Thread Rating:

Poll

1 vote (10%)
No votes (0%)
4 votes (40%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (10%)
2 votes (20%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (10%)
1 vote (10%)

10 members have voted

darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8407
May 7th, 2021 at 5:33:59 PM permalink
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
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gialmere
Gialmere
Joined: Nov 26, 2018
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 1964
May 7th, 2021 at 5:47:40 PM permalink
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".
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
May 7th, 2021 at 6:05:26 PM permalink
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).
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2666
Thanks for this post from:
Joeman
May 7th, 2021 at 7:26:13 PM permalink
Not a casino, but I致e always been partial to the gin and then golf gambling parts of Goldfinger.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 183
  • Posts: 10428
May 7th, 2021 at 7:27:57 PM permalink
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.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
MDawg
MDawg
Joined: Sep 27, 2018
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 2707
May 8th, 2021 at 9:19:53 AM permalink
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.
Last edited by: MDawg on May 8, 2021
I tell you it痴 wonderful to be here, man. I don稚 give a damn who wins or loses. It痴 just wonderful to be here with you people.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
May 8th, 2021 at 9:23:12 AM permalink
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.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8407
May 8th, 2021 at 9:31:33 AM permalink
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
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
May 8th, 2021 at 10:10:25 AM permalink
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).
Gialmere
Gialmere
Joined: Nov 26, 2018
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 1964
May 8th, 2021 at 11:33:14 AM permalink
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.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.

  • Jump to: