Early morning (4am) 1-2 NL action a PA Sands last night, board double pairs with both players holding the same card for a full house. Both players call chop and the dealer divides up the chips. Dealer begins to deal new hand and one of the player says "I should have won that last hand my other card gave me a higher full house" (river paired his other card). Play stops and player is adamant he should be paid - about $100 at stake. Floor called, tapes reviewed and he is paid - surprising this only took 10 minutes.

I understand cards play - but for how long? When can a player no longer call for a tape review of a previous hand?

Were the hands tabled, or just the card they both shared?

If hands tabled, he gets pot.

Was everyone else at the table sleeping?

Have you seen a chopped pot with action and both players folded their hands? The table was probably paying as much attention as you were with the original post.

We're in the digital age now...no more videotape. That's why it only took 10 minutes. I think you'll see, especially with new casino's that have better cameras (and multiple angles), surveillance will be more helpful and involved with poker.

IMO, the awarding of the pot to the wrong player is a major gaffe, and can certainly be corrected when the player speaks up on the next hand. I would lock up the extra $50 and explain to both players that I would have surveillance review the footage. Pending an outcome, that $50 doesn't play.

How long is it a correctable error? I'm not sure actually. I'll be interested to hear what others think.

RRoP says once the next deal has begun the previous hand is done. After that it's too late to change the outcome.

This.

A player has the responsibility to protect his hand. This includes not releasing it until he is sure he is paid correctly.

I don't agree when it involves the outcome of the pot, or a player not putting in the correct amount.

Especially with the advent of shuffle machines. Now the next hand starts in 3 seconds, practically immediately after you've been pushed the pot.

I think this rule needs updating.

Point to the part of that OP where it says both hands were tabled?

If you haven't seen a situation where players only show the one card (they think) plays on the board, then you haven't played much live poker.

Try again...

So in the live games you play, if players believe they have the same hands, they just muck their hands and the dealer chops the pot for them?

The assumption that both players tabled their hands was clear, or this room is one to be avoided.

Oh...and I guess the camera was able to zoom in on the non-tabled hand and determined that the hand was better.

Who said anything about mucking?

So if they didn't table the hand and didn't muck, they ate the cards?

Some rooms have "must show both cards to win", some don't.

Are you telling me you've never seen players with a double paired board (say, 10-10-5-5-7) just show the 10 in their hands thinking this was the only card that played? In rooms that require both, this gets rectified immediately with tabling the other card. If the room doesn't require that, maybe the guy claiming he should win the pot sat and thought about his hand and only realized after the pot was split and next hand started that his 7 actually made a bigger full house.

the first part of my paragraph happens a lot...

So in the rooms you have played, they have cameras that can see your non-tabled cards?

We can keep this going, but I think the assumption is clear. Plus you made the assumption that the table was sleeping because nobody noticed, then you must hold the same assumption that the table was actually able to see the hands, and thus the hands must have been tabled.

And if that was the case, my original question stands...was the table sleeping, or did they just not care enough to award the pot to the rightful winner? It is just as much the responsibility of the players as it is the dealer to see that the cards call themelves.

If the hands weren't tabled:

1. The camera couldn't be used to determine the best hand, unless of course, the camera has the ability to see down cards.
2. Other players can't be assumed to be sleeping, because they couldn't see the cards.

Since the original post has said that #1 took place, and you made the assumption of #2, then I think the assumption that the hands were tabled is QUITE CLEAR.

I must be bored...=)

If you want to argue semantics, then lets assume the camera could still see the cards without them being tabled. Tabling occurs only after they are turned face up and placed on the felt, correct? Maybe they both turned the hands face up, in the air, for the camera to see, said "chop" and then mucked? I don't know, and neither do you.

Let's assume they were tabled...if NO ONE at the table noticed the higher full house, including the dealer, then yes...the table was clearly not paying attention...or just not doing their job.

Clarification:

The 2 players were sitting next to each other at one end of the table. They showed each other (tabled) their cards and said chop, not everyone could see their cards. The "winner" didn't realize he had won until a few minutes later. The cameras could see both hands and the floor corrected the mistake.

BTW, PA Sands has only been playing poker since July - the dealer skill level varies greatly.

So they placed both of their cards face up on the table? If so, then I think the winner should be awarded appropriately, as "cards call themselves". Sure, he should have protected his hand, but the dealer also should have presented both hands and noticed the winning hand.

You were arguing the semantics, I just went along for the ride.

Hmmm, that makes things a little different then. Showing each other their cards is not the same as tabling. I assume they didn't hit the felt face up.

Essentially, neither player tabled a hand, and therefore made an agreement to split the pot. The dealer (while at fault) was not given the opportunity to read the hands (entirely).

Therefore, I tell the player that, had he tabled his hand, he may have had some recourse. However, by not doing so and agreeing that it was a chop the result stands.

I want to agree with shove2win though...if they didn't table their hands, how did the camera identify the cards?

Lance Berkman's foul ball was called a home run and he rounded the bases. The run was put on the score board and then the umps reviewed it and reversed the play. I bet Lance Berkman and all of the Yankees fans think that the statute of limitations is as soon as he touches the bag at home.

My point is, it's all perspective. If it was $10 and I was on the losing end, I wouldn't say anything to slow down the game but as soon as you make it $1K and I stand to benefit from this, I say go to the tapes all day long!

Both players could have opened their hands without laying them on the felt. Technically, that isn't tabling. But the cards still could have been shown enough for the players (and camera) to read.

Remember, this casino is new, and the surveillance equipment is new. There's also a chance they set up the poker table surveillance just like a pit game. If so, there could very well be 3-4 cameras on each table with multiple angles and close ups. It's not at all far fetched that the camera could pick up all the cards.

Holy hell.

OP asks a relatively simple question, and even clarifies the OP, and people still try to add enough ambiguity and twisting to the post to argue the other side.

Question: Hands tabled. Pot mistakenly chopped. Next hand starts. How long does the wronged player have to speak up?

The OP specifically uses the word "tabled" in his clarifications. Come on now, just answer the mans question and move along.

Had a hand at the Omaha 8 table this weekend where I had to defend another player's hand (sigh) and get him awarded a quarter of the pot (he had a chop for high) - $31. The dealer flipped the cards over and mucked them and I immediately stopped her.

I ended up having to call the floor because the dealer froze like a dear in headlights, and then when the floor said to put the $31 aside, she found that baffling too. I was shocked that Winstar could actually access the tape in a timely fashion, but they did. Two hands later, the floor was back, and the guy got his $31.

Cliffs: Omaha players maybe shouldn't just flip over the cards and sit there perfectly silent as if magic will happen and not watch what the dealer's doing. Wait, no, stay oblivious, it's how I make money.