2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

I have no idea if any of this is true or not or if it's only partly accurate. Found it to be an interesting story.

It was told to me by some guy at the table at 2/5 NL in Tunica. He had supposedly just come back from a trip to LA/LV.
Seemed a decent player as best I could tell. Might be a 2+2'er for all I know.
Perhaps somebody can verify the story, clarify some of the stuff I might have gotten wrong, or tell me that this story is total B.S. for whatever reason.

Here's his story he was telling the table:
He's rail-birding 100/200 NL at the Commerce (didn't know they spread THAT high. He said it was because of the tourneys they were running).

Some guy bets $2k on the river. 20 chips of $100.
Phil Laak reaches to a stack at the back of his chips and grabs 20 chips of $5k each.
After pretending like he was 'calling' the 20 chips bet the dealer tells him that Laak just bet $100k.

Laak says that he only meant to call $2k and that it was an accident. Dealer won't let him take his bet back because his chips were already out there and he never said "call."

The other guy thinks it over and calls with a fairly inferior hand and is all-in for his remaining $70k.
Phil Laak turns over the nuts (had AJ for broadway or something).

I've never played in Calif.
Evidently, the $100 chips look nothing like the $5k chips.
The $5k chips are also supposed to be a little bit larger.

And, since he had the nuts, there was pretty much no chance that Laak would only call in that spot anyway so there is pretty much a 0% chance that Laak didn't know that he was really betting $100k.

Anyone confirm this story?

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

badass as hell if its true

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

Heard it. *Kinda* true. More interesting is the story of the 70k pot he lost at bellagio when the dealer and floor (not the usual high limit floor, the bitchy fat older woman) told him he couldn't run it twice, after he and the other player had already agreed to it...

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heard it. *Kinda* true. More interesting is the story of the 70k pot he lost at bellagio when the dealer and floor (not the usual high limit floor, the bitchy fat older woman) told him he couldn't run it twice, after he and the other player had already agreed to it...

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's only "kinda" true, what's the difference OP's version and the "real" version?

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

If this was true is this really angle-shooting?

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

I'm really not sure if this technically counts as angle-shooting or not.

I'm also curious what parts are 'kinda' true about it and what parts are accurate.

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

I really dont know if this is angle shooting. Sounds like a pretty sick move to me, but would be interested in what people think about the ethics of it

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

It certainly is 100% angle-shooting. In big games the money stays and he knew it. This does not fall under the deceptive element in poker. It's just a scumbag thing to do and leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the mark who probably donates a lot. I'm sure after he called he didn't congratulate him on making an awesome play; he probably walked away thinking he is a scumbag.

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

Mitch,
I disagree. If the other player actually believes a pro doesn't know the difference between 100 and 5k chips then shame on him. The guy got schooled fair and square.

Re: 2nd hand story: Phil Laak $70k angle-shoot
 

I was just out at Commerce and played also in the 100/200 game out there, they do play that high out there. The Commerce $5k chips are HOT PINK and the $100 chips are white. Although, I believe all chips $100 and up out there are the same size. Pretty sick move. I know Phil fairly decent and seems like a pretty nice guy, I've never heard of this though. I'm not sure what side of the fence I am on with this.