Breaking down 007 casino scenes

I'm planning to make a video where I explain what is going on in the casino scenes in every James Bond movie. Before I do so, I'd like to post my comments here for discussion and correction. Let's start with Dr. No. Here is the casino scene. Besides setting up the characters it also is the first usage of Bond's catch-phrase, "Bond.....James Bond."


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLXoZ69ce-I

For those who don't know, Bond is playing Chemin de Fer, which is a precursor to baccarat. Here are the main differences. To avoid confusion, I capitalize the bets Player and Banker and use lower case for the people playing the game.

1. Six decks of cards instead of eight (source: Wikipedia).
2. The turn to bank rotates around the table. Anybody may decline the option.
3. Anybody not banking is betting on the Player hand.
3. If both Player and Banker hands are less than 8, then both sides have free will in taking a third card. As in baccarat, the Player must act first and a third card is dealt face up.
4. The player betting the most, gets to touch the cards and decide whether to take a third card.

Here are some questions:

1. In the first hand, the woman had a 3 and Bond had a natural 8. Bond puts her to a decision and she hits. Then Bond reveals a natural 8. My question is why did Bond do this? Wasn't he supposed to flip his natural immediately?
2. If this is a player vs. player (note I used lower case) wager, what is in it for the casino? Is there a fee to play, like in LA poker clubs?

The question for the poll is which movie has your favorite casino scene?

Quote:

1. In the first hand, the woman had a 3 and Bond had a natural 8. Bond puts her to a decision and she hits. Then Bond reveals a natural 8. My question is why did Bond do this? Wasn't he supposed to flip his natural immediately?

He gambled that she wouldn't know she was cheated?

Quote:

2. If this is a player vs. player (note I used lower case) wager, what is in it for the casino? Is there a fee to play, like in LA poker clubs?

Someone here surely knows, not me

btw

Quote: Wizard

I'm planning to make a video where I explain what is going on in the casino scenes in every James Bond movie. Before I do so, I'd like to post my comments here for discussion and correction. Let's start with Dr. No. Here is the casino scene. Besides setting up the characters it also is the first usage of Bond's catch-phrase, "Bond.....James Bond."

Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLXoZ69ce-I

For those who don't know, Bond is playing Chemin de Fer, which is a precursor to baccarat. Here are the main differences. To avoid confusion, I capitalize the bets Player and Banker and use lower case for the people playing the game.

1. Six decks of cards instead of eight (source: Wikipedia).
2. The turn to bank rotates around the table. Anybody may decline the option.
3. Anybody not banking is betting on the Player hand.
3. If both Player and Banker hands are less than 8, then both sides have free will in taking a third card. As in baccarat, the Player must act first and a third card is dealt face up.
4. The player betting the most, gets to touch the cards and decide whether to take a third card.

Here are some questions:

1. In the first hand, the woman had a 3 and Bond had a natural 8. Bond puts her to a decision and she hits. Then Bond reveals a natural 8. My question is why did Bond do this? Wasn't he supposed to flip his natural immediately?
2. If this is a player vs. player (note I used lower case) wager, what is in it for the casino? Is there a fee to play, like in LA poker clubs?

The question for the poll is which movie has your favorite casino scene?

Awesome

I know it's a few movies out but I am particularly interested in the Asian gambling scenes of The Man With The Golden Gun.

To this day I can't figure out what they were doing except it had to do with people above you passing wagers down to people below in cups

Quote: darkoz

I know it's a few movies out but I am particularly interested in the Asian gambling scenes of The Man With The Golden Gun.

To this day I can't figure out what they were doing except it had to do with people above you passing wagers down to people below in cups

They were playing sic bo at the Fisherman's Warf casino, or whatever it's called, in Macau. The place is a dive now and nearly deserted. I'll comment on that more when we get to that movie.

I am hoping somebody around here knows Chemin de Fer.

I would also be interested to hear from the Francophiles of the forum if the French spoken at the table adds any context.

Quote: Wizard

They were playing sic bo at the Fisherman's Warf casino, or whatever it's called, in Macau. The place is a dive now and nearly deserted. I'll comment on that more when we get to that movie.

I am hoping somebody around here knows Chemin de Fer.

I would also be interested to hear from the Francophiles of the forum if the French spoken at the table adds any context.

You can get an excellent description of chemin de fer by reading Casino Royale if that helps. He spends almost a full chapter on the rules and half the book is play at the tables.

The plot of the movie expanded the book because most of the book is just the pivotal card game

Quote: darkoz

You can get an excellent description of chemin de fer by reading Casino Royale if that helps. He spends almost a full chapter on the rules and half the book is play at the tables.

The plot of the movie expanded the book because most of the book is just the pivotal card game

There was a long bridge (the card game) scene in the book Moonraker that didn't make the movie at all except a brief mention of I think M playing Bridge with Drax. That whole movie strayed almost completely from the book.

Quote: Wizard

I'm planning to make a video where I explain what is going on in the casino scenes in every James Bond movie.

I hope you don't run afoul of YouTube's rules. Or copyright laws.

Quote: Wizard

2. If this is a player vs. player (note I used lower case) wager, what is in it for the casino? Is there a fee to play, like in LA poker clubs?

I saw a poker video last week that was produced by the management of a poker club that I assume operates in a state that casinos are illegal. The first 30 seconds or so was something of a commercial.

At their poker club, you can get a membership for as little as one day, or as long as one year. They didn't say how much, but that makes it a private club to get around the law. After that, it's $10 per hour for a seat at the table.

Maybe the casino in the movie operates the same way. Don't some of the European casinos have entrance fees, etc?

Then again, we don't actually see the croupier handling the cheques. Maybe he took the vig out off camera.

Quote: Wizard

The question for the poll is which movie has your favorite casino scene?

While I like Bond films, I haven't seen enough of them recently enough to have an opinion about the gambling - except I remember hating the ridiculous "tell" and final hand in the poker game in Casino Royale.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I hope you don't run afoul of YouTube's rules. Or copyright laws.

