Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

This happened about a month ago in Tunica:

A group of my friends and I took a road trip to Tunica. One of them has never played in a casino. He has played many years in home games and we run our local home games as close to casino rules as possible so that people will be comfortable during their first visit to a casino. So, he is familiar with the rules.

The situation - a young college kid sits down for what appears to be his first time ever on a casino poker table. He is pretty loose and is showing down some very bad hands. My friend is to the left of him and is eager to get into a hand with him.

About 4-5 orbits after this kid sits down he is on the button and puts in a small raise (raise to $10 on a $1/2 NL table). My friend raises to $35 and has about $15 left in chips and a $100 bill under those chips. The kid looks at my friend, looks down at his chips and the bill and then says "well, I will put you all-in". My friend's eyes bug out and he excitedly says "hell yeah". Of course, I know he has AA.

Chaos ensues as the kid is told that this all-in includes the bill under the chips and he says that he did not know that the bill played.

The floor is called instantly. After the situation was explained, the floor quickly makes the decision that the pot can stay at the first raise ($35), the flop will come out, and they will continue play from there!

The flop comes out KQ10. My friend is steaming so he doesn't really take a second to think and instantly pushes. Of course, this kid has AJ. The outcome is beside the point, though.

I was very upset by the floor decision. What I think should have been the decision was that the kid would have a choice of either following through with the all-in of an additional $115 above the $35 raise or he can just call the $35 and forfeit the pot (hand over - no flop, etc). The fact that the action was stopped at the $35 raise, giving my friend no other options, and play continued AFTER the flop was a horrible call on the floor. The outcome may have been the same - the kid may have thought his AJ was good and put it all in - but the fact that my friend was caught in the middle of this chaos without any say as to what should happen was very disappointing.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

I play at the 'Strike alot & unless there were extenuating circumstances or you're not telling us the whole story, then that is a bad ruling. Cash has always been allowed to play in this room...for as long as I can remember & I've been playing at this property since the mid 90's. Too bad that the other guy didn't know the rules...that's his problem. He should have asked when he saw the cash on the table.

I assume that the dealer is the one who explained to him that the all in bet from your friend was $115 not $15?? Did the other guy clearly state his intentions of putting your friend all in or did he just mutter it to himself??

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

I'm not understanding OP. If the money had played then the results would have been exactly the same since the new kid is the one who put your friend all in, right? All your friend did was call. The floors ruling actually gave your friend a way to save money. I think the floor made a terrible decision if the rules at the casino allow money to play but regardless he helped your friend.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

First off, since all the chips went in any way, your friend has no beef. If he had gotten it the way he wanted it, we'd have the exact same result. Yes, I know this is "results-oriented thinking". I don't mention it to justify the ruling, but rather, to tell you and your friend to stop being so upset about what turned out to be an irrelevant ruling.

Now, let's get to the meat of the issue: is it possible the floor got this one right? I think it is, with a few "ifs" attached:

IF the kid stopped the action before the AA was turned up, and before the flop was spread, then this isn't a bad ruling at all. There are rules in NL to protect players from committing large amounts of chips if it is clear that they grossly misunderstood the size of the bet involved. When someone thinks they are raising $15, and they are told that they are raising $115, this would qualify as a gross misunderstanding.

If the kid waited until he saw the AA or the flop before trying to correct the action, it's much stickier. But if he stopped the game and protected his action as soon as he recognized the problem, I don't see how a floor could reach any other decision.

(Actually, I can see a floor taking the easy way out, and saying, "All in means all in, sorry, sir." Kudos to the Gold Strike if they have a floor who is familiar with the differences in rules between limit and NL.)

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]


(Actually, I can see a floor taking the easy way out, and saying, "All in means all in, sorry, sir." Kudos to the Gold Strike if they have a floor who is familiar with the differences in rules between limit and NL.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there is another problem because the kid said:

[ QUOTE ]
"well, I will put you all-in".

[/ QUOTE ]

which is another wonderful influence from TVHoldem.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

When I was playing football once we were screwed pretty badly and lost a game. The team was upset but the coach told us that it was our responsibility to do whatever it takes to win, including overcoming the refs mistakes.

If you intend to play poker and win you have the responsibility to see that things like this do not happen. Don't jump the gun, wait until the pot is right. I make people put their chips in the damn pot before I react.

I've seen this happen more than once and rulings vary.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]


If you intend to play poker and win you have the responsibility to see that things like this do not happen. Don't jump the gun, wait until the pot is right. I make people put their chips in the damn pot before I react.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your general premise, there would still be a problem here.

"well, I will put you all-in".

