seen. It's

0:33:04.684 --> 0:33:08.764
<v Speaker 1>just absolutely brilliant in terms of capturing the spirit of

0:33:08.804 --> 0:33:11.644
<v Speaker 1>the thing. It also made me understand Parlay's nate and

0:33:11.684 --> 0:33:13.764
<v Speaker 1>how hard it is to hit your parlay. But I

0:33:13.804 --> 0:33:17.044
<v Speaker 1>actually like that movie explains it so well because it

0:33:17.124 --> 0:33:20.604
<v Speaker 1>shows it right. It shows like how it accumulates, how

0:33:20.604 --> 0:33:23.484
<v Speaker 1>you have to hit different points, like what has to happen,

0:33:23.524 --> 0:33:25.604
<v Speaker 1>and how many things have to go right, which is

0:33:25.604 --> 0:33:28.724
<v Speaker 1>why parlays are stupid bets, as you've told me multiple times,

0:33:29.364 --> 0:33:31.804
<v Speaker 1>and I think as lots of people have told me.

0:33:32.164 --> 0:33:33.444
<v Speaker 1>But you can make a ton of money.

0:33:34.004 --> 0:33:36.484
<v Speaker 2>I mean, they just they aren't inherently they just high risk, right,

0:33:36.484 --> 0:33:38.924
<v Speaker 2>you're basically taking the windows. They're very high risk, right, right,

0:33:39.044 --> 0:33:41.964
<v Speaker 2>automatically betting on the next game, right, And so yeah, exactly.

0:33:42.004 --> 0:33:44.164
<v Speaker 2>But you know, there's there's a reason why there's a

0:33:44.204 --> 0:33:47.564
<v Speaker 2>reason why they're popular, you know, I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah,

0:33:48.124 --> 0:33:50.124
<v Speaker 2>you know, some people think blackjack is boring because you

0:33:50.124 --> 0:33:51.764
<v Speaker 2>basically win or lose one x your bet. You can

0:33:51.804 --> 0:33:55.124
<v Speaker 2>double down and stuff like that and split. But you know,

0:33:55.764 --> 0:33:58.324
<v Speaker 2>all right, Maria, we talked about this TV show you're

0:33:58.324 --> 0:34:01.884
<v Speaker 2>working on, But if you are making a proper poker movie,

0:34:02.484 --> 0:34:03.204
<v Speaker 2>what would it be about.

0:34:03.364 --> 0:34:05.724
<v Speaker 1>You'd make it about the biggest bluff. Okay, it would

0:34:05.804 --> 0:34:08.804
<v Speaker 1>make my book into a poker movie. Duh, that's the

0:34:08.804 --> 0:34:12.764
<v Speaker 1>poker movie that absolutely needs to be made. So people

0:34:12.884 --> 0:34:15.604
<v Speaker 1>making movies listening to this do it.

0:34:17.364 --> 0:34:19.444
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I think gamblers in general, I mean, first

0:34:19.444 --> 0:34:21.244
<v Speaker 2>of all, you have like the degenerate gambler versus a

0:34:21.284 --> 0:34:23.604
<v Speaker 2>creational gambler's kind of like a still gambler. They all

0:34:24.284 --> 0:34:26.244
<v Speaker 2>kind of co mingle. But like, I don't know, if

0:34:26.244 --> 0:34:28.604
<v Speaker 2>we're determined to make a good a good movie about

0:34:28.604 --> 0:34:30.324
<v Speaker 2>the kind of poker gambling lifetime, we could, we could.

0:34:30.484 --> 0:34:32.924
<v Speaker 2>We'd ham it up a little bit, Maria, the purists

0:34:33.284 --> 0:34:35.284
<v Speaker 2>we critique some things. We could do a good job, though.

0:34:35.364 --> 0:34:36.764
<v Speaker 2>I believe we would.

