I am not sure that I agree with wsopmcgee's interpretation of the rule but the rule as he stated it is the one I heard at the summit. 2 actions involving chips or 3 actions. He is saying that if just 1 action involves chips then a subsequent action (or previous action I suppose) would constitute the second and, therefore, substantial action.
When I read the rule as stated above I would interpret it as two actions with chips: so a bet and a call, bet and a raise, a raise and a re-raise. Or three actions, which would be a bet, fold, fold. Check, bet, fold. check check bet, check check check, check bet call (which actually fits both scenarios of definitions). So it will be interesting to see if there are any examples with the new rule and subsequent debate.
Nick, yes. I am saying that a guy who purposefully hides his cards and lets the action go by would end up with the same decision as a guy who was accidentally skipped because he was not paying attention or those three checks went by so fast he may not have had time. Life is a bitch, visual game, pay attention. The poor guy that wasn't paying attention will start after the first time his hand is killed (again, only if he was facing a bet when the action past him - and surely if he or the dealer is yelling time as the third guy is checking we don't have to count the third action). The guy that is shooting an angle by hiding his cards is going to get a dead hand if he was facing action or have a small advantage by seeing the action before it gets to him if he was not. Remember the guy that was not paying attention also gets that advantage if he was not facing action. So, I think it is very balanced and makes it easy for a TD to make a clear, explainable, supported decision. The other side of this is the penalty to the OOT player. As those are dispensed more often in those situations you all of a sudden have everybody paying attention to the action. we may lose a couple hands an hour because of it but that is worth it to have people act in turn.