Oh gotcha... the word "obvious" is the operative word for the rule. Thanks.

That's a very patronizing and condescending statement by Kings.

"I am glad to have it documented on the livestream..."

Really, so why did you immediately remove the VOD and ban everyone from chatting about it?

Locally that would never happen. The casino would not even bother checking tape to determine if he actually had a winner nor to reconstitute the pot size. Very very clear that issues need to be raised before the start of the next hand. I actually don't know of room without such a rule. The following 4 items comes from RRoP...

1. If an incorrect rule interpretation or decision by an employee is made in good faith, the establishment has no liability.
2. A ruling may be made regarding a pot if it has been requested before the next deal starts (or before the game either ends or changes to another table). Otherwise, the result of a deal must stand. The first riffle of the shuffle marks the start for a deal.
3. If a pot has been incorrectly awarded and mingled with chips that were not in the pot, and the time limit for a ruling request given in the previous rule has been observed, management may determine how much was in the pot by reconstructing the betting, and then transfer that amount to the proper player.
4. To keep the action moving, it is possible that a game may be asked to continue even though a decision is delayed. The delay could be to check the overhead camera tape, get the shift supervisor to give the ruling, or for some other good reason. In such circumstances, a pot or portion of it may be impounded by the house while the decision is pending.

There could be argument on when the next hand starts (all I am going to say is many dealers don't know this OR consistently violate it when they get pushed /offrant) but many hands later would not be part of that argument.

The "obvious" is not the key. It is TDA rule 22.

"22: Disputed Hands and Pots

The reading of a tabled hand may be disputed until the next hand begins (see Rule 23). Accounting errors in calculating and awarding the pot may be disputed until substantial action occurs on the next hand. If a hand finishes during a break, the right to any dispute ends 1 minute after the pot is awarded."

It's a **** up from the dealer and every player at the table. She is a fantastic dealer and I really hope she doesn't get into any trouble.

The casino doesn't owe the player anything. Mistakes happen and he should have spotted it, along with every other player at the table.

As others have said, the real issue is the cover up.

Yeah, I get that part. I'm just saying that the rule requiring that the cards speak when the hand is tabled should supersede the timeframe during when they may be disputed.

However, I could be wrong on this. One of the goofy baseball rules is this: if the wrong player comes up to bat, neither the official scorer nor an umpire is permitted to point this out, even if they notice it*. It's solely the responsibility of the defensive team – and only of the defensive team – to point out the mistake. If the batting team notices before the pitching team, the batting team can correct it with no penalty. And if the defensive team doesn't alert the umpire until after the incorrect batter bats, then the batter's actions plus any subsequent players' actions will stand as played.**

Anyway, perhaps it's the responsibility of the players – and only the players – to speak up about a discrepancy.

* * * *

One interesting little tidbit that came up on a recent S4Y podcast is this: with a live-streamed hand, the graphics software would (and did) automatically calculate everything as a chopped pot. When the next hand is dealt, the system would assume there are still five players, five stacks, etc. To continue the stream, someone in the control room had to manually correct everything to reflect what is actually happening at the table... before the next hand is dealt.

Now, I'm not sure this is true in terms of what happened in Rozvadov. After all, Berkey and co. may have been speaking from experience unique to their particular live-stream setup, and it's quite possible Kings used a different system. But this was a topic of discussion on the podcast, and if it's true, then someone did know of the mistake before the next hand was dealt, and simply failed to alert Kauert or anyone else.

You can see in the video that they start to change the graphic to a KKK flop, so they get a corrected result, and about 30 seconds later the next hand is being dealt

This is a confusing rule. Was this a mistake in reading a tabled hand or a mistake in awarding the pot? It seems like situations like this would usually involve both.