Then he puts in $40. ($25 for his opponent's raise and $15 for what he thinks will 'put his opponent all-in').

$100 shy of 'putting you all-in' and not enough for a legal raise.

Floor called ....

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]


IF the kid stopped the action before the AA was turned up, and before the flop was spread, then this isn't a bad ruling at all. There are rules in NL to protect players from committing large amounts of chips if it is clear that they grossly misunderstood the size of the bet involved. When someone thinks they are raising $15, and they are told that they are raising $115, this would qualify as a gross misunderstanding.



[/ QUOTE ]

I was at this table and I agree it WAS a gross misunderstanding.

As a misunderstanding, the floor should have explained to the raiser what his bet meant, and what his options were, that he was actually betting $115 and that he could, if it was a misunderstanding, make the allin bet, make his intended bet, or whatever the min. would be, or just call.

The results, we all know, don't matter. It may have come out the same way. I think if the correct action had been taken by the floor, either make him min raise or go allin. The speed at which he was called on his original "I put you allin" bet surely would make him think twice about actually doing that. Alternatively, if they required him to make a min. raise and given the other player a chance to reraise, WHICH THEY NEVER DID, then this hand never would have gone to a flop.

I totally agree w/ OP that this was an AWFUL decision by the floor, who used to be very friendly as dealer but is now the biggest bitch in the poker room as a floor supervisor.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I totally agree w/ OP that this was an AWFUL decision by the floor, who used to be very friendly as dealer but is now the biggest bitch in the poker room as a floor supervisor.

[/ QUOTE ]


She's not a bitch (if it's the one I'm thinking of!!!). She's actually very nice, but I have seen her get stressed out sometimes like we all do. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Maybe you caught her on a bad night. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I totally agree w/ OP that this was an AWFUL decision by the floor, who used to be very friendly as dealer but is now the biggest bitch in the poker room as a floor supervisor.

[/ QUOTE ]


She's not a bitch (if it's the one I'm thinking of!!!). She's actually very nice, but I have seen her get stressed out sometimes like we all do. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Maybe you caught her on a bad night. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. I've seen her be very nice, as a dealer. But if she was stressed out, it wasn't just this nite, it was all weekend.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If you intend to play poker and win you have the responsibility to see that things like this do not happen. Don't jump the gun, wait until the pot is right. I make people put their chips in the damn pot before I react.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your general premise, there would still be a problem here.

"well, I will put you all-in".

Then he puts in $40. ($25 for his opponent's raise and $15 for what he thinks will 'put his opponent all-in').

$100 shy of 'putting you all-in' and not enough for a legal raise.

Floor called ....

[/ QUOTE ]

and then you clarify that you have the $100 in play and he therefore can't make the illegal raise (acting like you want to see the flop) and induce him to push. Or something. I dunno, there are variations on this whole verbal thing and it goes awry too much. I have seen rulings like this one before when folks try to protect new players. Plus there are the angle shots. Make the pot right then act.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

*EDIT*

Oops, ncskiier was still logged in on my computer while visiting. I will post under my account.

-SirPsycho

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

This went down exactly as I described. The entire table was stunned by the ruling.

Rottersod and youtalkfunny: you seem to either misunderstand or are being results oriented. You say that "the results would have been the same" or "all the chips got in anyway", but that is not necessarily the case if the hand was played right. Without even considering what happened after the flop came down, the action may not have even continued to the flop.

First, if the kid knew that there was another $115 after the $35 now in the pot, he most likely would not have went all in. He was loose, but not completely reckless. Since he verbally declared an all-in raise he should have been either forced to follow through with his declaration and go all-in before the flop (again, I would have agreed to this no matter the outcome of the hand) or have the decision to surrender the flop at the previous raise of $35.

I definitely do not think that the betting should have been completely cut off and the flop shown without any action. I guess the other option would be to hold the kid to a min-raise ($25 since $35 is a raise of $25 over $10), which would then give AA the opportunity to push preflop. This would mean that the kid would have to put a total of $60 into the pot and then AA would push for an addition $90. Whether you think the kid would call with AJo for the additional $90 is moot. Without even thinking of the hole cards or the outcome, what is the correct way to have the hand play out?

*edit* my numbers at the end weren't quite right. I said the kid would have $70 in the pot after a min-raise, but it would be $60 = $35 + $25. He would have $60 in the pot and would have to call another $90.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

Brad1970: Yes, this did happen as described. It was on a busy Saturday evening so the floor was a little frazzled, possibly why she made a snap decision and immediately left the table.

The entire table heard the "all-in" from the kid. I was on the other end of the table and heard it and was happy for my friend since I knew he had AA. The dealer heard it, so the floor was called.

