So, we get back to the root of the issue, since a call and a raise are both a bet, what binding, unambiguous action does 'bet' declare? If a bunch of very experienced players can go round and round for a couple of weeks on the issue, it seems pretty clear that 'bet' is really no unequivocal, and clarification by the dealer is the obvious correct next action.

Searched for the "bet" option in this case, came up with nothing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting_in_poker

Maybe we should re-write that passage in the wiki: "If a player declares 'bet', then it is anything"

Ambiguous action is pretty universally always ruled as the smaller of all the possibilities. This line of argumentation is not helping your side at all if your intent is to convince us that it should result in the dealer asking/allowing for clarification.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be okay with the dealer always being able to get clarification on ANY actions, but we're not arguing about how things should be...we're talking about the rules in place now.

Just like in a tournament, if a player throws a 5K chip and says "four" while 400 is a legal bet and the previous round of betting wasn't in the thousands (new to TDA as of last year I think), the bet is 400, even if he meant 4 thousand. I'm fine with changing the rules to allow the dealer to clarify the ambiguous amount, but that's not how the rules are currently established.

Intuitively I guess most see this as a raise, while the rules probably state a call, if we take away all the 'ifs'

There's the conflict.

I like clarity. It would be great if all players made actions that were clear to everyone at the table.

In the absence of clarity declared, I'd prefer that the dealer get clarification. I do like the heavy accent approach.



I also think amount matter, and I know I'm in the minority. As most ambiguous actions revert to the least aggressive, I'm concerned about a player being forced to wager an amount grossly more than intended. Yes, in big bet poker, a smaller wager early may end up costing a player a large pot, but I think that's better than a player losing a large chip, on account of a mistake.



Still agree.

Although the tables move slower than I'd like, I'm much more interested in stopping for clarification, and even punishing those that act too quickly (by reverting the action, and having their intentions known).

The string-bet/raise angle allows a player to judge reactions when the next player actually reacts. If the next player fails to react, then there is no benefit gained.

Yes, asking for clarification may be some kind of meta tell. Stop drooling when an oversized chip gets tossed in when you have the nuts, and just get clarification.