split pot?

[markmagic]

a player recall the previous hand that it was a split pot and the dealer didnt notice it even player A and player B who was involved in that particlar
pot and they remember there hand and the board and both of them agree that it was a split pot but the problem is the pot has already awarded
and new game is already started...

[chet]

Since this is a cash game, the rules that apply are those of your Gaming Agency and the House, the TDA has no rules for cash games.  Robert's Rules of Poker, V. 11 says the following: 

5.   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.
6.   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.

Based on the above, I would suggest that from the House standpoint, the pot has to stand as paid.  That said, there is NOTHING against these two players, assuming one of them was awarded the incorrect pot, coming to a settlement between themselves.

Chet

[Brian Vickers]

I had this exact situation happen last Thursday at my casino while I was in the room.  A player pointed out to another player that the pot he just lost should have been split (they both had aces, but the kicker apparently did not play).  This was not mentioned or brought to anyone's attention until the next hand was under way (everyone had cards and the first 3 players had folded).

Our rule for both cash and tournament is that the right to dispute the outcome of a pot ends once the next hand begins.  I informed the players of this, and was met with a lot of nastyness from the player who should have received half the pot, he kept saying that we were "terrible" and that we have the cameras we for this reason and should be able to review it. 
My ruling did not change, the pot stood as it was and that we would not review it.  This falls under "protecting your hand" and "alertness".  If a guy goes to showdown, he should know what hand he's playing.  We have to cut off the review period somewhere, and if not when the next hand begins, then what amount of time would we give them? (rhetorical question)

[Nick C]

Brian,
 In a cash game, I think if the player that was awarded the pot agrees to the split then it's okay. In a tournament, I can understand not going back once the next deal begins.

[Brian Vickers]

If the other payer agreed to chop any part of the potand both players agreed to it, I would have no problem allowing that; however that was not the floor ruling.  In this case, the other player was not willing to split the pot, as he didn't see the other player's hand and the floor had already ruled that he was going to keep the whole thing.

[Tristan]

Our rules would also have it stand once the next hand begins. If both players agree, we would allow them to chop it.

[Stuart Murray]

Ditto previous posts, the hand stands as awarded, once a new hand begins (the first riffle) the right to dispute it ends, if the two players come to agreement on their own I would not interfere with them dividing the chips at a cash table.

Regards
Stuart