Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, don't you understand? When you have such a great tournament record you're allowed to do [censored] like that.


[/ QUOTE ]

that dont mean dick
Looking at a players results just based on wins is foolhardy. He's won ~$400 K gross over the last what looks like 3 fulltime years playing big tournies(WPT,WSOP) seriously. Not sure on any details but its the concept involved here..If he plays just 10 big buy-in events $10K a year he is stuck $100K a year without a win. Three years worth of expenses just for buy-ins not even including the expenses of staying on the circuit-hotels,food travel etc probably cost him $100K -$200K a year depending on how many events he plays.

If you assume his net expenses for the circuit in 3 years are at a minimum $300K his $398K earnings are a net $98K win overall for 3 years of work-that sucks asss.

If he doesnt play all major bigbuy-in events and he plays more cash games thats another issue. I'm not privy to his mix of games but looking at a player gross tourney winnings over a time period dont mean dick until you know the players outlays over that time period.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

www.m-w.com

Type "sarcasm."

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

I thought he came across as trying way too hard to be funny and fell flat on his face.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

[ QUOTE ]

I like my women weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like my women like I like my poker: tight and aggressive.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

It happens sometimes. The majority of tournaments pay out more than the buy-in to even the smallest winner, but some don't. PPM is the best/worst at this. For while in the late 80s and early 90s (right around the time the million-dollar guarentee came out) the WSOP ME did this too, but now everyone in the money gets $10K+ (about $12.5K this year).

I think the first WPT Championship was the same way.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is Phil Laak usually such a tool?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've come to believe that he has no choice but to ALWAYS act like a tool. If he got serious at getting-serious time, he'd have nowhere to hide.

And yes, he is a tool. From acting like an ass on WPT last year when he did the super-suckout and peeking over the dealers shoulder, to down-talking all the kids on that home poker show, to again looking over the dealers shoulder at the turn and river.

And if his girl Jennifer can't clap for Johnny f*cking Chan as he goes for his 10th bracelet, she can kiss my ass too. What a who-wa.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

Phil Laak is madly in love with his own quasi-celebrity even more than his quasi-celebrity girlfriend. He acts like a fool when he is on television. Nothing about his play strikes me as extraordinary. What a tool.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

I don't get where all this animosity is coming from. Maybe I missed something, but all I saw was a goofy guy that was having a little good-natured fun at the poker table. What's wrong with that? It's not like he's berating opponents, whining about bad beats, or just generally taking himself too seriously like so many other "tools" you see on these shows. It's just a game after all, being played by a bunch of guys that have already won a lot of money just by making the final table. Are they all supposed to just sit there silent and stone-faced? Sure, he's a little over the top with his antics, but he's not hurting anyone and it can be sort of funny at times. Some of you guys just take things way too seriously. Johnny Chan managed to get a few laughs out of it, you should too.

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

Played 10-25 NL with Laak for about an hour during the wpt borgata last week. He was pretty calm and somewhat quiet, though he did have his shoes off, and about 30 seconds after I sat down he whispered to me, "Dude... I won't tell anyone... but are you actually 21?"

Otherwise he didn't make much of a spectacle of himself, and seemed to play half-decent (didn't get much of a read on him, he stayed out of any real decision pots while I was there).

2nd

Re: Laak-Chan Final
 

Who is that in your avatar