I think if I don't monetize it, I'll be okay. Like quoting a passage from a book or magazine.

You should do the books as well (which are excellent), and some even feature some amusing betting systems.

As for favorite movie casino scene, I had to vote Dr. No, not the best as "gambling action", but its just a classic, probably one of the best character introductions in movie history (also the movie is very loyal to the book, which became less and less the case over the years, until Casino Royale in 2006, not the odd early versions).

I don't know how it works in real life. But, in Casino Royale (The Book), it was based around Baccarat (unlike the movie which switches to Texas Holdem for unknown reasons). I believe, if I am recalling Casino Royale correctly (again no clue if this is in real life), the players take turns as the banker who holds the shoe and deals cards as requested. I believe this was a club where you have to pay to be a member, the book did not really get into the logistics of how the club made money, except some mentions to the house edge of roulette (if I recall correctly Bond also makes an amusing comment about how the manager will be expecting a loss with him using his system near the start of the book before the main plot). But, in Baccarat (in the book) it was player vs player (which was essentially the whole plot of Casino Royale, hoping that Le Chiffre would lose, and compromise his security as a foreign Russian Agent who was trying to win back Russian money that he illegally used to buy brothels before they were banned incurring a massive loss, hopefully before the government noticed (and in so compromising him, hopefully putting him or his superiors in a position where they would have to cooperate since they destroyed their integrity with Russia).

Various rule sites say the house gets a 5% rake on all winning Bank hands for Chemin De Fer, payed at the end of each shoe.

Note that Bond also briefly plays Sic Bo in "Skyfall" in addition to TMWTGG. I guess that's his game of choice when in Macau despite the fact that you can throw a rock and hit a dozen baccarat tables there.

I think the Bridge game in the book "Moonraker" was the inspiration for the Backgammon game in the film "Octopussy". In both cases Bond turns the tables by using the villain's own cheating technique against him. Note also that, when 007 is collecting his winnings, both Hugo Drax (book) and Kamal Khan (film) say "Spend the money quickly Mr. Bond."

Quote: Gialmere

Various rule sites say the house gets a 5% rake on all winning Bank hands for Chemin De Fer, payed at the end of each shoe.

Note that Bond also briefly plays Sic Bo in "Skyfall" in addition to TMWTGG. I guess that's his game of choice when in Macau despite the fact that you can throw a rock and hit a dozen baccarat tables there.

I think the Bridge game in the book "Moonraker" was the inspiration for the Backgammon game in the film "Octopussy". In both cases Bond turns the tables by using the villain's own cheating technique against him. Note also that, when 007 is collecting his winnings, both Hugo Drax (book) and Kamal Khan (film) say "Spend the money quickly Mr. Bond."

Yes they began to liberally grab elements of past books to "Bond" the later films

A good example is the film "For Your Eyes Only" when they tie Bond and the main girl together and drag them through the water behind a speedboat and he uses coral to break the ropes is from the novel Live and Let Die

Yeah. "Live and Let Die" was the book that just kept on giving. In addition to the keelhauling sequence, it also contained feeding Felix Leiter to a shark which ended up in "License to Kill".

Quote: Gialmere

Yeah. "Live and Let Die" was the book that just kept on giving. In addition to the keelhauling sequence, it also contained feeding Felix Leiter to a shark which ended up in "License to Kill".

Which ended up being the best Bond movie despite not being based directly on a book (though it was very loyal to the original character).

Not a casino, but I’ve always been partial to the gin and then golf gambling parts of Goldfinger.

Quote: Gandler

... But, in Casino Royale (The Book), it was based around Baccarat (unlike the movie which switches to Texas Holdem for unknown reasons) ...

Unknown?

It came out in 2006. Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP in 2003.

They were trying to capitalize on the poker craze.

Quote: Wizard

Here are some questions:

1. In the first hand, the woman had a 3 and Bond had a natural 8. Bond puts her to a decision and she hits. Then Bond reveals a natural 8. My question is why did Bond do this? Wasn't he supposed to flip his natural immediately?
2. If this is a player vs. player (note I used lower case) wager, what is in it for the casino? Is there a fee to play, like in LA poker clubs?

1. Sylvia Trench plays three hands against Bond. In the first two she gets a 3, the third a natural 8.
Although she asks for a "Carte" in the first two hands, none are handed to her. It's just that per the rules of Chemin de Fer opponents keep their hands face down to each other until the rules require them to expose. Bond could have exposed his 8 immediately, but, hey, it's a movie, and for purposes of drama, they had him expose it after Sylvia had exposed hers.

In the third hand, again, he exposes his natural 9 after she exposes her 8, for drama's sake, but he could have exposed it right away.

2. The casino rakes 4-5% of every Bank win is how the casino makes money on this version of the game. Also, and this may not be the way it is done at that particular casino depicted in the movie, the Banker may place bets higher than what is covered by the other players, and the casino then steps in to cover that action. In other words, the person holding the shoe acting as Banker could bet 10000 where the other players are only putting up 5000, and in that case the extra 5000 wager is between the Banker player and the casino (the house).

