Long time reader- first time posting- (recommendations for improving posts would be great)

Playing 1/2nl (20-60[I wish it wasnt such a shallow buy-in]) at Ocean's 11 in Oceanside, CA.

I am MP playing 77o heads up against V in UTG w/ KJo (I will post the hand review on the appropriate forum).

V Shoves approx 60 on the turn, I tank and call- the dealer reaches to pull the chips into the pot, and in the process mucks the V's cards. V doesnt notice until the river comes and he goes to showdown. The floor is called, and after reviewing with another floorman they decide to go back and watch the cameras (the V announced that his hand was KJ but couldnt remember the suits or color). I couldnt tell where the dealer put the cards, and neither could any of the other 7 players at the table. I assumed the floor was going to come back and tell us the hand had to be considered dead, and we would chop. Instead, the floor comes back and confirms the players hand and says that if the top two cards of the muck pile are KJ the cards would be returned and the hand finished.

The two cards were indeed KJ. Im not tilted, the player and I discussed it at lengths in the moment and neither of us were hostile..

In your experience, was this resolved correctly?

Depends on some context, but maybe, but not generally.

The player is responsible for protecting his hand, which he did not do, obviously.

If the cards are retrievable and identifiable, they can be ruled live. Generally speaking, when people say "identifiable and retrievable", they mean by the dealer, not with the assistance of surveillance. But there's no actual reason that surveillance can't be part of the ruling, I guess.
But if the floor needs to go to surveillance to try to figure out where the cards ended up, then they are probably not identifiable and retrievable to some people.

Furthermore, if they are on/in the muck pile, then they are likely not identifiable. Identifiable usually means "the cards got close to other cards or the muck, but stayed separate enough that I never lost sight of which were the players cards" or something along those lines. When the floor says "if the top two cards are KJ, then we will rule them live" then they are almost certainly not identifiable, though it is possible the floor is just trying to be fair and he is 99% sure they are the right cards based on the details of how they were put there and how good the surveillance resolution is, as it seems might have been the case here.

At the end of the day, the floor did go to surveillance, and did find out that the cards were placed on top of the muck, and was able to confirm that they were the "right" cards using a fairly transparent process. It is highly irregular, but it seems like maybe the floor got this one right. If you're comfortable that the cards were probably the right ones, then you also responded very well to the situation. Let the best hand win.

Finally, the moral: always protect your hand.

I would rather they just kill the hand. The player probably didn't protect them well enough. I mean the rest of the story sounds like a magic trick "If the top two cards are KJ, you can have them". I don't know of any dealers who keep mucked cards in precise order like that.

@dinesh @playbig2000 thank you for the insight.

I agree, he should have been protecting his cards. Another player actually mentioned it a few hands prior. He kept his cards in front of his stack, literally straddling the white line on the table- I thought he was folding a few times.

The floor did say that he could see where the cards were put via camera, BUT it felt very much like he was trying to save face with the player & dealer. My only qualm with him knowing where the cards went was that the camera isnt a bubble mounted directly above the table, it is about 15ft away, angled at the table- must have some strong high def zoom......

Clearly he was careless and the hand should have been killed instead of wasting everyone's time waiting on a ruling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTN5l1Xjrks

You will likely get a lot of different rulings from floor to floor and from different rooms. Maybe the player should have protected his hand better, but the dealer did not do right here either. I can't say whether it was a correct way to rule or not since floor really makes the rules as they see best , but it seems that it worked out fairly enough for all involved and you let it go and played on. That's good.

Considering we already know that the dealer isn't exactly the best by mucking cards that should be live, it's entirely possible that he/she took those cards and put them right on top of the stub/muck, which is a mistake in its own right. And that's something that most cameras should be able to pick up fairly easily.

I think they got it right here in the end. The only thing, and maybe it was in the OP, was whether the V claimed he had KJ before the board ran out or after.

The dealer was very weak- his aim was terrible and he had to redeal several hands because he skipped players, double dealt, etc.

As soon as the player saw his cards were missing and the floor was called, he announced he had KJ. I believe the river was already on the table.

Wouldn't mind seeing that hand declared dead.

Why do think a dead hand would result in a chop?

I'm ok with the best hand winning here, but as described I personally would've killed the hand.

Agree with suit.

This is setting a bad precedent for future situations. I don't know about other rooms, but when I call surveillance I rarely get an immediate response. Sometimes it takes 5 minutes, other times longer depending on how busy they are (poker disputes aren't near the top of their priority list). I wouldn't want to get players into the habit of asking me to call surveillance. It's literally not worth the time considering if the dealer can't identify the cards, there's a very low chance surveillance could.

Might be a language thing ... but how did the Floor 'confirm' the Player's hand? They may have been able to confirm via video that the cards were on top of the stub/muck pile, but they certainly wouldn't have know that they were KJ .. that can only come from the Player.

As indicated, lots of rooms wouldn't be able to get an answer quickly or even have the video to check so the ruling in most cases would be dead hand and the pot awarded to 77 Player. It would be up to the players themselves to consider a chop ... I assume that KJ was good or we don't have this thread at all! GL

I have reviewed a lot of hands from surveillance video and if the player is holding the cards up slightly I can see what they have sometimes even without them coming close to tabling them. Some cameras are much better than people here give them credit for.

There's no way this should go to the cameras. I see two viable rulings here - take your pick.

1. Kill the hand. Tell the villain to do a better job of protecting his cards.
2. Kill the hand but give the villain the $60 back that he bet on the turn.

I'd probably lean towards option 2.