0:34:37.204 --> 0:34:40.084
<v Speaker 1>I think so. I think so. And in terms of

0:34:40.444 --> 0:34:43.364
<v Speaker 1>you know, who'd play me, it depends on when the

0:34:43.364 --> 0:34:46.124
<v Speaker 1>movie gets made, because you know, I keep getting older,

0:34:46.164 --> 0:34:50.084
<v Speaker 1>but fictional me does not. But someone who is already

0:34:50.084 --> 0:34:51.684
<v Speaker 1>a little bit older than I am, but you know,

0:34:51.924 --> 0:34:54.124
<v Speaker 1>is a is a movie star, so that doesn't really matter.

0:34:54.964 --> 0:34:58.364
<v Speaker 1>But who has a similar background and so I would

0:34:58.444 --> 0:35:00.844
<v Speaker 1>love for her to play me would be Natalie Portman.

0:35:02.044 --> 0:35:05.524
<v Speaker 1>She's also one of the good thing, one of the few. Yeah, yeah,

0:35:05.564 --> 0:35:07.404
<v Speaker 1>you know, we went to Harvard together. She was older,

0:35:07.444 --> 0:35:10.004
<v Speaker 1>she was ahead of me. She studied psychology us like me.

0:35:10.684 --> 0:35:13.244
<v Speaker 1>You know, she's Jewish. I'm Jewish. There are not that

0:35:13.324 --> 0:35:17.164
<v Speaker 1>many Jewish leading ladies in Hollywood. I would definitely want

0:35:17.644 --> 0:35:19.804
<v Speaker 1>her to be me if possible.

0:35:20.284 --> 0:35:25.564
<v Speaker 2>Hey, Natalie, there are actors who played poker. Matt Damon,

0:35:25.764 --> 0:35:28.044
<v Speaker 2>there are does, Till McGuire does I'm not sure there

0:35:28.044 --> 0:35:32.124
<v Speaker 2>are any who were regarded as being particularly nor McDonald

0:35:32.204 --> 0:35:33.244
<v Speaker 2>the comedian like poker.

0:35:34.564 --> 0:35:36.124
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, there are a ton. I mean, there's a

0:35:36.164 --> 0:35:40.284
<v Speaker 1>lot of overlap. Leonardo DiCaprio plays poker, Matt Damon in

0:35:40.324 --> 0:35:45.444
<v Speaker 1>real life loves poker, Ben Affleck, Wahlberg, like that whole

0:35:45.484 --> 0:35:49.724
<v Speaker 1>crew from Boston plays poker. I don't know about Casey Affleck,

0:35:49.724 --> 0:35:52.604
<v Speaker 1>but I would assume he plays as well. You know,

0:35:52.884 --> 0:35:56.564
<v Speaker 1>there are lots of star power poker players. In terms

0:35:56.604 --> 0:35:59.964
<v Speaker 1>of who's actually considered good, Nate, Let's not go there.

0:36:00.204 --> 0:36:03.404
<v Speaker 1>We're sure that they're all excellent players, and we would

0:36:03.444 --> 0:36:06.724
<v Speaker 1>love to sit at a game with them and be

0:36:06.804 --> 0:36:10.804
<v Speaker 1>able to compliment them on their level and on how

0:36:11.324 --> 0:36:12.484
<v Speaker 1>brilliantly they play.

0:36:13.204 --> 0:36:15.444
<v Speaker 2>Right, if you're at the World Stories of Poker, would

0:36:15.444 --> 0:36:21.244
<v Speaker 2>you rather it's against an actor or a professional athlete

0:36:21.604 --> 0:36:22.244
<v Speaker 2>rather acting?

0:36:22.684 --> 0:36:25.484
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, me too, actor immediately, I mean, I have just

0:36:25.524 --> 0:36:28.924
<v Speaker 1>an immediate answer. Professional athletes are often very good poker

0:36:28.924 --> 0:36:33.284
<v Speaker 1>players because they just, like you know, they compete for

0:36:33.404 --> 0:36:37.284
<v Speaker 1>a living, and they have that they have that sense

0:36:37.524 --> 0:36:41.164
<v Speaker 1>of competition, they have that hunger to win, they have

0:36:41.244 --> 0:36:44.444
<v Speaker 1>the aggressiveness like a lot of them make, you know,