THESE RULES are from an American casino that offers Chemin de Fer, but they are similar to those in a Euro casino. Really, the "option" to take or not take a card happens only when the initial Player's side cards add up to 5. Otherwise, the rules are fixed:

(a) After the initial four cards have been dealt, the Dominant Player [the player with the highest dollar amount put up against the Banker] shall look at the two cards dealt to the "Player's Hand" without disclosing them to the Banker. If the Point Count of the "Player's Hand" is:
(1) A zero, one, two, three or four, the Dominant Player shall request one additional card by
announcing "Card";
(2) A five, the Dominant Player shall exercise the option of requesting one additional card by
announcing "Card" or not requesting one additional card by announcing "Stay";
(3) A six or seven, the Dominant Player shall not draw an additional card and shall announce
"Stay";
(4) An eight or nine, the Dominant Player shall announce "Natural" and all cards in both
hands shall be turned immediately face upwards with no additional cards being dealt to either hand.
(b) If the Dominant Player has announced "Card" in accordance with (a) above, an additional card shall not be dealt to the "Player's Hand" until the Banker first looks at the two cards dealt to the "Banker's Hand". [This is what happened between Sylvia Trench and Bond.] If the Point Count of the "Banker's Hand" is 8 or 9, the Banker shall announce "Natural" and all cards in both hands shall be turned immediately face upwards with no additional cards being dealt to either hand. If the Point Count of the "Banker's Hand" is less than 8, the Banker shall announce "Under Eight" and shall deal a third card face upwards to the "Player's Hand" in accordance with the request of the Dominant Player.
(c) After the "Player's Hand" stays or receives a third card in accordance with the above subsections, the Banker shall turn the cards in the "Banker's Hand" face upwards on the table and shall deal or not deal a third card to the "Banker's Hand" in accordance with the requirements of Table 3 of this subsection.


(d) Any announcement required to be made by the Dominant Player or Banker by this section shall be immediately repeated by the dealer at the table to assure the clarity and understanding of such statements.


The point of Chemin de Fer, is because there are discretionary rules for drawing in some circumstances, the opposing sides keep their hands face down to the other side until after the decision is made to draw or not draw, and even then, only the draw card is exposed face up, until after the Banker exposes his own cards and stands or draws. It would appear that only the Player's side has that draw or not draw on 5 option, not the Banker. OR AT LEAST that is the way it is in at the American casino where I found Chemin de Fer rules. In Europe, perhaps either side might be allowed to stand or draw on an initial 5, notwithstanding the draw card to the opposing side.


I've played Chemin de Fer twice in Monaco (Monte Carlo) when visiting there, but when in Europe I am not there to gamble, so it was just for the experience and I don't precisely recall exactly how it worked, but I do believe it was the same as the above stated rules. This "stand or draw" on 5 option is part of the Chemin de Fer plot in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, also in Goldeneye.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Unknown?

It came out in 2006. Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP in 2003.

They were trying to capitalize on the poker craze.

That was poor wording by me. I guess it also makes more sense for a more skilled based game to be used. I don't have a huge problem with them switching to Texas Holdem.

I just like when they stick close to the books (which to be fair, that film was probably one of the most accurate to the books, scaling for modern times of course). Sadly, the Craig movies after that have virtually no connection, Quantum of Solace has a name in common with the short story but virtually no connection (which is probably good as the story is basically bond being told a story about an affair with a flight attendant at some event in the Bahamas and is nothing Bond related besides him being the one hearing the story, I am pretty sure Fleming just used it to write a short love story). And, after that basically no connection, other than Spectre returning in a clunky way.

Quote: Gandler

That was poor wording by me. I guess it also makes more sense for a more skilled based game to be used. I don't have a huge problem with them switching to Texas Holdem.

I just like when they stick close to the books (which to be fair, that film was probably one of the most accurate to the books, scaling for modern times of course). Sadly, the Craig movies after that have virtually no connection, Quantum of Solace has a name in common with the short story but virtually no connection (which is probably good as the story is basically bond being told a story about an affair with a flight attendant at some event in the Bahamas and is nothing Bond related besides him being the one hearing the story, I am pretty sure Fleming just used it to write a short love story). And, after that basically no connection, other than Spectre returning in a clunky way.

Just something I heard:

Movies based on books are like women.

When they are faithful, they are not beautiful
When they are beautiful, they are not faithful

Quote: darkoz

Just something I heard:

Movies based on books are like women.

When they are faithful, they are not beautiful
When they are beautiful, they are not faithful

I don't agree. If a book has such a great story that it is worth it to buy the rights and make it into a movie, there is a reason the story and character dynamics is popular. If you destroy the plot and change the characters, why bother adapting a book in the first place? Now, I realize there are some books that are very long and detailed (especially in the fantasy realm), and its not possible to fit it all in a two-three hour movie, so lots of content can be cut, and that is fine, as long as the plot and characters are loyal.

But, as for James Bond, for the most part they were good early on sticking to the books. Moonraker is the most egregious exception (the book was about a former Nazi trying to blow up London with a Nuke by working his way into a position where he was in charge of the Rocket Program "Moonraker"). The short stories get a pass because they are often extremely short and not about anything directly Bond related. Diamonds are Forever and the Man with the Golden Gun are two other poor adaptions (both in terms of being loyal to the books and in terms of being enjoyable movies). Probably OHMS, From Russia With Love, Dr. No, Thunderball, and Goldfinger are the closest to the books and are all excellent. Moonraker is probably the worst film (in the official series), and it also strayed the furthest (so far pretty much only the title is the same, and the villain's name).

Timothy Dalton is probably the best Bond simply because he is so close to the character in the books, even if his films are not directly based on a book (which is fair because they used up all of Fleming's stories at that point except Casino Royale which was in legal limbo for decades). In the current sense for Bond to be loyal to the books its more about the character (and his interactions with other characters, which Dalton was perfect on, and Craig is a close second).

Dalton>Craig>Connery>Bronson>Lazenby>Moore is a fair ranking (Craig and Connery are close, the reason I give Craig a slight edge is because Connery went downhill in later films, if he stopped at his third or fourth film he would probably be at the top).

Quote: Gialmere

Yeah. "Live and Let Die" was the book that just kept on giving. In addition to the keelhauling sequence, it also contained feeding Felix Leiter to a shark which ended up in "License to Kill".

Quote: Gandler

Which ended up being the best Bond movie despite not being based directly on a book (though it was very loyal to the original character).

Speaking of LTK Wizard, don't forget the blackjack casino scene...



It's worth pointing out that here and in, say, the craps scene in DAF, Bond isn't making the best plays but is rather splashing money around to draw attention to himself.

Quote: Gialmere

Speaking of LTK Wizard, don't forget the blackjack casino scene...

