OP said it was six greens, two reds, and one white.

So, my argument is that a call is a call. Any action, be it verbal or physical, that could be considered a call is unequivocally a call. Tossing in chips should be no different than saying 'call'.

With that in mind, the next part of the equation is the gross misunderstanding of the bet rule. I have actually never seen this rule applied. I think the barriers to using this rule should be sky high. I look at each rule from the standpoint of fairness, and preservation of the game integrity. In the case of fairness, each player has a responsibility to protect 6their own action. But the unreasonableness of protecting against an undercall is so much greater than the burden of clarifying a bet size. So when you are in a situation where the decision is based on who had more responsibility to avoid the undercall, I lean heavily against the guy making the undercall.

From a game integrity standpoint, I think it is way too easy to exploit this. As I mentioned, a call is a call. So I see no difference than calling, then saying 'I thought the bet was xxx, not x,xxx', and tossing out the wrong number of chips. So you are basically setting up a situation where players who are clever can free roll.

I don't disagree that the Gross misunderstanding rule can apply here. I just think that this rule requires a lot of judgement and discretion from the floor, and it should only be used in very rare circumstances.

I don't agree with the threshold you're drawing on how rare it should be, but so be it, that's the point of this discussion.

But now I'm not even sure what we're arguing about.

Is your argument that "a call is a call", or is it that "I don't disagree that the Gross misunderstanding rule can apply here."?
Then I guess you are not actually following RRoP after all, because RRoP has a very clear description of the circumstances that may (with floor discretion) lead to both a verbal call not being binding, and an undercall with chips not being a binding call.

If you don't agree with RRoP on gross misunderstanding being a thing that should be part of the floor ruling toolkit, that is fine, neither do the TDA folks. But I'm confused what point of view you're arguing for, since you started by saying you were looking at RRoP to back up your "a call is a call" view, and then selectively quoted just the part that agrees with that, while ignoring the very next sentence that explained the gross misunderstanding exception.

Gross misunderstanding is a a fairly reasonable standard. But floors shouldn't apply it to known angle-shooters, since they are the most likely abusers.

I think the TDA has it right. I can somewhat get behind people that tried to limp in preflop when there was already a raise getting their call back, but just never in this situation where it’s the first bet in a betting round. Of course, that might not be the rule in the casino so it’s always best to protect yourself if you don’t know the rule.

I will point out that floor documentation and general familiarity with their player pools is essential if you're using gross misunderstanding.

When people complain about how gross misunderstanding enables angle shooting, I usually respond that people who try to abuse the rule get treated the same way any other angle shooter does/should be - they get warned, 86ed, and then permanently banned.

I'd prefer anyone who is "known" as an angleshooter just be banned from the room anyway. But if they are not, that certainly should weigh in on any decision being made for a possible gross misunderstanding ruling.

To be honest, I am not sure what I am arguing, either, just that I think the gross misunderstanding rule shifts the burden to protect action unfairly to the bettor. My basic belief is 1) a call is a call, and 2) it is the player's responsibility to understand the action. Giving the calling player an option, after showdown or after seeing the other players reaction, of retracting his call or reducing the amount of his call seems to give him an improper advantage. Placing the obligation on the betting to ascertain, before tabling his hand, that the calling player knew what he was calling seems to be an assymetrical burder if you aren't holding the calling player responsible for knowing what he is calling.

As you say, in actual practice, a good floor can use the discretion built into the rule to prevent angling or abuse, but I am uneasy with having to depend on the floor being aware enough(and caring enough) to go against the letter of the rule to maintain fairness.

I guess, my preference would be to scrap the rule, and either use the TDA version, or leave the issue unaddressed and just have an undercall be a presumptive call, with the floor able to use rule 1 if he feels it is most fair. This shifts the majority of burden to protect the action back to the caller.

Could not agree more!