I have been in the Gold Strike on more than one occasion where the EXACT same thing has happened - the damn phrase "I put you all-in" being said, without realizing that, yes, that entire stack of bills under/behind the chips IS in play. And every other time I have seen this, I have seen the floor rule that the player that said "I put you all-in" has to either be all-in or match the other player's money on the table, whichever is less.

If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

YTF explained it perfectly, but I know people like to see "rules" rather than being told what the rules are.

[ QUOTE ]
12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is mentioned there, but in the case of a potential angle shooter there is also this rule:

[ QUOTE ]
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

So you would agree that the correct ruling would be to shut down all preflop action even though the kid made it clear that he was raising (no matter what the raise would be)? I don't see the justification in this. By this ruling you are causing damage to the AA player.

The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

Your example is pretty obvious. We have all seen small-blinds say "call" meaning they only want to complete the blind instead of calling a raise that they did not see. Things like that are obvious. But, in this circumstance you are causing damage if you stop the action without allowing the AA player to raise. If the kid min-raises, the AA player will most likely push and if the kid pushes the AA player will instantly call. Again, don't be results oriented. The AA player is obviously being caused damage if the floor rules that the kid does not even have to min-raise even though he made it clear that he wanted to raise and even said so.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
First off, since all the chips went in any way, your friend has no beef. If he had gotten it the way he wanted it, we'd have the exact same result. Yes, I know this is "results-oriented thinking". I don't mention it to justify the ruling, but rather, to tell you and your friend to stop being so upset about what turned out to be an irrelevant ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is being results-oriented. I never should have posted the rest of the hand since it doesn't matter. What matters is if the hand would have played out differently if the ruling was different. The kid intended to raise, whether it be $115 or less. By the floor ruling that the kid did not even have to raise (she did not even give him an option) it closed off the betting so that the AA player didn't get an option to raise again. I mentioned before that the flop may have not even been seen if it was played out correctly, i.e. the kid raising, the AA player pushing, and the kid possibly folding.

[ QUOTE ]
IF the kid stopped the action before the AA was turned up, and before the flop was spread, then this isn't a bad ruling at all. There are rules in NL to protect players from committing large amounts of chips if it is clear that they grossly misunderstood the size of the bet involved. When someone thinks they are raising $15, and they are told that they are raising $115, this would qualify as a gross misunderstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if someone thinks that he is raising $15, and says it, shouldn't he at least be forced to do what he thinks he is doing? If that would have happened it would have allowed the AA player to reraise, if he wanted. Since the floor ruled that the kid justs need to call the $35 and not even raise the $15 in chips, it closed off the preflop action.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct ruling would be "There was a gross misunderstanding as to the amount of money in play. Now that the misunderstanidng has been cleared up the player should act on his hand."

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct ruling would be "There was a gross misunderstanding as to the amount of money in play. Now that the misunderstanidng has been cleared up the player should act on his hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that didn't even happen. All I am saying is that the floor made a bad decision by saying that the pot stays as it is and the dealer must put out the flop immediately. Neither player, especially the kid who intended to raise something, was allowed to do anything.

*edit* Double negative in the last line [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]


Yes, but if someone thinks that he is raising $15, and says it, shouldn't he at least be forced to do what he thinks he is doing?

[/ QUOTE ]


You don't think there is a difference between raising your opponent's last $15 to just get it in (on the assumption that it is going in on the flop anyway) and opening yourself up to a reraise?
If you cut the newbie slack for not knowing that the cash plays, then you have to look at his 'raise' from his perspective. He 'thinks' he is just getting last chips into the pot, not 'raising'.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yes, but if someone thinks that he is raising $15, and says it, shouldn't he at least be forced to do what he thinks he is doing?

[/ QUOTE ]


You don't think there is a difference between raising your opponent's last $15 to just get it in (on the assumption that it is going in on the flop anyway) and opening yourself up to a reraise?
If you cut the newbie slack for not knowing that the cash plays, then you have to look at his 'raise' from his perspective. He 'thinks' he is just getting last chips into the pot, not 'raising'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once everything was explained the kid was not given the option to do anything. The floor closed off the action. The player did not "call". The floor said to put in the $35 and deal out the flop.

At the very least, as RR has mentioned, the kid should have been given the option to call, fold, or raise. This option was never given.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I was playing football once we were screwed pretty badly and lost a game. The team was upset but the coach told us that it was our responsibility to do whatever it takes to win, including overcoming the refs mistakes.

If you intend to play poker and win you have the responsibility to see that things like this do not happen. Don't jump the gun, wait until the pot is right. I make people put their chips in the damn pot before I react.

