The issue was raised while the dealer had the cards but had not started dealing.

The hand may have been "over" but a new hand had not started.

OP would need to clarify 'readying' ... The first riffle is a pretty clear point in time if that's the room's rule.

I have seen a spot where a new hand had started and they still did a review and Seat 8 was told either give the pot up or leave for the day (or longer). I think this would be pretty unusual.

The variance in this spot does come if the pot isn't set aside and Seat 8 somehow loses the chips before the review is final. GL

He placed his cards face up on the table, just like during a typical showdown. Every player could see what he showed.

The cards from the hand were face down and already mixed with the rest of the deck. The dealer was mixing them up as they were on the table and he was just about to pick them up and shuffle them.

So you guys are saying that if he had started shuffling then Seat 2 would be SOL? Seems to be differing views on that.

Yes, according to the traditional rule, once the first riffle shuffle (or pushing the green button the the auto shuffler) occurs, it is too late to back up and fix a mistake on the earlier hand.

As mentioned, some rooms may give a little more leeway, maybe up to pitching the first card of the next hand. Once you're on the next hand, though, you're on the next hand.

Last year I was sitting in the 6 seat when the players in the 7 and 8 seat were involved in a hand. At showdown, the player in the 8 seat showed me and the #7 seat his cards and then mucked them. He had the winning hand. (I think he had a str8 ).

The dealer pushed the pot to the 7 seat. I said " you mucked the winner ".
He called the floor who correctly ruled that his hand was dead. He never tabled it. He just mucked it. However, the floor also said " If the winner wants to give you half the pot, he can" I thought that was out of line, but I also thought my comments were too.

The difference here is that the player mucked his hand. No recourse once that's done in any room I've played in.

Every gaming commission rule I've seen mentions cards speak. I haven't come across the "too bad so sad" rule that apparently everyone thinks exists when the dealer starts dealing the next hand. But whatever. But next time anyone's paid on a BJ push by mistake and then has the floor come over 20 minutes later to say surveillance noticed a mispay, be sure to invoke the "sorry, next hand was dealt" defense. Report back on how that goes.

Right, blackjack and poker are totally different since one is gambling and one isn't. Again, whatever.

Then next time tell us he "tabled" his cards and you won't get everyone asking what you meant by "show".

As always, not all rooms have the same rules.

The rule was quoted in post #22 in this thread.

Blackjack and poker ARE two totally different games with different sets of rules.

But they are both gambling. Which do you think isn't?

I did that to a neighbor once, but I waited until his cards were buried in the muck. He held a 7 4 in his hand and mucked a straight flush when a 4th spade hit the river. I leaned over and said, "Hey, you threw a straight flush away. There were four spades on the board and your 7 made a straight flush."

In his defense, the casino had been serving a very high ABV craft beer in 22oz glasses to him. They didn't realize how high it was and didn't realize the effect it would have on people. Likewise, he didn't realize what two or three 22oz 9.5% beers over the course of a couple hours would do to him. Apparently, it can make you miss a straight flush.

A hand in blackjack is independent from the next one in terms of how money flows. In poker when you ship a pot to the wrong player you now influence the next hand for all other players because the stack sizes are different. How would you like to lose an all in and right after the floor comes over to try to take back the chips he took your stack with, which couldn't have happened if he didn't have the chips in the first place.

To clarify, refunding the bet to the player to my right at blackjack has no influence to my decisions at all.

Poker is not against the house, poker is against other 'people'. The room is providing a service/location for people to play against each other 'within the rules'. The rule states ... eh, whatever ...

I would assume that the house has other allowable recourse that an individual doesn't while you remain in (or even come back to) their house. In most locations if you 'knowingly' accept an over-payment you could be charged, but they instead just 'kindly' ask for you to return it, no questions asked. GL

But every room also has the rule that rules may be modified in the interest of fairness of the game.

If you're going to argue that the claim is invalid because the new hand was being prepared - maybe even because 1 or 2 cards had been pitched - there's a term for that: "Rules lawyering"

Yes, I was just trying to indicate that Player v Casino is very different than Player v Player. As a business the casino wants to limit hand reviews, so using the rules of poker they can do that.

