[SirPsycho]

[ 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.