[youtalkfunny]

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.)