LTK Blackjack

It's worth pointing out that here and in, say, the craps scene in DAF, Bond isn't making the best plays but is rather splashing money around to draw attention to himself.

If I recall correctly (that is probably the Connery movie I am least familiar with, because I have never enjoyed it), that is after he killed the American guy (don't remember the character's name) and took his identity and was using his credit line, I think like you said it was probably to get attention, because I think one of the subplots was around an elusive owner of the casino who nobody has seen in years. I do remember in one of the casino scenes in that movie Q also has a ring that can set the results of the slot machine, a lot of that movie took place in Nevada (though this is the rare exception of being both a movie and book that I find not enjoyable).

Quote: MDawg

1. Sylvia Trench plays three hands against Bond. In the first two she gets a 3, the third a natural 8.
Although she asks for a "Carte" in the first two hands, none are handed to her. It's just that per the rules of Chemin de Fer opponents keep their hands face down to each other until the rules require them to expose. Bond could have exposed his 8 immediately, but, hey, it's a movie, and for purposes of drama, they had him expose it after Sylvia had exposed hers.

In the third hand, again, he exposes his natural 9 after she exposes her 8, for drama's sake, but he could have exposed it right away.

You just said Bond couldn't look at his hand until Sylvia had finished. That would seem to indicate Bond could not expose his 8 early.

Quote:

2. The casino rakes 4-5% of every Bank win is how the casino makes money on this version of the game. Also, and this may not be the way it is done at that particular casino depicted in the movie, the Banker may place bets higher than what is covered by the other players, and the casino then steps in to cover that action. In other words, the person holding the shoe acting as Banker could bet 10000 where the other players are only putting up 5000, and in that case the extra 5000 wager is between the Banker player and the casino (the house).

Are you sure about that? I think you have that backwards. The Banker states the maximum he will cover. If the players collectively want to bet more, then the house (casino) covers the difference. That is kind of how it works in LA, except other players may co-bank or kum-kum (sp?).

You can see between the first and second hand there is some French, which I would like to get a translation of, where someone else at the table, presumably an employee of the casino, says, "Yes, the house will cover the difference." That seemed to indicate Sylvia wanted to bet more than the table limit.

I am going by the written rules published by an American casino where Chemin de Fer is played. In this particular casino, no bets are allowed by the Banker that are not covered completely by the other players, so the house rake must be the only source of income for the house.

5. Wagers placed by banker
(a) Immediately prior to dealing the cards, the Banker shall place a wager in support of the "Banker's Hand" which shall conform to the requirements of (b) below. The wager placed by the Banker shall:
(1) Win if the "Banker's Hand" has a Point Count higher than that of the "Player's Hand";
(2) Lose if the "Banker's Hand" has a Point Count lower than that of the "Player's Hand";
(3) Be void if the Point Counts of the "Banker's Hand" and the "Player's Hand" are equal.
(b) The wager placed by the Banker immediately after accepting the shoe shall not be less than the amount such participant offered in bidding to become the Banker. The amount of all subsequent wagers placed by the Banker as such shall be at least equal to, but no more than twice, the amount of his immediately preceding wager. An example of this rule is as follows: if Participant A becomes the Banker for a high bid of $1,000, he must place a wager of at least $1,000 on the first hand dealt. If he continues as the Banker, his wager on the second hand must be at least $1,000 but not more than $2,000. Assuming he wagers $2,000 on the second hand, his wager on the third hand (if he continues as the Banker) must be at least $2,000 but not more than $4,000.
(c) Any wager placed by the Banker in cash shall be exchanged immediately by the dealer for gaming chips or plaques in accordance with the regulations governing the acceptance and conversion of such instruments.
6. Wagers made against banker
(a) After the Banker has placed a wager in support of the "Banker's Hand", the remaining participants at the table shall be given the opportunity of wagering against all or a part of the wager made by the Banker provided, however, that such wagers shall not exceed, either individually or in the aggregate, the amount wagered by the Banker.
(b) Any participant who equaled and lost the immediately preceding wager of the Banker shall have the first option of making a wager against the Banker in an amount equal to the amount being wagered by the Banker. Said participant shall exercise this option by announcing "Banco Suivi" or "Suivi" and by placing the requisite wager on the appropriate area of the layout. A "standoff" shall not be counted for the purpose of determining the immediately preceding wager under this subsection.
(c) If no qualified participant announces "Banco Suivi" or "Suivi", the next preference shall be given to any participant placing a wager against the Banker equal in amount to that wagered by the Banker. This option shall be exercised by a participant announcing "Banco Seul" or "Banco" and by placing the requisite wager on the appropriate area of the layout. Whenever more than one participant announces "Banco Seul" or "Banco", preference shall be given to the participant making such announcement who is seated nearest to the Banker in a counterclockwise direction around the table.
(d) If the options granted by (b) and (c) above are not exercised, each participant, beginning with one seated to the immediate right of the Banker and moving counterclockwise around the table, shall have the right to make a wager against a part of the wager made by the Banker. Such wagers shall be accepted until the amount of the partial wagers, taken in the aggregate, equals the amount of the wager made by the Banker or until, the dealer announces "No More Bets."
(e) No wager at Baccarat-Chemin de Fer shall be made, increased or withdrawn after the dealer has announced "No More Bets" except that the Banker shall withdraw any part of his initial wager that was not covered by the wagers of the other participants.
(f) Any wager placed by the participants in cash shall be exchanged immediately by the dealer for gaming chips or plaques in accordance with the regulations governing the acceptance and conversion of such instruments.
(g) The wager(s) placed by the participants shall:
(1) Win if the "Player's Hand" has a Point Count higher than that of the "Bankers Hand"; (2) Lose if the "Player's Hand" has a Point Count lower than that of the "Banker's Hand"; (3) Be void if the Point Counts of the "Banker's Hand” and the "Player's Hand" are equal.


