[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

YTF explained it perfectly, but I know people like to see "rules" rather than being told what the rules are.

[ QUOTE ]
12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is mentioned there, but in the case of a potential angle shooter there is also this rule:

[ QUOTE ]
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[/ QUOTE ]