Implausible Play in The Cincinnati Kid? A play-by-play analysis of a highly unlikely poker hand

One of the greatest poker movies of all time has long been unavailable for viewing. That changed recently with the release on DVD of The Cincinnati Kid. In addition to the movie, there's also a short that showcases the card-handling skills of gambler and magician Jay Ose, the man behind all the fancy card tricks in the movie. You also get two separate commentaries, one by director Norman Jewison and another by Celebrity Poker Showdown co-host Phil Gordon.

If you haven't seen the movie and intend to do so, or don't remember it and plan to refresh your memory, don't read the rest of this until you see it, because I'm going to give away the ending.

Some years ago, I wrote that while the movie is enjoyable, the climactic scene was totally impossible, and that the situation might never come up. The odds of the two hands appearing in the same deal are worse than 45 million-to-1.

Most of the times they might appear, they never get beyond second or third street, because one of the hands would fold. That is, a hand like the 6 2 would usually fold for the first bet. I also wrote that two expert stud players would never play those two hands as portrayed in the movie.

While upon seeing the movie again I do not change my assessment of the unlikelihood of the hands coming up, I no longer think that they would not have been played out as they were.

So, let's follow the action during "The Hand."

It's heads-up five-card stud. Lancey Howard, "The Man," has been steadily losing hand after hand to Eric Stoner, the Cincinnati Kid.

The Kid starts with the 10 up, and the 8 goes to Lancey. The Kid bets a nominal amount, something less than $100, and Lancey calls. This may seem a questionable play, but, in fact, Lancey has a card in the hole higher than a 10, so that is fairly straightforward for five-card stud.

The Kid then gets the 10 and Lancey gets the Q. With paired tens showing, the Kid bets $1,000. Lancey raises $1,000. After it's all over, Lady Fingers derisively says, "You raised tens on a lousy three-flush?" She may be echoing what is going through the minds of poker aficionados, but this is not an unreasonable play. He is at this moment representing a queen in the hole. He may well be planning to try to take it away on one of the next two cards.

On the fourth card, the Kid gets an ace and Lancey gets the 10. Showing 10 10 A, the Kid bets $3,000 into Lancey's 8 Q 10. "That's a reasonable bet," says Lancey, as he calls. Now, he has to change tactics. He can act as if he still has a queen in the hole. Why wouldn't he raise? Because in stud if your opponent has a board lock, that is a very bad play. That is, in five-card stud, one player can see the best his opponent can have and know that he has a lock. The Kid sees the 10 in Lancey's hand and yet he still bets. All Lancey can do is call even if he has a queen in the hole. We will find out later that he does not, but he can still represent one here by calling. But if he raises and the Kid has a board lock – which he would with the remaining 10 or an ace in the hole – the kid can reraise.

On the last card, the A arrives for the Kid and the 9 for Lancey. Showing 10 10 A A, "Check to the possible," says the Kid. Five-card stud wisdom is, never bet into a hand when that hand has only two possibilities: either it cannot call a bet or, with a perfect holecard, no matter how unlikely, it has one beat. Lancey now has 8 Q 10 9, four cards to a straight flush. Lancey bets $1,000. This vastly underbets the pot and is a somewhat strange bet, and yet, it fits.

"Call your thousand and raise what I've got in front of me." This is not the first string bet in the game. The whole movie is full of one string bet after another, despite the dealer, Shooter, announcing at the start of the big game, " … no string bets."

Apart from the string bet, though, the Kid's play makes perfect sense. There was no point in betting, because Lancey could call only if he could beat two pair. And if he could, he would raise. The safest play with just two pair is to check and call.

But does the Kid have better than two pair? Lancey seems to think so, as he says, "That ace must've helped you, Kid. Call your thousand … " Now, he pauses as he pulls out his wallet, and we have yet another string bet. "I'll raise you $5,000." He removes five bills from the wallet and tosses them in the pot.

Now, the poker is OK, and I'll get back to that in a second. But what about the conditions of the game? How could it be allowed for a player to bet what he's got in a wallet, the contents of which he has not until this moment revealed? In his commentary, Jewison says he did a lot of research in private games and card clubs. That may be, but I'll bet he never saw anyone who appeared to be all in pull out a wallet and reveal that his stack was actually twice as large as what he had started a hand with.

The Kid says, "I can get it."

"I know you can, Kid. I'll take your marker."

"Let's see it."

And Lancey turns up his J. He'd hit an inside straight flush. So, the Kid suffered a tremendous bad beat, made even worse when he reveals his own holecard, the A.

But it all makes perfect poker sense. Of course someone who wants to look like he has only two pair would check-raise with a full house. And of course Lancey would underbet the pot with a straight flush, wanting it to look like a cheap bluff.

And on fourth street, he also would call the $3,000 bet, because at that point, the pot contains more than $7,000 and he figures he can get another $7,000 if he hits: the $2,000 that each has left on the table plus the hidden cash in his wallet. That is, he's getting implied odds of nearly 5-to-1 on a 3-to-1 shot. There are nine diamonds to catch and three other nines, 12 cards out of 45 unseen cards, less than 3-to-1 against. Plus, he's been taking the worst of it in this marathon heads-up game and is getting tired. If he gets lucky and wins this hand, he can stop that pesky kid. It doesn't matter what the Kid has at that point. All the Kid is showing is two tens. Perhaps the Kid already has two pair or trips, but it's 14-to-1 against the Kid filling up. If he has two pair, one of his tens is gone and there remain one 10 and two aces; if he has trips, three aces remain. Lancey got superlucky, of course, to catch the inside straight flush when the Kid did happen to fill up, but he was still a money favorite on the draw.

Michael Wiesenberg's forthcoming 1,000 Best Casinos is currently pre-listed at Amazon.com