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.
|