[SirPsycho]

[ 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.