Quote:
Originally Posted by dinesh
you should keep reading the rest of that exact rule and get to the part on gross misunderstanding.
For completeness, here is the relevant TDA rule:
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.