we know that, it just also means that Clemenza would never have been smart enough to try and pull somethin off like that. Tessio was smart enough to at least try and make up some sort of plan although he did get caught. Clemenza wasnt smart enough to even think of a way to assassinate Michael, he wouldve been caught right away.

Tessio did not know that Mike would ever find out. He underestimated Mike, because Barzini and the other families were mopping the floor with Mike.Mike wasnt pushing back, because he didnt want his plans screwed up, and Sal took it as a sign of weakness. Considering the circumstances and the knowledge Sal had at the time it WAS the smart move. As GP said, Tessio does not have a crystal ball, there was no sign that Mike had anything planned.

As stated above the Corleones had deminished in their standing over the time since the Don's retirement. Furthermore, Mike had in many ways to potentiality of becoming great, but none of the olbvious earmarkings of one. He had made his bones, not done exceptionally well in carrying on the family business and wasn't involved in the life for a long time. It perfectly seemed that wasn't the appropriate sucessor to Vito.

What Tessio did wasn't unreasonable, he was talking to Barzini at a funeral, the perfect assumption by most people would be that he knows Barzini or is just socializing. The deductive mind of Michael, instantly knew the score and he wasn't fooled. He simply underestimated him. That's why the hits were so effective, Mike presented himself as less than he was, never showing his hand or striking until the time was right.

So it really wasn't stupid of Tessio, it was only stupid of tessio, as a high school student is stupid compared to a professor. Michael's intellect and cold, calm calculations were presumed by Tessio to not be existent, when in reality he used it to end up on top of it all.

This subject becomes more of an emotional one (than an objective one) for me.

The novel goes into some minor detail about how Tessio was smarter (than Clemenza). He picked up on things more quickly (example being when the Family was organized Vito wanted Tessio and Clemenza to be distant from each other so they wouldn't be in a position to jointly overthrow the Don. Tessio understood this, and was given "more room" to run his regime freely, while Clemenza was held on a tighter rein).

As I see it, Tessio's "mistake" was that he didn't trust Vito's judgment enough to follow Mike. Clemenza did, and we know the rest.

Nobody likes a traitor, and conversely everyone likes a loyal friend. Thats why we "look down" on Tessio, and appreciate Clemenza (this is why its an emotional issue for me).

"Can't do it, Sally". Four sweet sounding words.

It was a smart move because Barzini and the other 5 families were more powerful than the Corleones and was expected to win. On the other hand, Tessio knew Mike as a weak but pleasant man. Tessio and Clemenza was kept in the dark about what Mike were planning. To be sure neither one expects that he had the nerve to slaughter the heads of the five families.

In the meantime, Tessio was carving a life after the Corleone demise. His main flaw is that Tessio was brown-nosing Barzini in front of Michael plus wanting him to set a meeting with Barzini. Tess didn't realize that Michael saw though this. Therefore, he was left out of the murders and he was killed himself.

You can say that he was not smart because he paid with his life, but those are chances one take

Clemenza couldn't have been too in the dark as he was in on one of the asassinations

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Hunyad:
Clemenza couldn't have been too in the dark as he was in on one of the asassinations [/QUOTE

Before Vito death, Clemenza was in the dark. Recall that Tom felt that Clemenza would be the traitor. Even Tom did not know what "moves" that Michael and Don Vito was planning.

It WAS the smart move because Tessio/Barzini hadn't counted on Vito's advisement to Michael prior to his death. That is the only reason Michael knew they were planning his assasination.

Even Michael concedes that the move Tessio made WAS the smart one, strictly in terms of business. Where he was not smart was in NOT trusting his Don...as brilliantly pointed out by SC.

It WAS the smartest move, only hitch was that Vito and Michael were just one step ahead of him.

Apple

Listen, UK Vercetti.

If you want to go on insisting that Tessio did NOT make the 'smart move', then by all means go ahead & indulge yourself since you're clearly too self-absorbed to see this in any way but your own.

However *most* GF fans realize that it WAS the smart move, considering what might have become of Tessio's position within the Corleone Family had he NOT attempted to join forces with Barzini.

Apple

OK FOLKS,let me open the odds at 3-1....

Yes, that is THREE to ONE.


3-1 that the newbie doesn't make it a full thirty days here on the BB.

fathersson, I think the newbie already KNOWS he's not meant to last the first 30 days...which must be why he's double-posting must want to get a star or two in a hurry.

Or is he merely revealing his own ignorance...??

Apple

There has been a flood of requests for an over/ under.

Ok, so we will place the betting point at 16. Paying 2-1

My guess is under 16! for twenty points.

It happens rarely , but I gotta go with Apple on this one.

The "smart" move doesn't always work out. But just because it doesn't, that doesn't mean it wasn't the smart move.

It happens all the time in gambling. There's always a "smart bet" in any circumstance, based on percentages.

In blackjack, for example, if you have a 16 and the dealer shows a 10, the absolute smart move is to take a card. But by no means is that a guarantee that you will win. In fact, you will lose more often that not, even though you made the smart play.

Oh, and FS: I'll go with the over.

You're nice, plaw , now can I interest you in some Bush/Cheney campaign literature???

But seriously...keep in mind several others had agreed that Tessio made the 'smart move' prior to my even joining in on the thread.

Looks like our newbie continues to stand alone.
Anybody detect the aroma of cheese?

Apple

OK, guys....lets chill!