I've seen where Floor's had no recourse by rule, but made some very strong suggestions to a Player that they should make things right or go home for the day. GL

Call the Gaming Commission and tell them you think you might have seen a dealer push the pot to the wrong player a couple month ago. See how that goes..

Seems like pot should have been kept to side during review.

What would rule be if seat 8 left before review came back? (He can play with the chips, but can't leave with them?)

What would happen if he got stacked and was out of money?

Not only common, but 100% required. The floor in the OP screwed up by not impounding the pot.
The floor would (unless they are a complete moron, there are some) never give the pot to the reg unless it was confirmed he had the winning hand. They would be risking their job for what? To give a regular a couple hundred dollars? If I were to falsely give a pot to someone that didn't have a confirmed winning hand and the other player decided to take this up with the gaming commission, they would look into it, see the video, and I would be looking for a new job. So you can be reasonably sure (~99.9%) that the floor wouldn't do that.

This question appears a couple of times ITT. Does anybody have an answer?

Probably varies by casino, but what we do is make notes in both players' files. The player who owes the money must pay restitution before he can play again. If he refuses he is barred until he does. If it's an unknown player, the best you can do is take care of the wronged player normally with comps. It's not going to be the best satisfaction but at least it's something. I have seen occasions where the casino will make up the difference in cash but rarely.

It's hard to have an answer to that because that situation should never come up if the floor doesn't mess up by not taking the chips out of play until the review is done.

I wouldn't assume the floor has a competent way of solving such a problem after being that incompent in the build-up.

Nobody is refering to a too bad so sad rule. We are referring to rules governing the limitations of time a player has to raise an objection. If as you say no such rule exists then I suppose I could show up 10 years later and tell them that i won a pot and they pushed it to the wrong player?

And I have been around casinos a long time and never heard of an instance of a player being told 20 minutes later that there had been a mistake and he was paid on a bet that he should have lost and now must repay it....... The only thing close to that I have ever heard of would be a player being accused of cheating (as opposed to passively being mispaid) Or a floor supervisor catching the mistake as soon as it was made and having it corrected.....

My floor supervisor would have some explaining to do, that's for sure. The rule would be that seat 8 owes the money. Can we force him to cough it up now that he is busted? No, but we can require he cough it up before he ever plays again. This shows the extent of this floor's mistake. It was a big one that he got lucky on.

There are a bunch of misconceptions in this post, but one that nobody has commented on is the fact that the time it take the floor to return with a verdict is irrelevant - it's the time it takes for someone to alert the floor to an irregularity.

Play may very well keep going - in blackjack or poker - while the floor calls surveillance. But while the issue is being sorted, the players are fully aware that there is a pending investigation.

Actually it is fairly accurate. You have until the next hand starts to seek correction. Once the next hand starts most rooms would rule ‘too late’. Rare rooms will extend this a hand or so but that is very very rare.

Where the prior post was a little wrong was “cards in the air”. Again most rooms declare the next hand starts with first riffle or when auto shuffflerbutton is pressed. I have seen a couple of rooms say it is when cards are cut. But never seen cards in the air.

Btw I have seen many otherwise good dealers either not know this or ignore it. They seem to know first riffle but not the shuffler button part. Watch how many when tapped out either have or will push the button but not finish that hand. The have seen exactly one dealer call the other on this and make him finish the hand he started. It was at Bellagio btw.

Its probably not that the dealer does not know this .... aits that the dealer is aware that dealing another hand is going to delay the push and we pretty automatically push that button even when we shouldn't because its a pretty automatic process. So for the sake of practical convenience we may ignore this very arbitrary starting point .... while the act of actually riffling is far mor intimately woven into the idea of a new hand starting is not likely to occur accidentally even after we have been tapped out.

I have seen dealers stop shuffling and set the deck down when tapped but it is not common,

I saw it at the final table of a large tournament I was dealing. I tapped the player after he had started to shuffle, he broke the deck and stood up and a player lit into him until he sat down and started to shuffle the deck.

I really thought it was ridiculous of the player to do this. Complaining to the floor would be one thing, but once the dealer has stopped shuffling what are you actually accomplishing by insisting he deal the hand ... he is now going to reshuffle so you have saved no time, the deck is being reshuffled ... at this point you aren't happy with the dealer why do you want him for another hand?