Again, I don't recall exactly how it worked in Monte Carlo when I played there briefly on two different trips to Monaco.

In the clip from Dr. No, Sylvia says "Suivi" which means, "Follow" (from the French verb suivre), and, according to the American casino's rules, means:

Any participant who equaled and lost the immediately preceding wager of the Banker shall have the first option of making a wager against the Banker in an amount equal to the amount being wagered by the Banker. Said participant shall exercise this option by announcing "Banco Suivi" or "Suivi" and by placing the requisite wager on the appropriate area of the layout.

which would imply that Sylvia already lost the previous hand (maybe that scene ended up on the cutting room floor). The implication of "The House will cover the difference" implies that she is betting more than Bond has put up, yes, but, again, it's a movie, so who knows. (When I heard them say that I assumed it meant that the house was covering her bet in terms of some kind of marker because she didn't have all of it (She does later say, "I need another thousand," presumably to the House), but again, who knows.)

When you get to Goldeneye, you'll find a tribute to Eunice Gayson (who played Sylvia Trench) where her daughter Kate Gayson plays the Casino girl, in the Baccarat scene.

By the way, notice that when asked, she declares her name to be, "Trench. Sylvia Trench," after which Bond follows suit by saying that his name is "Bond. James Bond."

So, Eunice Gayson is famous not just for being the first Bond girl, but also for leading to the most famous catchphrase of all Bond movies.

Quote: MDawg

By the way, notice that when asked, she declares her name to be, "Trench. Sylvia Trench," after which Bond follows suit by saying that his name is "Bond. James Bond."

So, Eunice Gayson is famous not just for being the first Bond girl, but also for leading to the most famous catchphrase of all Bond movies.

I read the original script had Bond to say something like, "My name is Bond." However, at the time, Connery improvised the "Bond...James Bond," and the director liked it.

Quote: Gandler

.....except Casino Royale which was in legal limbo for decades)....

Details please! Sounds interesting.

Quote: zippyboy

Details please! Sounds interesting.

Ian Fleming sold the rights to Casino Royale for a television episode which predated the movies (that's a trick trivia by the way, Sean Connery was NOT the first James Bond)

When Fleming sold the rights to the novels to producers Broccoli and Saltzman who intended to do an extended series, Fleming had to leave Casino Royale out of the package deal as the rights were still tied up with the television producers.

Fleming passed away in 1964 and by 1966 the rights to Casino Royale to do a movie version either reverted back to his widow or something of that nature but bottom line they were sold NOT to Salztman and Broccoli but to Columbia pictures which then decided to turn their films into a horrible spoof starring David Niven as Bond, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen as nephew Jimmy Bond.

Eventually it was all sorted out and when a Daniel Craig reboot was decided upon they had the genius idea to reboot with the novel which had started it all (Casino Royale was the first Bond novel written, not Dr. No. In fact Dr. No is one the later books and was chosen first to be produced because it was relatively new on the bookstands so they figured people would recognize it faster.

Anyway, the only other Bond novel that had worse legal limbo problems was Thunderball

Quote: darkoz

Ian Fleming sold the rights to Casino Royale for a television episode which predated the movies (that's a trick trivia by the way, Sean Connery was NOT the first James Bond)

When Fleming sold the rights to the novels to producers Broccoli and Saltzman who intended to do an extended series, Fleming had to leave Casino Royale out of the package deal as the rights were still tied up with the television producers.

Fleming passed away in 1964 and by 1966 the rights to Casino Royale to do a movie version either reverted back to his widow or something of that nature but bottom line they were sold NOT to Salztman and Broccoli but to Columbia pictures which then decided to turn their films into a horrible spoof starring David Niven as Bond, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen as nephew Jimmy Bond.

Eventually it was all sorted out and when a Daniel Craig reboot was decided upon they had the genius idea to reboot with the novel which had started it all (Casino Royale was the first Bond novel written, not Dr. No. In fact Dr. No is one the later books and was chosen first to be produced because it was relatively new on the bookstands so they figured people would recognize it faster.

Anyway, the only other Bond novel that had worse legal limbo problems was Thunderball

Yes! Thunderball is another interesting drama. Basically Flemming and McClory were cowriting a script for a new story for a film, bur Flemming got impatient and published it as a book under his own name (which as much as I love Flemming was kind of sleazy, though this is disputed). That is also why "Spectre" characters were not allowed to used until the most recent film when they finally got the rights back (although they totally butchered their return IMO, but that is another story). It also led to "Never Say Never Again" (since McClory had the rights to release his own movies based on the Thunderball story every so may years).

I think one reason Dr. No was also chosen if I recall correctly was that it was a story that could be made low budget. I think they wanted to make Thunderball first (the book came out right as they were planning the first film 60 or 61), but it would require a huge budget (which makes sense with the scale of Thunderball, and the complex underwater scenes), at least I think that is what I recall from the commentary on either Dr No or Thunderball DVD.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MDawg

By the way, notice that when asked, she declares her name to be, "Trench. Sylvia Trench," after which Bond follows suit by saying that his name is "Bond. James Bond."

So, Eunice Gayson is famous not just for being the first Bond girl, but also for leading to the most famous catchphrase of all Bond movies.

I read the original script had Bond to say something like, "My name is Bond." However, at the time, Connery improvised the "Bond...James Bond," and the director liked it.

Here are the script pages from that scene, albeit the "Fifth draft screenplay by Richard Maibaum, Wolf Mankowitz, and JM (Johanna) Harwood for Dr No (Eon Productions/MGM)." Maybe Connery's improvisation was already incorporated into this fifth draft, because his saying Bond. James Bond. AFTER Sylvia says Trench. Sylvia Trench. is already in black and white in this script.

In this draft, on the first hand, Sylvia actually draws to end with a 7 while Bond draws a third card to end with 8. On the second hand Sylvia has a pat 6, Bond a natural 8. Third hand, Bond hands Sylvia a 5 (unclear what her two cards add up to, maybe 0 same as Bond's first two), and Bond draws a 7 to win the hand with a 7.

