***Official Filthy Limper Poker Radio Thread***

[limp donk bingo]

Johnny Hughes was EPIC!!!! There is no school like the old school and he is the headmaster

Definitely a good guest. I like old school stories and this guy had some good ones.

[Steve-O]

Johnny Hughes was EPIC!!!! There is no school like the old school and he is the headmaster

Definitely a good guest. I like old school stories and this guy had some good ones.

Johnny is the perfect guest and my advice would be to book him bi-weekly or monthly and just let him tell some old story for 30 minutes. Also, I bought his book on Kindle last night and just a heads-up; it's only like $3.99 for the kindle edition

Thanks for having me on last night, it was fun

[shortbuspoker]

This is hilarious to me due to the fact that it was discussed and most everyone thought that Laak had the stamina advantage due to when he set the record.

[Jasep]

This is hilarious to me due to the fact that it was discussed and most everyone thought that Laak had the stamina advantage due to when he set the record.

Yeah I saw this last night after the show was over. I am not sure what the deal was here or if Laak addressed it yet. (i know they said he referenced the 2p2 thread at the table) I'm not sure this was because of him being tired, I just cant see that being the case but who knows...

it looks like he either felt terrible about slow rolling the kid (which I can't see him doing because no one feels terrible to the tune of 100k)

He was chip dumping to the kid if they were partners and laak was looking to get up, since there is a 20k cap on the buy in here (also not sure this would happen given laaks rep and the fact it was all on TV)

He misread his hand (also hard to believe since he is a high level pro, but phil ivey did it in the main event 2 years ago)

Laak wanted Tony G to lose the side bet on the hand for whatever reason (even though its all on camera anyway)

Or the actual likely scenario......

That wasn't Laak's hand... I don't see any actual footage of his hand in that video, just the graphic on the screen, so I am guessing the production crew put the wrong hand up and then the commentators were given the wrong information.

raising oop with A6, then 4 betting it and finally calling off a shove with it does not seem like something Laak would do, I would guess he had AQ in the hand, but who knows, I also didn't watch the whole 8 minutes so maybe I missed them showing his hand but that would be my theory with the info I took a look at.

[Steve-O]

This is hilarious to me due to the fact that it was discussed and most everyone thought that Laak had the stamina advantage due to when he set the record.

Yeah I saw this last night after the show was over. I am not sure what the deal was here or if Laak addressed it yet. (i know they said he referenced the 2p2 thread at the table) I'm not sure this was because of him being tired, I just cant see that being the case but who knows...

it looks like he either felt terrible about slow rolling the kid (which I can't see him doing because no one feels terrible to the tune of 100k)

He was chip dumping to the kid if they were partners and laak was looking to get up, since there is a 20k cap on the buy in here (also not sure this would happen given laaks rep and the fact it was all on TV)

He misread his hand (also hard to believe since he is a high level pro, but phil ivey did it in the main event 2 years ago)

Laak wanted Tony G to lose the side bet on the hand for whatever reason (even though its all on camera anyway)

Or the actual likely scenario......

That wasn't Laak's hand... I don't see any actual footage of his hand in that video, just the graphic on the screen, so I am guessing the production crew put the wrong hand up and then the commentators were given the wrong information.

raising oop with A6, then 4 betting it and finally calling off a shove with it does not seem like something Laak would do, I would guess he had AQ in the hand, but who knows, I also didn't watch the whole 8 minutes so maybe I missed them showing his hand but that would be my theory with the info I took a look at.

This is a good point, they were constantly putting the wrong graphics on the screen as far as bet and pot sizes. Also, I've seen Laak play a lot and I have never seen him call a sizable 3-bet with A/6 offsuit, specially so quickly.

[Jasep]

Yeah I saw this last night after the show was over. I am not sure what the deal was here or if Laak addressed it yet. (i know they said he referenced the 2p2 thread at the table) I'm not sure this was because of him being tired, I just cant see that being the case but who knows...

it looks like he either felt terrible about slow rolling the kid (which I can't see him doing because no one feels terrible to the tune of 100k)

He was chip dumping to the kid if they were partners and laak was looking to get up, since there is a 20k cap on the buy in here (also not sure this would happen given laaks rep and the fact it was all on TV)

He misread his hand (also hard to believe since he is a high level pro, but phil ivey did it in the main event 2 years ago)

Laak wanted Tony G to lose the side bet on the hand for whatever reason (even though its all on camera anyway)

Or the actual likely scenario......

That wasn't Laak's hand... I don't see any actual footage of his hand in that video, just the graphic on the screen, so I am guessing the production crew put the wrong hand up and then the commentators were given the wrong information.

raising oop with A6, then 4 betting it and finally calling off a shove with it does not seem like something Laak would do, I would guess he had AQ in the hand, but who knows, I also didn't watch the whole 8 minutes so maybe I missed them showing his hand but that would be my theory with the info I took a look at.

