I've seen people pay for the actual food with chips while in a hand and apparently everybody was fine with it (or felt like me and didn't want to cause a stink)

What if the situation was this:

1) player A, Original better, is solid player. 2) player B has his chips neatly stacked and has exactly $200 in reds. 3) Player A realizes if he bets $100, player B might shove, giving himself options if others come along if b shoves $200.

Player B takes red bird tokes dealer then shoves. Now player is forced to make his strategy know to others before action. Or remain silent and then speak up when action back to himself

You act like: oh well it's only $5. Tough luck to player A.

This.

I've seen countless threads in LCP about paying for services or tipping mid hand for a reasonable % of a player's stack where the majority seem to think it's okay. I disagree with those that think this becomes okay or not okay depending on if the amount reopens the action. I think tipping first, then shoving is okay. Shoving first, then tipping is not okay as you're altering the amount of chips you have actively bet and imo are no longer yours.

Except in this case nobody knew exactly how much Player B had, including Player B according to the OP. If Player A was so concerned about the Player B's stack, he could have asked to see his chips. He didn't.

I tend to lean towards preferring to be the worst kind of right than the best kind of wrong.

Money in the pot isn't yours anymore. Over $4 after the fact I agree it's not enough to do more than make the point that this should never be done again, but it's the principle that matters. If $4 doesn't matter, does $5? How about $10? Where is the line drawn?

Easiest to draw the line at $0 - the exact amount you're allowed to take from committed chips.

Strictly speaking, once the money is committed, it is part of the "actual pot".

Which kind of emphasizes the issue.

So two players assumed player B had X chips on the turn and it shouldn't be up to player B to decide if he has X chips or X-$4 chips or X-$200 chips. Especially not after he has committed all his chips to the pot. What would you say if he waits until the cards are turned over to decide he wants to tip? Still OK because the pot hasn't been pushed yet?

You can't base a ruling on the fact that players know or don't know the exact stack size and you also shouldn't base it on an arbitrary amount of chips a player is allowed to take out of his stack. It would be ridiculous for anyone to complain about $1, but as soon as the floor gets involved, he should rule in a consistent way no matter if we are talking about $2 or $200 unless there is a written House rule that specifically addresses that subject.

I would also prefer for rooms to have rules that prohibit dealers from taking tips from players while they are in a hand. In my opinion, tipping the dealer mid hand is different from tipping a waitress or food runner or even a prior dealer who walks by.

The bolded would be a bad policy. Here is a rule that appears in many rule sets that covers it:
" The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record." That taken with "Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling." makes it clear that being fair is much more important than being consistent.

One of the legendary hands at a Southern California casino involved a player who tipped a cocktail waitress $600 while facing an all-in bet so as to reduce the amount he would be paying off to his opponent, whom he hated.

The floor was called and the tip was allowed to stand.

I once told a player to stop tipping, but it was because he was rat holing by tipping a large amount to his wife whose was the waitress.

Finally, the cavalry arrives.

I was starting to feel a little abandoned out here.

Hey, I said it first.

I thought you said shouldn't be allowed to tip from a committed hand. YTF says it's ok.

1. Just wondering if the guy who shoved and pre-tipped won the hand.

2. I get the point. And my ruling would have been that the $4 has to go back into the pot - even if just theoretically, allowing for 1 to raise if 3 calls.

3. The stakes have nothing to do with anything except that a $4 pre-tip in a smaller game is pretty good, however my point is that I was agreeing with Alb about how bad it was for dealer to drop it no matter the circumstances or what a weird situation it would create for the dealer to not accept it.

4. I may not have made myself clear, the 'stink' was referring to how the $4 got back into the pot - as a floor I would not physically put it back in but allow 1 to raise anyways.

Gotcha. Misread about the "stink".

I agree with you 100%. I'm surprised others don't.

Honestly, I forget the HH. I had my mind on the situation and was sitting there thinking " no one mentioned this at all". Was such unique a situation, it intrigued me.

Player 3 raised and I believed player 1 called. I know he didn't reraise or shove. I don't recall him folding. He was a station and hitting everything, so pretty sure he called.
Player 2 lost and left. I do know that.

I do see how this could be bad for Player 1's equity as he might otherwise be able to get more money in with the best hand or possibly get Player 3 to fold his equity.

But I'm just wondering, why would Player 2 do this as an angle? I can't think of any situation it would benefit him, outside some collusion scenarios.

Say he has $200, 19 in reds and 5 in whites. He tips the dealer $1 and goes all-in. Now Player 1 can't reship--but wouldn't Player 2 want Player 1 to reraise? He's already all-in. If Player 1 reraises, then Player 3 might fold, increasing Player 2's equity.

It seems like toking the dealer $1 and going all-in for $199 is bad for Player 2's equity. I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be, but maybe I'm missing something.