Over the last two years, my brother has turned into something of a professional poker player. As such, I've had to listen to more than my fair share of stories from the tables, both online and in the casino. Through no fault of my own, I've even absorbed a decent amount of poker knowledge. I'm certainly no expert, but I can talk through a hand using all of the lingo and generally have a decent understanding of what separates good play from bad play, at least for Texas Hold 'Em anyway. So, with that context, I expect that I went into this film with an above average knowledge of the subject matter. Unfortunately, that familiarity with the world that the film explores detracts from the experience in two significant ways.

The first way is obvious. For uninitiated audiences, the quirks of the poker lifestyle will feel fresh and unique, whereas those same elements don't feel like quirks at all to those who are already familiar. The second way relates to how the creators have to cater to those uninitiated audiences, resulting in dialogue that, for those in the know, may feel like ham-fisted exposition and/or oversimplification. This is a common pitfall with any movie/show that explores a very niche community/activity (e.g. when doctors critique _House_ or _Grey's Anatomy_). Even with my less-than-professional poker knowledge, I raised my eyebrows at some of what was happening on screen (i.e. why isn't Teddy KGB 3-betting his Aces?). In addition to those issues, there's also the problem of poker not making for particularly cinematic material. Having to lean on narration to convey what's happening on screen is never ideal.

Despite all of these issues, the film is still very well made and I generally enjoyed it. It likely does the best job possible at capturing the low level poker grind, and I'm sure those who know nothing of that world will find even more to enjoy. Plus, Edward Norton plays a wonderful slimeball.