Given that Bond's stack of chips are noted as growing monstrously, and Sylvia's described as a "small pile," I continue to think that her saying that "The House will cover the difference" either means that the House will cover the difference in paying Bond if he wins, or, perhaps, will lend her the difference to cover her bet. Her saying Suivi means she wants to bet the entire sum, so the latter interpretation perhaps makes more sense. In either case, note that after she queries as to whether the House will cover the difference, the script directs that Bond glances at the croupier, who nods, meaning that Bond's motivation is to make sure he is paid the full amount of his wager.

Surprisingly (considering there's a James Bond roulette system from the books), roulette is never played in the films. The closest it came was a brief DAF deleted scene featuring a Sammy cameo...

Let's move onto the next movie, Thunderball. In that movie we find Bond playing Chemin de Fer at a casino in the Bahamas.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTMHrljIW0g

Here is what seems to be happening and my questions.

1. The villain is banking. He says "200," but I am not sure why. Is this a minimum bet he is looking to fade?
2. Bond walks up to the table and says "Banco." Does this mean he wishes to bank?
3. Bond bets what looks like 200 on the Player side. He is dealt 0-0 and draws an 8. We don't see the villain's cards, but I presume he stood on 6 or 7.
4. Bond takes the Banker position. Stakes are raised to 500 pounds. He wins 7 over 6.
5. Bond wins with a natural 9 over natural 8.
6. Bond leaves. One can hear the villain asking to Bank as Bond walks away.

Pretty similar scene to that in Dr. No. Connery seems to play it with more levity this time.

One area of 'gambling smarts' Bond has down cold is to make a few large bets and then quit immediately, rather a bunch of small bets, and let the house edge grind you down.

The same business of Bond not revealing naturals is going on here. But this time he pauses and forces the man to reveal his natural first. It's as if it's OK to pull stunts. If you don't reveal a natural immediately, and the other player decides to take a card, I have to think there would be quite the fuss. Mdawg thinks it's just to make a more dramatic gambling scene, as good an explanation as any . In the previous movie, the woman asks for cards but doesn't receive them against the naturals.

I can't answer the question about declaring "banco"

As you start reviewing more Bond movies, you'll find that sometimes Bond loses his first hand or two, then starts winning.

As we've already discussed, in Chemin de Fer, the person holding the shoe is wagering on the side of the Bank. The first card out of the shoe goes to Player, second to Bank, third again to Player, fourth to Bank.

As far as Bond's declaring "Banco," I assume it means that he wishes to start wagering on the side of the Bank, which he does on the second hand played and until he gets up. He is able to assume control of the shoe because Largo, who was holding the shoe when Bond arrived, lost a hand and thereby gave up the right to be Bank.

In Vegas, there used to be far more Grand Baccarat tables, and any player could assume control of the shoe and play on the side of the Bank (I've done it many times), but it was really just a ceremonial gesture, because the wagers were still paid out the same as any others, just that the player holding the shoe was doing it because he felt that the Bank was due to win. I suppose a player in Vegas could assume control of the shoe and even bet the Player's side, although that wouldn't make much sense, because the person holding the shoe opens the Bank's side cards.

Today, there is just one Vegas casino left that I am aware of that offers both Grand Baccarat and the old style mechanical shoes (with no camera in them to read the cards), and at that casino players are still allowed to assume control of the shoe. Most of these old style shoes are cream colored, so if you see a cream colored Baccarat shoe with no wires connected directly to it, you will know that it's an old style mechanical one with no card reader.

They haven't yet gotten to the point of camera readers inside Blackjack shoes, have they?

Largo has the shoe and declares he'll back the Bank's hand with 200 pounds. (That's around $1900 U.S. in today's money.) We don't know the table minimums, but it's a swanky place with formal attire so the Banker min is probably at least 50 or (more likely) 100 pounds. Player mins are probably at least 5 or (more likely) 10 pounds. Largo puts his 200 in the Banker section of the layout.

Before normal Player punter wagers are placed...

Does anyone call Suivi? No. Presumably because nobody went Banco last hand.

Next, does anyone call Banco? Yes. Bond does meaning he'll equal the entire Bank wager. Everyone to Bond's right is out of the hand but those to the left may also call Banco and would supersede Bond in priority. (The punter to the Banker's immediate right is called Banco Prime.)

No one to the left, however, calls Banco so Bond puts 200 pounds on the Player section of the layout and goes mano-a-mano with Largo. Since no other punter has money involved, Bond is in complete control of the Player hand. (He could, say, stand on a 4 or hit on a 6.)

Largo loses and must pass the shoe. Normally this would go to the first player (in table order) who will match or exceed the previous Banker amount (200 pounds). If not, there's either an auction, or it's the first player willing to bank at least the table minimum.

But Largo asks to raise the stakes to 500. The punters between him and Bond say it's too rich for them (although they're under no obligation to agree to the raise). Bond, of course, agrees and takes the shoe. He is now banking at 500 pounds (which is risky considering he only has 700 pounds on him). Although Largo does not call Banco, his intentions are obvious to everyone so it's mano-a-mano again. (He does call Suivi after losing the second hand.)


My question is, what status does Bond even have at the table? When he arrives there no seats available. Standing punters do have rights and may wager on Player if the seated punters do not cover the full Bank amount. But can they call Banco and start playing over the seated players shoulders?

Yes, now that I watched it again more closely, Bond does say "Banco" before the hand is played out.

Quote: Gialmere

Next, does anyone call Banco? Yes. Bond does meaning he'll equal the entire Bank wager. Everyone to Bond's right is out of the hand but those to the left may also call Banco and would supersede Bond in priority. (The punter to the Banker's immediate right is called Banco Prime.) 

Quote: MDawg

As far as Bond's declaring "Banco," I assume it means that he wishes to start wagering on the side of the Bank, which he does on the second hand played and until he gets up.

