Okay, Mike, you say that the New Rule probably wont go back to the lower amount...how about reverting to TDA Rule #2 (in part) Players Responsibilities....make your intentions clear! That's it! Forcing any player to put ten times their intended amount into the pot serves no sensible resolution to "an unclear bet." Forcing any player to unwillingly concede their entire stack to an opponent, either the unclear bettor or the calling player, accomplishes nothing more than distributing a windfall of chips to the undeserving winner!
Well Nick, as usual it looks like you spent little time contemplating prior replies. So let's review... 1) a player is only "forced" to pay the higher amount
when the lower amount is not reasonable. Do you honestly consider a bet of "five" at a pot of 18,000 to logically and reasonably be a bet of 500 not 5000? This is what the hard-working TDs who actually contribute to the Summit found objectionable in practice under the original rule and have been debating since 2013.
Secondly, as I mentioned several posts back, the worst option is to do as you suggest and allow the player to decide what he wants to bet... 500 or 5000 based on reads he gets after announcing "five". Not to mention the time it takes to stop and have the guy clarify.
I also realize that Jack Effel (WSOP) is influential in decision making at the recent Summits since his addition to the Board Of Directors. That's fine. However, he has never participated in any discussion on this Forum...never. Why do the TDA decision makers insist on adopting rules of the WSOP or the WPT or any other Tournament? Coming up with reasonable solutions to some of our existing rules that "need attention" makes a whole lot more sense than creating a new "controversial" rule!
Nobody in the TDA... nobody... insists on adopting rules of any major tour. In case you haven't followed the history of the Association, one of the main benefits is to help standardize conflicting rules from one house to the other and by definition that means that some houses prevailed on one rule and had to concede on others. And many rules were proposed by representatives from small and mid-size tours or emerged spontaneously from the floor. However it is an obvious fact that a large tour provides a "proving ground" of sorts to trial a new rule. What on Earth do you find objectionable about that?
One more point I'd like to make. I see very little evidence that feedback from The Discussion Forum has anything to do with rule changes at the Summit. The fact that 50% of the participants are within a 100-mile radius of Las Vegas unfairly overrides member participation throughout the years. I would like to attend every TDA Summit but unfortunately, I have been unable to attend again since my last trip in 2011.
As the saying goes "you see what you want to see" and before we accept your assertions as fact:
1: Looking at actual live attendees, delegates from 34 countries attended the 2017 Summit. TDs from 29 U.S. States attended. The actual percentage from the entire state of Nevada was 26% of total attendance. And it's a real insult to our great membership from Nevada to assert that they all think alike and "override" the rest of the world. Further, of the 7 active Directors, only two are from Nevada.
2: As for feedback from the forum impacting Summit agenda, look no further than the 177 formal suggestion threads over the 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 Summits. The suggestion threads from this Forum are a primary source of input for Summit topics. Not to mention direct e-mails, suggestions via the Summit suggestion boxes, the pre-Summit surveys, and of course player concerns expressed directly to the attending TDs. There's probably no industry Summit that has more widespread range of input than what the TDA collects.
3: In addition to live attendees, at any one time dozens of people participated in the Summit online and their voice was heard. That option was open for you if you can't attend live.
Make your intentions clear! Make your intentions clear! Make your intentions clear! Failure to comply... First offense: A warning! Second offense: A slap in the back of the head...Third offense: the dreaded new TDA Rule!
So what if you warn or punish them,
you still have to determine what the bet is. Your solution seems to be to ask them to clarify their bet... and that opens up for an obvious angle... not a solution that's likely to get any traction.