0:36:44.524 --> 0:36:47.964
<v Speaker 1>like Richard Seymour, who's an excellent poker player. Like a

0:36:47.964 --> 0:36:50.924
<v Speaker 1>lot of them make really good poker players because they

0:36:51.004 --> 0:36:54.244
<v Speaker 1>understand it right, and they're smart like athletes are. And

0:36:54.284 --> 0:36:56.964
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying actors aren't smart, but acting is a

0:36:57.044 --> 0:36:59.044
<v Speaker 1>different You can be very smart, but you're in a

0:36:59.044 --> 0:37:02.364
<v Speaker 1>different profession, right, Like and you might say, oh, actors

0:37:02.404 --> 0:37:05.364
<v Speaker 1>have better poker faces, that doesn't really matter. Most people

0:37:05.364 --> 0:37:08.044
<v Speaker 1>have good poker faces. Like that's actually not that important.

0:37:09.084 --> 0:37:13.324
<v Speaker 1>But the like the competitive spirit and like understanding aggression,

0:37:13.484 --> 0:37:17.084
<v Speaker 1>knowing how to gauge that reading your opponents. I mean,

0:37:17.124 --> 0:37:20.484
<v Speaker 1>if you're a thinking like imagine being a quarterback, right,

0:37:20.484 --> 0:37:22.764
<v Speaker 1>you have to be reading people all the time. Like

0:37:22.844 --> 0:37:25.884
<v Speaker 1>if you're a thinking athlete like man, you're going to

0:37:25.924 --> 0:37:27.324
<v Speaker 1>be formidable at the pokering table.

0:37:27.444 --> 0:37:31.124
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Game theory comes up a lot absolutely in sports,

0:37:31.204 --> 0:37:34.164
<v Speaker 2>right for tennis it comes up a lot, right. Uh yeah,

0:37:34.244 --> 0:37:38.564
<v Speaker 2>A starting picture Greg Maddox, great Atlanta Braves picture literally

0:37:38.604 --> 0:37:42.204
<v Speaker 2>would randomize his calls allegedly based on the stadium whites

0:37:42.244 --> 0:37:43.924
<v Speaker 2>and things like that. And he's a Las Vegas guy

0:37:43.924 --> 0:37:48.364
<v Speaker 2>who I believe plays poker pretty well. Yeah, so yeah,

0:37:48.404 --> 0:37:51.124
<v Speaker 2>the athlete and they're competitive, right yeah, actor actors is

0:37:51.324 --> 0:37:56.044
<v Speaker 2>probably maybe like a plastic surgeon, if you yeah, like

0:37:57.684 --> 0:38:00.564
<v Speaker 2>the plastic surgeon, like a real estate I guess I

0:38:00.644 --> 0:38:02.764
<v Speaker 2>have some real estate people in one of my home games,

0:38:02.764 --> 0:38:04.524
<v Speaker 2>so maybe I should. They're great at poker, of course,

0:38:04.524 --> 0:38:06.684
<v Speaker 2>real estates. Well we'll quit while we're ahead.

0:38:06.724 --> 0:38:11.804
<v Speaker 1>Well quit, well we're ahead. What's your So what's your

0:38:11.924 --> 0:38:14.164
<v Speaker 1>if you're gonna be if we're sitting down for you know,

0:38:14.204 --> 0:38:17.444
<v Speaker 1>a night of rounders rewatching or whatever it is, what

0:38:17.524 --> 0:38:19.884
<v Speaker 1>are we gonna be serving. What's your favorite movie snack?

0:38:20.964 --> 0:38:24.324
<v Speaker 2>Uh? Nice class of peanut? NOI yeah, I'm not a

0:38:24.324 --> 0:38:27.084
<v Speaker 2>thing snacker? Do you know that, Maria, I'm I'm totally

0:38:27.164 --> 0:38:27.484
<v Speaker 2>with you.

0:38:27.604 --> 0:38:31.084
<v Speaker 1>Nate. Let's let's let's let's get a bottle of wine. Yeah,

0:38:31.124 --> 0:38:33.484
<v Speaker 1>and do a poker movie night. That would be my

0:38:33.564 --> 0:38:34.204
<v Speaker 1>favorite snack.

