Sorry guys, didn't mean to abandon this thread... just got really busy between two WPT's and now the WSOP.
Nick, I understand your frustration with the wording of the rule. In our Sup. meeting this rule caused a bit of heated debate. The intent of the rule is as Brian posted, intended to help players understand that they a responsible for the accuracy of a bet, whether winning or losing the amount wagered. That's the "Spirit" of the rule. However, it needs a desperate rewrite.
Because of this rule, the debates began over a scenario like this:
Blinds 100 - 200
Player A calls for 200
Player B raises to 900
Player C puts 200 into the pot to call unaware of the raise.
Let's stop it here
It is current common practice, with good reason IMO, that Player C now has two options: 1) Call 700 more and correcting the bet to 900 or 2) Fold and forfeit the 200.
Several senior staff argued that because of rule #91 (changed from #89) making the player responsible for everything, that Player C MUST call 700 more and correct the bet to 900. They also argued that if Player B had moved all-in for any amount, be it 900, 9,000, or 90,000, that if Player C places 200 into the pot, then again they are responsible for the All-in amount with no redress. And it wasn't so much the fact that these staff members were trying to enforce the rules in the will of good sportsmanship, they wanted to hold every player accountable for all bets wagered, and believe that current practice lets players "off the hook" for only 200 with no penalty for not paying attention to the table by allowing them to fold. Many also disagreed with this thought process. What these staff members failed to realize is that those players are being penalized. They are forfeiting 200 while conceding a chance to contest for the pot! Not only that, but you leave Player C in a vulnerable spot to Player A who has had the betting opened up to them.
Ultimately I'm currently under the impression that there was no procedural changes in this regard. IMO it would be a monumental disaster.
Brian states there should be some adaptation of an allotment of some percentage that is acceptable in case of misinformation / misrepresentation of a bet and suggests 150%. This is exactly why in the ROPE I use the phrase "Gross Misunderstanding" of the bet. What needs to be addressed further is, what is a "Gross Misunderstanding". But the problem is, if you define what a gross misunderstanding is with a specific percentage, I'm sure it'll present other problems/challenges in the future of a nature that I'm too tired to contemplate.
And if all this is unclear... I'm sorry but I'm in desperate need of sleep!!