I've seen this happen more than once and rulings vary.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you played football, did any of the teams get favorable calls because they didn't know the rules?

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]


At the very least, as RR has mentioned, the kid should have been given the option to call, fold, or raise. This option was never given.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.
But then, if he folded without putting in the $25 call, the AA would have been ticked. I think the Floor was trying to satisfy both the AA and the newbie and came up with a camel.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct ruling would be "There was a gross misunderstanding as to the amount of money in play. Now that the misunderstanidng has been cleared up the player should act on his hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy:

Obviously, you know far more than I do about casino poker, but this decision in this instance strikes me as being outrageously unfair to our AA player, and unfairly benefitting the AJ player for not knowing the rules.

I thought this rule was more for a situation where someone has big denomination chips hidden behind a stack of redbirds, or for a case where a player is asked for a count and given an incorrect number. It seems to me that part of protecting your hand is to know how much you're pushing when you say "I push you all in".

Now, I should also say that my assumption is that the $100 bill was in plain site, not folded up and hidden behind a stack of chips. If that's the case, I lean more towards what you're saying.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now, I should also say that my assumption is that the $100 bill was in plain site, not folded up and hidden behind a stack of chips. If that's the case, I lean more towards what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was in total plain sight. One bill folded in half under a very small stack of chips.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
Brad1970: Yes, this did happen as described. It was on a busy Saturday evening so the floor was a little frazzled, possibly why she made a snap decision and immediately left the table.

The entire table heard the "all-in" from the kid. I was on the other end of the table and heard it and was happy for my friend since I knew he had AA. The dealer heard it, so the floor was called.

I have been in the Gold Strike on more than one occasion where the EXACT same thing has happened - the damn phrase "I put you all-in" being said, without realizing that, yes, that entire stack of bills under/behind the chips IS in play. And every other time I have seen this, I have seen the floor rule that the player that said "I put you all-in" has to either be all-in or match the other player's money on the table, whichever is less.

If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm....still, bad ruling, imo. He should have been given the option of calling the all in or making the min. raise & folding. Too bad Mr. Lagtard didn't know the rules. Like I said before, that's his problem.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct ruling would be "There was a gross misunderstanding as to the amount of money in play. Now that the misunderstanidng has been cleared up the player should act on his hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy:

Obviously, you know far more than I do about casino poker, but this decision in this instance strikes me as being outrageously unfair to our AA player, and unfairly benefitting the AJ player for not knowing the rules.

I thought this rule was more for a situation where someone has big denomination chips hidden behind a stack of redbirds, or for a case where a player is asked for a count and given an incorrect number. It seems to me that part of protecting your hand is to know how much you're pushing when you say "I push you all in".

Now, I should also say that my assumption is that the $100 bill was in plain site, not folded up and hidden behind a stack of chips. If that's the case, I lean more towards what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a lot of these things it isn't clear exactly waht happened here. If he says "I put you all-in" and puts out exactly enough to put in the chips the guy has it is pretty clear he doesn't understand the amount in play. (note: it is pretty common for people that are goign all-in to get some money out to rebuy, so the money sitting there doesn't mean it is in play if the "raiser" is under the impression that it doesn't play). Many of these things I could put in different little details to make it go either way. I won't go as far as to say verbal isn't binding in NL, but the chips need to go in to avoid any misunderstanding. If AA waits until the AJ puts the raise in the pot he will not be injured at all. I don't know any of the history of the two players to make a good ruling. I try to answer on here because a lot of people come here wantign to knwo if different things are handled correctly; if someone corners me in a casino and asks how I would rule if X happens I always say "we do not speculate about what ruling might be as each situation is different and all decisions are made in the interest of fairness considering the dynamics of the table."

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

money on the table plays, bad ruling by the floor

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rottersod and youtalkfunny: you seem to either misunderstand or are being results oriented. You say that "the results would have been the same" or "all the chips got in anyway", but that is not necessarily the case if the hand was played right. Without even considering what happened after the flop came down, the action may not have even continued to the flop.

First, if the kid knew that there was another $115 after the $35 now in the pot, he most likely would not have went all in. He was loose, but not completely reckless. Since he verbally declared an all-in raise he should have been either forced to follow through with his declaration and go all-in before the flop (again, I would have agreed to this no matter the outcome of the hand) or have the decision to surrender the flop at the previous raise of $35.

