[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this scenario invokes that rule at all. this is not a case of a player Clearly not understanding the size of the action. this is a scenario of a player evidently being mistaken in the amount of a bet but not to a huge degree.

I think the rule you refer is far more applicable to the case where the difference between the actual bet and the amount a player called is so significant as to make it obvious that the caller did not understand the size of the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... I agree this is not clear cut. Mind you, I think this is a significant misunderstanding of the size of the action... guy thought he was adding $15 to call a raise to $20 when in fact the raise was $30 more. Off by x2. So the misunderstood size of the action could apply.

More important is the action behind. Typically that signs the contract. And yeah, in a real stakes game with bloodthirsty players, seat 6 likely would be SOL. Here... one guy folded behind and the action halted. Is that "significant" action?

Basically seems to come down to: was the misunderstood bet size insignificant, or was the action behind significant? If either is true, the call stands. That's the wiggle room the floor has here. I'm ok with ruling he can have it back, and I'm ok with demanding the bet stay.