[bav]

Having reread RR's original post I'm thinking I'm less comfy with the ruling that the money plays. I'm not positive both players were informed and consenting.

Let us say we're playing NL2/5 with a $500 cap and I start the hand with $1000 and you start with $500. As the river is dealt you pull out $500 and set it on the table beside your remaining $50 in chips and announce "all-in". I'm gonna call assuming I'm calling the $50 in chips since we all know you can't add money during the hand, and I'm just figuring you're getting out the cash to prepare to rebuy (or more likely to make me think you're preparing to rebuy, or even more likely to make me think you're thinking that I'm thinking that you want me to think you're about to rebuy). It's just... not done--you don't add cash during the hand. UNLESS both players agree to it, in which case I'm in the camp of letting the adults play.

Not so sure RR's case isn't similar.

IF both players are informed and agree what the bet was, then yeah, I want the extra cash included in the wager. But if neither player was, or only one player thought the cash was playing, then no. And it's just not at all obvious here.

But I stand by the claim I ain't letting some squeeky 3rd person at the table influence this. Doesn't matter what the peanut gallery wants to happen, all I'm gonna care about is what these two players thought they were wagering. First we settle the wager, then we see if we can placate the audience as well.