[ QUOTE ]
Seat 4 bets the ammount of Seat 1's stack and seat 8 calls that ammount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious as to why your assumption is that Seat is speaking of Seat1's stack when he says this?

The guy leans back and says to the dealer "I put him all in" why is that not betting as many chips as Player 8 has in front of him?

Couldn't this be an angle shot by seat 4. He hopes that seat 8 thinks its a big bet that would put him all in and causes him to fold, but then if seat 8 actually calls he can then say that he was only betting the small stack.


Even if he is not angle shooting, isn't he the one that cause dthe problem so shouldn't he be ar the burden.


In contract law there is a principle that ambiguity is to be constued against the drafter. I think that would be a good equitable principle to apply. The guy in Seat 4 is the Guy who caused the problem by making an ambiguous bet. Shouldn't he be the one who suffers from his amibiguity.,