These above are two different evaluations?

Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccarat_(card_game)#Chemin_de_fer

In each round, the banker wagers the amount he wants to risk. The other players, in order, then declare whether they will "go bank", playing against the entire current bank with a matching wager. Only one player may "go bank". If no one "goes bank", players make their wagers in order

This seems to support Gialmere's version, or perhaps MDawg hasn't phrased it well

Wikipedia does not explain the use of the words 'banco' or 'suivi' ... somebody could add that, seems to me. Check this out, 
https://books.google.com/books?id=6Ph-q7UY4LIC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=suivi+banco&source=bl&ots=mGcpLa-bIn&sig=ACfU3U1_E4oRKsdUq2tcnJKTGvxB8SdlaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM946t0sbwAhXHi54KHUeVBXwQ6AEwDXoECBgQAw#v=onepage&q=suivi%20banco&f=false

Quote: Gialmere

Does anyone call Suivi? No. Presumably because nobody went Banco last hand.

What does calling Suivi mean?

Quote: Wizard

What does calling Suivi mean?

see upthread

Quote: Gialmere

My question is, what status does Bond even have at the table? When he arrives there no seats available. Standing punters do have rights and may wager on Player if the seated punters do not cover the full Bank amount. But can they call Banco and start playing over the seated players shoulders?

where are you finding etiquette rules at all?

If anyone has the novel Casino Royale, it describes the rules and etiquette and “banco” and “suivi” very well. The first movies follow the same way as described in that book.

Quote: unJon

If anyone has the novel Casino Royale, it describes the rules and etiquette and “banco” and “suivi” very well. The first movies follow the same way as described in that book.

A document by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission gets in the fine points of Chemin de Fer pretty well. I am surprised they offer the game there, as opposed to conventional baccarat.

I don't think I could improve upon the wording in the document, so I'll copy and paste it here.

Quote: Massachusetts Gaming Commission -- Chemin de Fer -- Rule 6

6. Wagers made against banker

(a) After the Banker has placed a wager in support of the "Banker's Hand", the remaining
participants at the table shall be given the opportunity of wagering against all or a part of the
wager made by the Banker provided, however, that such wagers shall not exceed, either
individually or in the aggregate, the amount wagered by the Banker.
(b) Any participant who equaled and lost the immediately preceding wager of the Banker shall
have the first option of making a wager against the Banker in an amount equal to the amount
being wagered by the Banker. Said participant shall exercise this option by announcing
"Banco Suivi" or "Suivi" and by placing the requisite wager on the appropriate area of the
layout. A "standoff" shall not be counted for the purpose of determining the immediately
preceding wager under this subsection.
(c) If no qualified participant announces "Banco Suivi" or "Suivi", the next preference shall be
given to any participant placing a wager against the Banker equal in amount to that wagered
by the Banker. This option shall be exercised by a participant announcing "Banco Seul" or
"Banco" and by placing the requisite wager on the appropriate area of the layout. Whenever
more than one participant announces "Banco Seul" or "Banco", preference shall be given to
the participant making such announcement who is seated nearest to the Banker in a
counterclockwise direction around the table.
(d) If the options granted by (b) and (c) above are not exercised, each participant, beginning with
one seated to the immediate right of the Banker and moving counterclockwise around the
table, shall have the right to make a wager against a part of the wager made by the Banker.
Such wagers shall be accepted until the amount of the partial wagers, taken in the aggregate,
equals the amount of the wager made by the Banker or until, the dealer announces "No More
Bets."

We have discussed what is in it for the casino in this player vs. player (again, note the lower case) game. Rule 9 says the house may collect a 4% or 5% from winning Banker wagers.

Quote: Rule 9

(c) As its fee in housing the game, the gaming licensee shall extract a commission known as
"vigorish" from the amount won by the Banker on each round of play, in an amount equal to,
in the gaming licensee's discretion, either four or five percent of the amount won; provided,
however, that when collecting the vigorish, the gaming licensee may round off the amount of
a five percent vigorish to 25 cents or the next highest multiple of 25 cents, and the amount of
a four percent vigorish to 20 cents or the next highest multiple of 20 cents. Such vigorish
shall be collected immediately after each round won by the Banker.

It's time to move onto our next Bond movie. In keeping with the Chemin de Fer theme, let's jump ahead to Goldeneye.

I'd like to remind the forum that I use lower case to refer to the people playing the game and upper case for the bets.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2pCZFpq9aA

Let me address the scene by the time count in the video:

1:11 -- It's a new hand and Bond steps up to the table. He says "banco," indicating he wants to bet the maximum amount against the banker (note the lower case), the villain.
1:34 -- Here the villain refers to the game as "baccarat." It is obviously the same game played in Dr. No and Thunderball. I'm not sure whether to say this is an error, that the name of the game changed between Connery and Brosnan, or that baccarat is more of the English name and Chemin de Fer the French. I welcome comments on this.
1:43 -- The villain beats Bond 7 over 6. This is the first hand, in any movie, we've seen Bond lose at this game, whatever we call it.
1:56 -- Just before the villain says "two." I think this is referring to the maximum amount she will cover. To that, I believe Bond is saying "suivi," which I addressed in my last post. Since he lost the previous hand, he is given the first option to bet the full amount, which he invokes.
2:11 -- In hand #2, Bond, acting first, takes a card, which we see is a 6. Before giving it to him, the Villain exposes her total of 5. I am not sure if this is normal to expose the Banker hand before delivering the third card to the Player hand. I welcome comments on that. The villain with five, knows only one of Bond's cards a 6 and that his other two cards are low enough to warrant hitting. Standing on 5, looking at 6, is a bad decision. There are some borderline plays in Chemin de Fer, but this isn't one of them. I may post again on the expected value of both ways to play in her shoes, which will depend on whether Bond would have hit a 5, but I'm sure it will come out that the odds favor hitting either way.
2:35 -- Bond reveals two face cards, for 6 total points, beating the Villain's 5.