0:38:34.324 --> 0:38:36.404
<v Speaker 2>I have enough other sins where like snacking is like

0:38:36.404 --> 0:38:37.124
<v Speaker 2>the one I don't have.

0:38:37.204 --> 0:38:42.444
<v Speaker 1>Basically now, I don't snack, and I actually, fellow listeners,

0:38:42.484 --> 0:38:44.964
<v Speaker 1>if you ever watch a movie with me, please do

0:38:45.084 --> 0:38:47.644
<v Speaker 1>not be eating. I hate like the sound of like

0:38:47.684 --> 0:38:51.244
<v Speaker 1>someone eating popcorn next to me. Like, please know, it's

0:38:51.244 --> 0:38:52.564
<v Speaker 1>a me thing. It's it's not.

0:38:52.684 --> 0:38:53.364
<v Speaker 2>You, it's me.

0:38:53.924 --> 0:38:56.604
<v Speaker 1>But like, come on, let's let's watch the movie and

0:38:56.764 --> 0:38:59.484
<v Speaker 1>enjoy the movie. You don't have to be snacking literally

0:38:59.524 --> 0:39:01.444
<v Speaker 1>all the time. Let's have a nice dinner before or

0:39:01.484 --> 0:39:04.324
<v Speaker 1>after and then enjoy the movie. So Nate, well, we'll

0:39:04.364 --> 0:39:06.724
<v Speaker 1>have a nice bottle of wine if we're watching the

0:39:06.724 --> 0:39:09.164
<v Speaker 1>movie and then having dinner. If we've already had dinner,

0:39:09.444 --> 0:39:11.964
<v Speaker 1>you know, maybe we have some whiskey or you know,

0:39:12.044 --> 0:39:16.484
<v Speaker 1>a nice some after dinner, some after dinner libations. I

0:39:16.484 --> 0:39:22.124
<v Speaker 1>think that's my ideal movie night, comfortable couch, nice alcohol

0:39:22.484 --> 0:39:26.244
<v Speaker 1>and nice screen. You know, let's uh, let's do it

0:39:26.324 --> 0:39:28.884
<v Speaker 1>and and poker that as you say, nay, you don't

0:39:28.884 --> 0:39:31.004
<v Speaker 1>have to be perfect, but like, let's get it semi

0:39:31.044 --> 0:39:35.484
<v Speaker 1>believable so that we can get invested. And the end

0:39:35.484 --> 0:39:38.324
<v Speaker 1>to my ideal movie night, it's you know, Natalie Portman

0:39:38.404 --> 0:39:41.044
<v Speaker 1>playing me on the screen. So let's make it happen.

0:39:47.804 --> 0:39:49.604
<v Speaker 1>Let us know what you think of the show. Reach

0:39:49.644 --> 0:39:53.444
<v Speaker 1>out to us at Risky Business at pushkin dot FM.

0:39:53.564 --> 0:39:56.964
<v Speaker 1>Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanakova.

0:39:56.364 --> 0:39:59.124
<v Speaker 2>And by me Nate Silver. The show was a Cool

0:39:59.124 --> 0:40:03.084
<v Speaker 2>production of Pushing Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced

0:40:03.124 --> 0:40:07.444
<v Speaker 2>by Isaac Carter. Our associate producer is Sonya gerwit Lydia,

0:40:07.564 --> 0:40:10.444
<v Speaker 2>Jean Kott and Daphne Chen are our editors, and our

0:40:10.484 --> 0:40:14.244
<v Speaker 2>executive producer is Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruger.

0:40:14.844 --> 0:40:17.084
<v Speaker 1>If you like the show, please rate and review us

0:40:17.124 --> 0:40:19.764
<v Speaker 1>so other people can find us too, But once again,

0:40:19.884 --> 0:40:21.724
<v Speaker 1>only if you like us. We don't want those bad

0:40:21.764 --> 0:40:23.924
<v Speaker 1>reviews out there. Thanks for tuning in.