This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.
You talk to yourself?I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.
Was gonna ask the same thingscottybo said:You talk to yourself?snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
I just started reading Busting Vegas - written by Mezrich about another MIT Blackjack team that hit the casinos a few years after. Both books are very entertaining, and I found the actual strategy and gameplan portions of the book fascinating - but I can definitely see what you mean in regards to the writing style. Mezrich is a good writer, but you can tell in both books when he is adding simple literary techniques to make the book more suspenseful or descriptive. Certain parts in each story just have such unnecessary and obscure literary descriptions (i.e. characters' wardrobes, the settings of the hotel rooms or limos, etc.) that after reading the books back to back, it started to get to me a little - realizing that there was no way that this was how the original story was reiterated to the author.I think these two books could have come out better if they were "authored" by the main characters with Mezrich as a ghost writer or a coauthor, this was the stories would have been more authentic.snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
Fixed.snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk I've talked to that Of all the people I've talked to that have read it, I'm the only one who read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
i read the book & enjoyed it, but don't think the movie will be any good. i doubt that the movie will touch on the different roles & aspects of the group play, like the "secretary", "gorilla play" and the key words used as table talk to communicate to +/- of the shoe from the secretary to the big $$ player. kevin spacey should be good as always, however.I guess I'm one of the only ones who knows the story and thinks the movie looks pretty awful.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Mizerich is a fiction author by trade. Bringing down the house was his first non-fiction book. However, reading this book, it seems that he didn't realize that not all books have to be written with cool chapter ending cliffhangers. Sometimes the story can just tell itself without embellishment.I just started reading Busting Vegas - written by Mezrich about another MIT Blackjack team that hit the casinos a few years after. Both books are very entertaining, and I found the actual strategy and gameplan portions of the book fascinating - but I can definitely see what you mean in regards to the writing style. Mezrich is a good writer, but you can tell in both books when he is adding simple literary techniques to make the book more suspenseful or descriptive. Certain parts in each story just have such unnecessary and obscure literary descriptions (i.e. characters' wardrobes, the settings of the hotel rooms or limos, etc.) that after reading the books back to back, it started to get to me a little - realizing that there was no way that this was how the original story was reiterated to the author.I think these two books could have come out better if they were "authored" by the main characters with Mezrich as a ghost writer or a coauthor, this was the stories would have been more authentic.snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
If you're babbling to yourself, you've got more problems than just perferring journalistic narrative.snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
I couldn't possibly agree more. Mizerich is a fiction author by trade. Bringing down the house was his first non-fiction book. However, reading this book, it seems that he didn't realize that not all books have to be written with cool chapter ending cliffhangers. Sometimes the story can just tell itself without embellishment.I just started reading Busting Vegas - written by Mezrich about another MIT Blackjack team that hit the casinos a few years after. Both books are very entertaining, and I found the actual strategy and gameplan portions of the book fascinating - but I can definitely see what you mean in regards to the writing style. Mezrich is a good writer, but you can tell in both books when he is adding simple literary techniques to make the book more suspenseful or descriptive. Certain parts in each story just have such unnecessary and obscure literary descriptions (i.e. characters' wardrobes, the settings of the hotel rooms or limos, etc.) that after reading the books back to back, it started to get to me a little - realizing that there was no way that this was how the original story was reiterated to the author.I think these two books could have come out better if they were "authored" by the main characters with Mezrich as a ghost writer or a coauthor, this was the stories would have been more authentic.snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
Exactly.As far as the movie, looks cool, but I'll probably have to think of it as a completely separate entity from the book. You just know they are going to "Hollywood" the hell out of it.
Starting with the fact that all the major card players are supposed to be Asian....but in the movie they are white.I couldn't possibly agree more. Mizerich is a fiction author by trade. Bringing down the house was his first non-fiction book. However, reading this book, it seems that he didn't realize that not all books have to be written with cool chapter ending cliffhangers. Sometimes the story can just tell itself without embellishment.I just started reading Busting Vegas - written by Mezrich about another MIT Blackjack team that hit the casinos a few years after. Both books are very entertaining, and I found the actual strategy and gameplan portions of the book fascinating - but I can definitely see what you mean in regards to the writing style. Mezrich is a good writer, but you can tell in both books when he is adding simple literary techniques to make the book more suspenseful or descriptive. Certain parts in each story just have such unnecessary and obscure literary descriptions (i.e. characters' wardrobes, the settings of the hotel rooms or limos, etc.) that after reading the books back to back, it started to get to me a little - realizing that there was no way that this was how the original story was reiterated to the author.I think these two books could have come out better if they were "authored" by the main characters with Mezrich as a ghost writer or a coauthor, this was the stories would have been more authentic.snitwitch said:I'm one of the only people I talk to that read it and didn't like it. It was written fiction-style, I would have much preferred a Black Hawk Down / Killing Pablo style journalistic narrative about such an entertaining topic.The true story itself is pretty cool, I just couldn't get into what the author did with it.Fat Drunk and Stupid said:book, "bringing down the house" by ben mezrich was pretty entertaining.scottybo said:
tdoss said:
I read the book, and even though i'd read the reviews that it was bad, I wanted to see the movie version of it anyway.Wow.. other than a small tidbit of the team play, the entire movie wasn't remotely similar to the book.If you don't know anything about blackjack or card counting it's absolutely terrible.Some nudity might have made this passable, but otherwise you'd be IMMENSELY far better off by buying the book if you have any interest in a good blackjack scam that is a really quick read.