3:52 -- This has nothing to do with gambling, but it adds another one of my interests -- license plates! I do not know if what he said is true or not.

To reply to my own post, I was right, the villain should definitely have hit that hand.

As stated before, there is free will in Chemin de Fer as long as neither side has a natural.

If two logicians played, then some decisions would be randomized. One of them would be the player hitting of a two-card total of 5.

The following table shows the expected value* of the villains decision, whether she believed Bond would hit or stand on a 5.

Player Hits on 5	Stand EV	Hit EV
No	-0.640449	-0.390476
Yes	-0.640449	-0.290220

The table shows, the villain's EV is greater, whether Bond would hit or stand on a 5.

The mathematics of the scene would have been much more interesting if the villain had a total of 4 and Bond drew a 5.

By the way, if two logicians did play, then the logician not banking should hit a 5 with probability 77.95%.

* Based on infinite decks.

More information: WoO page on Chemin de Fer

Do you mean the blonde bending over? Looks like Bond is looking down her dress.

I've never seen 'Goldeneye' ... probably because I was against Pierce Brosnan being the next James Bond and have never seen more than a few moments of any of them where Brosnan was Bond

Maybe I've reached a stage where I can get over that and start watching those movies. They don't seem to show up on Cable/Satellite though

I'm glad you broke it all down, something about the sound quality ... I could hardly follow conversation at all. Perhaps if I get a chance I can watch it with the sound blasting [uncool at the moment]. But I am missing virtually every nuance now

no answer for you on license plate

what do you think of women smoking cigars? In real life I've gotten quite a kick out of it, if I know them beforehand; in a movie or with a woman I don't know, just doesn't do the same thing for me. Appropriate for a villain perhaps

PS: forming some thoughts generally about Chemin d.f. ... will wait till u finish with all the Bond gambling scenes

Quote: Wizard

Do you mean the blonde bending over? Looks like Bond is looking down her dress.

Quote: Wizard

1:43 -- The villain beats Bond 7 over 6. This is the first hand, in any movie, we've seen Bond lose at this game, whatever we call it.

Bond does lose a hand in OHMSS (although he does leave the table with a much larger stack than what he sat down with).

Quote: Wizard

2:11 -- In hand #2, Bond, acting first, takes a card, which we see is a 6. Before giving it to him, the Villain exposes her total of 5. I am not sure if this is normal to expose the Banker hand before delivering the third card to the Player hand. I welcome comments on that.

This is also what is done in OHMSS.

Quote: Wizard

The villain with five, knows only one of Bond's cards a 6 and that his other two cards are low enough to warrant hitting. Standing on 5, looking at 6, is a bad decision. There are some borderline plays in Chemin de Fer, but this isn't one of them. I may post again on the expected value of both ways to play in her shoes, which will depend on whether Bond would have hit a 5, but I'm sure it will come out that the odds favor hitting either way.

The debate on what to do with a 5 is mentioned in OHMSS.

------------------------------------------

Here's some rules for UK casinos

Two things of interest....

Quote:

There are usually only three stakes made in this game:

• Bank only - The punter plays alone against the banker
• Bank with table - The punter bets half the sum staked by the banker
• Individual player stakes

So here, you can call a "half banco". An interesting option since, depending on where you are relative to the shoe, you would immediately become the dominate player without risking the full Bank amount.

Quote:

Players are free to abide by or ignore the table shown below, known as the "Rule Table". Those who wish to abide by the Rule Table must tell the Croupier who in turn informs the other players.

The Croupier must always indicate "Rule Table" players as if there is a mistake the customer is safeguarded by the regulations, which state that any rounds that do not comply must be reconstructed by the Inspector according to the Rule Table.

So here, someone, I'm assuming the punter playing the Banker hand, declares if the game has complete free will or uses the "house way". Note that the charts still gives the Banker punter a few options. The Player, meanwhile, MUST always stand on 5.

--------------------------------

Quote: MDawg

I've played Chemin de Fer twice in Monaco (Monte Carlo) when visiting there, but when in Europe I am not there to gamble, so it was just for the experience and I don't precisely recall exactly how it worked, but I do believe it was the same as the above stated rules. This "stand or draw" on 5 option is part of the Chemin de Fer plot in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, also in Goldeneye.

[Note the OHMSS mention]

If MDawg is reading this, I'd be interested on his general thoughts about playing the game. Bond films, naturally, make it look glamorous -- a fun and exciting table game for the social gambler. The reality, I suspect, is probably just people sitting around making small bets with few bancos called and even fewer people willing to bank.

As long as you bring it up, let's discuss the casino scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service next. Trivia -- This is the only film where Bond gets married.



Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK28sHhh9hI

This confirms what Gialmere says above:

1. The banker does reveal his two-card hand after the player hits.
2. Bond advises Teresa, "Next time play it safe and stand on five." He is referring to her acting first, in the player position.

As I mentioned before, if two perfect logicians played chemin de fer, then the logician to act first would stand on 5 with probability 22.0503%. She should not have been corrected either way, as it becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors with a five, you have to act randomly.

Quote: MDawg

(As well in Europe, they play a more true version of Baccarat where there is some discretion as to drawing cards – the rules allow a player to stand or draw on certain hands. If you have seen On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, you will recall that “Tracy” (Diana Rigg) chooses to draw on five, and draws another five, bringing her to zero, which brings James Bond to advise her to “next time play it safe and stand on five.” (which leads Tracy to comment that, “People who want to stay alive play it safe.”))

Evidently there are names for the way punters play a 5.

Quote: Baccarat.net

There’s a choice in Chemin de Fer as the first two cards are dealt face-down so if the Player has a 5, they can use some tactics to throw their opponent off by changing the style of play. Depending on the tactics at the total 5, players can be:


Tireur (shooter in French) – a player who always draws;
Non-tireur – a player who usually stands;
Douteur (doubter) – a player who alternates between drawing and standing.