Originally Posted by
Dark Horse
It's a movie, so the tell had to be made very obvious to make sure that everybody in the audience got it. In reality it would have been far more subtle. Complex games as poker and chess always get this treatment in movies. Chess invariably goes from great complexity to check mate in just a few moves; in movie chess a player never gives up in a lost position (long before check mate), and the action is quick because the movie would come to a crawl otherwise. And even the latest Bond, which is grittier than all the previous editions combined, has a straight flush that would have put a twinkle in Maverick's eyes.
The Oreo cookie in the movie is where the psychology shifts. Now KGB, a very good player, realizes that he's up against a player that is much better than he had previously assumed. Until now, Mike had always played at the low limit tables, and the one time he bet big in no limit he lost. Again, the fact that he lost by missing the most obvious (pocket aces) was 'movie poker'. I think it's important to keep the storyline separate from the actual cards, which are simplified for the audience.
The point of the movie was that Mike was great without pressure (reading the professors cards blindly), but not under pressure. He had choked the first time with real money. If that happened again, he would never get over it. He would be a choker for life. The whole movie was about the inner process of getting from A (great without pressure) to B (great under pressure).
So I tend to think KGB gave him an opportunity to get over the hump. And I'd like to think he did so on purpose, and acted furious after losing to keep up appearances with his crime pals. This guy had lost big bets before. He had developed great respect for Mike. And all he wanted to know at this point was if Mike would be willing to take that one step that would define everything else from thereon. He wanted Mike to be a great player. And so, if this is indeed the movie's storyline (confused by 'movie cards'!), he bluffed.
Mike was so elated with his newly won freedom that he didn't realize KGB's role. As KGB threw his anger fit, Mike decided to insult him ('I can beat you all night'), which had KGB's helpers ready to jump him. And it is at this point that KGB immediately regains his calm. 'Nyet! Nyet.' To control his helpers. KGB had called Mike the kid the whole time. But now, after he regained his calm, he said: "Pay him. He beat me. Straight up. Pay that man his money." KGB couldn't have just paid Mike without first throwing an anger fit. He had to play to his helpers in crime first.
KGB, like a teacher, showed Mike when he was not ready and when he was ready. At the beginning of the movie he isn't ready. The movie is about the lessons he has to learn first. The process involves going beyond his two friends - one a cheater, the other a good player not interested in the big time-, and breaking with his girl friend and college education.
That's how, I believe, it would have been written. Translated to 'movie' reality, however, Mike just had a killer hand. And KGB missed it, just as Mike had missed KGB's pocket aces early in the movie. The final hand was luck. It was KGB making a mistake, rather than Mike making a brilliant move. But it really shouldn't have been luck; not at that point in the movie... And so it looks like the movie stayed true to the end to the typical movie thing. Oversimplifying a complex game. Why can't somebody just win big with 10-2?