This is a good point, they were constantly putting the wrong graphics on the screen as far as bet and pot sizes. Also, I've seen Laak play a lot and I have never seen him call a sizable 3-bet with A/6 offsuit, specially so quickly.

Laak is also insane/genius enough to play that up as it being truth and let everyone think he is tired/tilted and then start outplaying them, which i guess is what he is doing lately given what i have read

[Jasep]

Also, Steve-O is god and his game last night was fun, I got it wrong as usual

[Bootsy Collins]

Also, Steve-O is god and his game last night was fun, I got it wrong as usual

And who got it right?

[Jasep]

Also, Steve-O is god and his game last night was fun, I got it wrong as usual

And who got it right?

Scotty Clarks man crush obv

[Bootsy Collins]

And who got it right?

Scotty Clarks man crush obv

I finally figured out who he reminds me of. He is a Huey Lewis doppelgänger.

[Steve-O]

Here he is explaining it, but I'm gonig with the Daniel Negreanu train of thought which is "anytime Phil Laak is talking about his hand he is lying"I find it odd that this is the one hand we don't have video evidence of his hole cards...

[TheTemplar]

I've mucked the winning hand a couple times but it was in long sessions and I misread the other players cards. Like calling an all in on the river with a low set, and thinking the other player has a higher set. Only to know after it was two pair.

I hope it never happens in a pot this big though lol.

[TheTemplar]

Next question Johnney Hughes, next question.

That guy definitely is a classic. Def good show last night.

[Steve-O]

I've mucked the winning hand a couple times but it was in long sessions and I misread the other players cards. Like calling an all in on the river with a low set, and thinking the other player has a higher set. Only to know after it was two pair.

I hope it never happens in a pot this big though lol.

I don't ever recall mucking a winning hand, but I've misread my hand a few times and called an all-in, when I didn't have what i thought I had... which is just as bad I suppose

[TheTemplar]

Yea that had happened to me too. I once snap called and all in and said nuts. He looked at me like I was an idiot, as he actually had the nuts lol.

[BetCheckBet]

I've mucked the winning hand a couple times but it was in long sessions and I misread the other players cards. Like calling an all in on the river with a low set, and thinking the other player has a higher set. Only to know after it was two pair.

I hope it never happens in a pot this big though lol.

I don't ever recall mucking a winning hand, but I've misread my hand a few times and called an all-in, when I didn't have what i thought I had... which is just as bad I suppose

Most people don't.....

[Steve-O]

I don't ever recall mucking a winning hand, but I've misread my hand a few times and called an all-in, when I didn't have what i thought I had... which is just as bad I suppose

Most people don't.....

I was wondering who would catch that

[shortbuspoker]

Most people don't.....

I was wondering who would catch that

I don't "remember" doing it either but I did flat call a river bet with a straight flush one night when I was drunk because I thought that I only had an 8 high flush.

[fluffer]

''This week on Filthy Limper, Johnny and Kevin did what they do best: they examine areas of the poker world that don’t often get the attention they deserve. This week they go old school. I have to admit that I wasn’t overly optimistic that I was going to enjoy the topic. Though I don’t consider myself a historian, I have been around the block a few times.

But I must say that I found myself totally immersed in the interview the guys did with Johnny Hughes. He had great stories about some of the old school cheats and historical gambling legends like Arnold Rothstein and Titanic Thompson. The show is three hours long but even if you can’t commit that much time I recommend checking out the Hughes interview.

I also suggest skipping the first 40 minutes of the show for reasons that would take me an entire article to explain. Maybe I’ll write an opinion piece later in the week if time permits.''


http://pokerfuse.com/features/week-i...dcasts-apr-16/

[Jasep]

''This week on Filthy Limper, Johnny and Kevin did what they do best: they examine areas of the poker world that don’t often get the attention they deserve. This week they go old school. I have to admit that I wasn’t overly optimistic that I was going to enjoy the topic. Though I don’t consider myself a historian, I have been around the block a few times.

But I must say that I found myself totally immersed in the interview the guys did with Johnny Hughes. He had great stories about some of the old school cheats and historical gambling legends like Arnold Rothstein and Titanic Thompson. The show is three hours long but even if you can’t commit that much time I recommend checking out the Hughes interview.

I also suggest skipping the first 40 minutes of the show for reasons that would take me an entire article to explain. Maybe I’ll write an opinion piece later in the week if time permits.''


http://pokerfuse.com/features/week-i...dcasts-apr-16/

Spoke to Mike from Pokerfuse about this... He has a tremendously different opinion of online poker than Steve-O does and felt that Steve was either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading the audience.