I definitely do not think that the betting should have been completely cut off and the flop shown without any action. I guess the other option would be to hold the kid to a min-raise ($25 since $35 is a raise of $25 over $10), which would then give AA the opportunity to push preflop. This would mean that the kid would have to put a total of $60 into the pot and then AA would push for an addition $90. Whether you think the kid would call with AJo for the additional $90 is moot. Without even thinking of the hole cards or the outcome, what is the correct way to have the hand play out?

*edit* my numbers at the end weren't quite right. I said the kid would have $70 in the pot after a min-raise, but it would be $60 = $35 + $25. He would have $60 in the pot and would have to call another $90.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one being results oriented. If the kid said all in (in every place I play live if you say "I'll put you all in" it's an all in bet) then your friend had no decisions to make and called. If money plays at that casino then it should stand. Your friend had his money in plain sight and you wrote the kid saw it before he bet. You don't get do overs. Your friend calls 100% of the time with AA anyways so he loses the hand.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rottersod and youtalkfunny: you seem to either misunderstand or are being results oriented. You say that "the results would have been the same" or "all the chips got in anyway", but that is not necessarily the case if the hand was played right. Without even considering what happened after the flop came down, the action may not have even continued to the flop.

First, if the kid knew that there was another $115 after the $35 now in the pot, he most likely would not have went all in. He was loose, but not completely reckless. Since he verbally declared an all-in raise he should have been either forced to follow through with his declaration and go all-in before the flop (again, I would have agreed to this no matter the outcome of the hand) or have the decision to surrender the flop at the previous raise of $35.

I definitely do not think that the betting should have been completely cut off and the flop shown without any action. I guess the other option would be to hold the kid to a min-raise ($25 since $35 is a raise of $25 over $10), which would then give AA the opportunity to push preflop. This would mean that the kid would have to put a total of $60 into the pot and then AA would push for an addition $90. Whether you think the kid would call with AJo for the additional $90 is moot. Without even thinking of the hole cards or the outcome, what is the correct way to have the hand play out?

*edit* my numbers at the end weren't quite right. I said the kid would have $70 in the pot after a min-raise, but it would be $60 = $35 + $25. He would have $60 in the pot and would have to call another $90.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one being results oriented. If the kid said all in (in every place I play live if you say "I'll put you all in" it's an all in bet) then your friend had no decisions to make and called. If money plays at that casino then it should stand. Your friend had his money in plain sight and you wrote the kid saw it before he bet. You don't get do overs. Your friend calls 100% of the time with AA anyways so he loses the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the misunderstanding - the point of my post is that I do not agree with the ruling. From your reply, "If money plays at that casino then it should stand" - well, that was not the case and that is what I have been arguing. If the floor would have ruled that way, then they both would have been all-in and the AA would have lost, but I would have been fine with the decision and this post never would have happened.

I believe that the preflop action should have been played out or allowed to play out differently. Yes, if the floor would have allowed the all-in my friend definitely would have called and he still would have lost the hand. My point, though, is that the floor stopped the action preflop before allowing any more betting. I believe that this was an error and should have been handled differently - there appears to be different opinions on how it should have been handled, but it definitely should have been handled differently.

As I mentioned in one of my replies, I wish I wouldn't have posted the results of the hand in my original post. I know it is hard to overlook the results. This post is about the ruling, not the hand or the outcome.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned in one of my replies, I wish I wouldn't have posted the results of the hand in my original post. I know it is hard to overlook the results. This post is about the ruling, not the hand or the outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think we both know that if AA had won this hand, this thread never happens.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

[ QUOTE ]
...the point of my post is that I do not agree with the ruling. From your reply, "If money plays at that casino then it should stand" - well, that was not the case and that is what I have been arguing. If the floor would have ruled that way, then they both would have been all-in and the AA would have lost, but I would have been fine with the decision and this post never would have happened.

I believe that the preflop action should have been played out or allowed to play out differently. Yes, if the floor would have allowed the all-in my friend definitely would have called and he still would have lost the hand. My point, though, is that the floor stopped the action preflop before allowing any more betting. I believe that this was an error and should have been handled differently - there appears to be different opinions on how it should have been handled, but it definitely should have been handled differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I don't understand the floors ruling at all. Either the money plays and it's all in or it doesn't and it's still all in for just the $15. Even though the ruling actually helped your friend (he didn't take advantage of it though) it was dumb and not well thought out.

Re: Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike
 

Who better to comment than the man behind the Aces.Here's my take on the whole shebang.
1.Mr. Franklin was on the table for well over an hour,and even though I wanted to let her know it, she had made her decision and was gone before anyone could say anything.
2.Think what you will the floor practically played his AJ off for him,you can't deny she made his job very easy.
3.That weekend was a horrible run for me, made bearable only by the company of good friends.