Keep going, UK Vercetti !!



AppleOnYa

Sure Pee, You know that sometimes you have to play by your feelings. Book says take the hit because the dealer will most likely have 20. But if you look at the numbers and you always do. There are five cards that can help (A,2,3,4,5,) you and eight cards that will bust you even before you see what the dealer has. (6,7,8,9,10, J, Q, K ).
So often the player busts him/her self because of fear alone. In those cases I play my gut feelings and may not always take the card. Funny thing is I find myself getting many of them right.

at least seeing the next card from the shoe and knowing you would have lost anyway if you took the card.

Hind sight is always 20-20.


What makes you think that the answer is over? (16)

While the others shouldn't be responding so negatively, you're bringing this on yourself with your attitude. Stop antagonizing others!

I thank God you're not AppleOnYa, too!!



And by the way, with regard to the thread, as Tessio once said to Mike...."You're wrong!"

Best,
Apple

That's where I disagree.

The first sentence in the first blackjack book I ever read said

"There is a mathematically correct way to play very hand"

I don't know if you count or not, or if you are familiar with the principles of card counting, but unless the deck has a positive true count of +2, you should always hit a 16 against a 10.

Of course, it's a marginal play at best because the difference works out to something like losing 65% of the time when you hit, and 70% of the time when you don't (something like that; I don't have a BJ book in front of me).

But I never play hunches, strictly percentages. Sure, you can play a hunch and be right, but in the long run, you gave away those few extra percentage points by playing the hunches.

Just a hunch

UK, I see youve survived your close encounted with Apple's wrath

You're point it logical and very well taken (or at least by me), however, the point that I feel that you are missing is that giving all the facts known to him,(sick Don, Corleones leaving New York, inepted successor, unable to start his family), Tessio did made the most logical decision in order to secure a properious future for himself.

Also, because a person lost in the end, it does not mean that their plan is a failure. Tessio was smart but Vito was smarter (whoever comes to Michael with Barzini meeting is the traitor).

No offense, but you're really not paying attention to what people are trying to point out. That this WAS the smart move for Tessio, a calculated risk he was willing to take as he knew the business he was in. Had he not made this move and remained a loyal member of the Corleone Family under Don Michael, he may have stayed alive but been quite unhappy. And he may have surmized that if he did not join forces with Barzini, someone else would and what would that eventually mean for him and his Don?

It was the smart move, there's no way around it.

Even once Tessio realized the jig was up, when he calmly conceded to Tom that it was business, Tom respectfully nodded and agreed that Michael knew that. They both knew it was a chance a man like Tessio had to take.

It was the smart move.

Apple

ps - yes, UK V it's all been a joke

That's because you are not Sal Tessio.
Tessio was always smarter.

Apple

That's because you are not a wise guy. They pride themselves in taking those kind of risk.

UK -

How many times do I have to ask you not to antagonize fellow members?

Stick to your arguments without the name calling and smartass remarks. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to behave; the next time you choose to break the Board's Rules of Conduct will result in a suspension of your posting priveleges.

In the end, Tessio ended up with a bad deal, but this doesn't mean that it was an unsmart move.

If Micheal never found out about Tessio's betrayal, Tessio would have been happy right? He would have had everything he would have wanted.

Now, UK, your saying that he died in the end, so it was not a smart move. But why did he die? Because Vito mysteriously knew that Tessio was the trader. Whether he was as smart as Einstein, or as stupid as Fredo, there is no way Tessio could have known that Vito knew.

Look at it like a checkers game. Ok, red has a plan to king one of his checkers. This could win Red the game if his (full-proof) plan works. He moves one space, not jumping or even indangering black, but black surrounds red, leaving red trapped. Black only knew because he was a genius who could read minds or something. This intellegence left red to lose the game.

Do you see what I'm saying? The outcome was sad, but the but the first decision, initially was a good one.

In a similar situation at the end of Goodfellas (diner scene), Jimmy (DeNiro) is trying to setup a meeting with Henry Hill (Liotta).

In the narrative, Henry Hill says the the mob always gets someone close and trusted to do the setup. This is exactly what Vito told Michael - that Barzini would get someone close and trusted for the setup.

Therefore, I would say Henry Hill, low-level soldier, was just as "smart" as Don Vito. But Caporegime Tessio wasn't as smart as Vito or Henry Hill.

Well, unless you're talking about something indicated in the novel, I don't recall Vito mysteriously knowing that Tessio was the traitor.
All he did was to advise Michael that there WOULD be a traitor, and that it would be the person who approached him to set up the meeting that would result in Michael's assasination.

But again, the novel going into much more 'depth' as stated by all...I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Vito at some point would suspect a particular person.

Apple

ps - and NO, AllAboutTheFamily, UK V does not understand what you are saying or at the very least he won't admit to understanding.

He's having too much fun insisting that Tessio's move was NOT a smart one, simply because it resulted in his demise.

Which of course, is not a smart theory.

I have a feeling I'm wasting my time and energy here, and I don't know why I'm sucked into this, but let's try this one more time.

Suppose, UK Vercetti, that you and I were going to play a simple game flipping coins.

Here are the rules:

You get to pick if you want heads or tails.

We flip once

If it comes up heads, I give you $5.00

If it comes up tails, you give me $1.00

Now, which pick is the "Smart Move" for you? Heads or tails?

Does making the "Smart Move" guarantee a positive outcome?