[SirPsycho]

This went down exactly as I described. The entire table was stunned by the ruling.

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.