I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
Alright, that would make a lot more sense. Then I guess the real biggest fumble is how the kid hided sll his money together in the same spot. Hadn't he ever heard of a BANK or the phrase "don't put all your eggs into one basket"? For such a smart kid, I think that was a pretty dumb move.I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
Why even debate it really? This movie is so full of blunders and headscratchers that it's not even worth the time to try to figure out which is the biggest.Alright, that would make a lot more sense. Then I guess the real biggest fumble is how the kid hided sll his money together in the same spot. Hadn't he ever heard of a BANK or the phrase "don't put all your eggs into one basket"? For such a smart kid, I think that was a pretty dumb move.I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
300K going into a bank would send up some serious red flags with certain government agencies would be my guess.Alright, that would make a lot more sense. Then I guess the real biggest fumble is how the kid hided sll his money together in the same spot. Hadn't he ever heard of a BANK or the phrase "don't put all your eggs into one basket"? For such a smart kid, I think that was a pretty dumb move.I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
At one point they mention losing another client (another casino).
Indeed, but I was yelling "safety deposit box, you moron" through much of the movie.300K going into a bank would send up some serious red flags with certain government agencies would be my guess.Alright, that would make a lot more sense. Then I guess the real biggest fumble is how the kid hided sll his money together in the same spot. Hadn't he ever heard of a BANK or the phrase "don't put all your eggs into one basket"? For such a smart kid, I think that was a pretty dumb move.I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
That is what I thought. What? Do they only have the one casino in Las Vegas? I could have sworn there were many others to go count cards at. Any of you Las Vegas folks want to let me know about that. I see this was already explained in an earlier postAnd the ending. They are on the run from the casino goons and Kevin Spacey says "Throw me the chips and we'll meet up later"Okay. So you get into the limo, tell them to go to the airport, but what are you going to do with all the casino chips?Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least.
I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
Deposit a little each day. Open one up in a corporate account.If Kevin Spacey can get the kid an A in a class and do all that other stuff, you mean to tell me he can't or doesn't know ANYONE in banking who could help the kid set up an account away from prying eyes?A kid with a 4.0 at MIT has to sell ties for $8 an hour? That's the best job he could get? He sold that older couple a $2500 (I think that was the price or something close to it) suit and he is only getting $8 an hour from the place?300K going into a bank would send up some serious red flags with certain government agencies would be my guess.Alright, that would make a lot more sense. Then I guess the real biggest fumble is how the kid hided sll his money together in the same spot. Hadn't he ever heard of a BANK or the phrase "don't put all your eggs into one basket"? For such a smart kid, I think that was a pretty dumb move.I believe the security team was over many casinos.Yeah, it was pretty cheesy but kept me entertained at least. I think the biggest fumble of the movie is how they repeatedly go back to the same casino. It's Las Vegas, there's a ####load of casinos to choose from! Don't keep going back to the same one where you know Laurence Fishburne has his eyes on you!
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
The vast majority of these things made the film more believable to me because in real life, even the genius level kids make amazingly stupid mistakes. We live in a world where the sitting president invades Iraq partly due to false intel. We live in a world where a sitting president gets BJs from an intern and expects not to get caught. But a bunch of kids with no concept of money giving the adult ringleader a 50% take is "not believable?"Real people don't execute every single plan to perfection. Far, far FAR from it.
It's only "his" money because the team had been giving him 50% for years.
They entered the game with nothing..... they only have something b/c of what he taught them and what he staked them.
The team made over $1 million from just the few weeks since the new guy had joined them, and they'd been going to Vegas for several months (if not years) before that. Every person on the team was practically a millionaire. Pretty sure they no longer needed the professor to stake them.No. 16 said:
i do the same thing despite not liking the movie. I think because the book was so fantastic I watch almost in remembrance of the book.
i've never really understood why a movie with an attractive girl that doesn't get her breasts out or engage in some really filthy behavior would be a draw.
