Splashing and Pushing - Two Sides of the Same Chip

I recently received an e-mail from Howard P., who wrote: "I've noticed that you and your brother often make disapproving comments about passing chips at the table. I never thought about it much because it didn't happen where I played, but last year I moved to a different part of the country where it happens all the time. I don't think it's right that the dealers and floormen here look the other way, but when people ask me why there's even a rule against pushing, or why it matters, I don't know how to answer. Like I said, you guys have mentioned it several times, but only in passing. How about devoting a whole article to it?"

Actually, Howard, it was a freelance piece that Barry wrote on this very subject that prompted Card Player to call back in 2000 and say: "Listen, we think this kind of thing is important – so why don't you two become regular columnists?" Since it's been four years, perhaps it's time to revisit the subject. In the interest of avoiding redundancy, I'd like to approach the issue from a different angle this time.

Philosophers and scientists tell us that one of the best ways to gain understanding about a subject is to look for the ways in which similar things are different, and different things similar. With that in mind, let's examine a different, seemingly unrelated rule, and then compare it with the "no pushing chips" rule to which Howard referred. The reason for the comparison is this: While violation of the first rule is taken as a very serious matter everywhere, violation of the second, as Howard indicated, is met in some places with almost total apathy. Employing the principle of difference/similarity, let's see if there's any justification for this discrepancy.

Imagine sitting at a table where two players are regularly "splashing the pot"; that is, they toss their bunched chips forward so as to mix with other chips in the pot as they land. If you're an experienced player, you know how detrimental this practice would be to the basic fairness of the game. After all, whenever you bet, the amount of your wager would stand there naked for all the world to verify, while the bets of your splashing opponents would be subject to no such visual scrutiny. When you place six chips into the pot, the splashers could "call" your bet by throwing in only four or five, since the exact amount would be visually obscured. Were this practice to spread, you'd have no way to win, for in the long run, there would be no surviving a game in which it costs you more money to bet and call than it costs your opponents.

The good news is that you needed to "imagine" this situation – because you'd be hard-pressed to experience it anywhere in the known poker universe. Even in the most permissive, look-the-other-way cardrooms, dealers won't allow players to splash the pot – at least not repeatedly. Certainly, the floor staff won't. When splashing does occur these days, it's usually by an innocent newcomer with the correct amount of chips who hasn't yet learned proper poker etiquette – a condition we're all in when we first start out.

But now imagine you're in another game – a game in which some players are pushing chips to other players when they win a pot. Two fundamental questions arise: (1) Why is there a rule against this? (2) How is the game's integrity compromised by the violation of this rule? Barry wrote the following back in November of 2000:

"You're playing $9-$18 hold'em. Seats No. 1 and No. 3 are friendly with each other, and every time either of them wins a pot, he throws six chips – a full large bet – to his buddy. Likewise, seats No. 6 and No. 7 have a similar arrangement. If you imagine this doesn't affect you, you're not thinking very clearly. Suppose you find yourself in a threeway pot against seats No. 1 and No. 3, and have a borderline decision to make on the river. I would say that now's a good time for you to consider the implications of their partnership on this game. After all, it's going to cost you a full $18 to bet or call, but is that what it's going to cost each of them? Hardly. It's much cheaper for them to bet or call, for if either of them wins, the other receives a rebate on the lost bet. This 'triangle effect' changes everything, for in actuality, it's costing your opponents closer to $12 to bet when it costs you $18 (lack of space prevents a full explanation here). Since their risk is less than yours, they can afford to engage their opponents far more often, and contend for more pots, than you can. In fact, with such an (insurance) arrangement in play, it would be a grave mathematical error for them to fold nearly as often as you must. Does this make for a level playing field? Does it even remotely approximate fair play?"

It should go without saying that the effect is the same whatever the stakes, whether you're playing $30-$60 or $3-$6. And even if it's only one or two chips being passed, as opposed to a full bet, the difference is merely one of degree; you're still getting the worst of it. As in the case of splashing, the question remains: Are you getting a fair shake in a game in which it costs you $6 to bet or call – when it costs your opponents only $4 or $5?

Although they apply to different stages of play, it turns out that the "no splashing" rule and the "no pushing" rule are, in essence, the very same rule. They are based on the same principle and were created for the same reason – to protect you from being forced to lay odds for your opponents. That being the case, why should that safeguard be taken any less seriously in one instance than in the other? Yet, in some large houses, chips are passed across the table (and behind it, and under it) hundreds of times a day – in spite of countless objections and warnings. Can you imagine playing in a room where splashing is the norm? Or, where anyone claimed with a straight face that splashing the pot with less than a full bet somehow makes the game "friendly"? Or, where the house dismissed this with the rationale, "Oh, it's only a chip or two"? If it would be unthinkable to have a policy regarding splashing chips that instructed dealers and floormen to "look the other way unless someone objects" – and, thankfully, it is considered unthinkable – why should it be considered any more acceptable to push chips, when that practice results in the same illicit overlay, often to a greater degree?

Many players, of course, are unaware of such considerations, while others are aware and simply choose not to think of it "that way." But management doesn't have that luxury; rather, they have a responsibility to acknowledge what is actually happening – and what is actually happening is that the violation of this rule produces a mathematical advantage for the violators. In the case of players who've already been warned, that is a textbook definition of cheating. With more and more people being exposed to poker, our game needs to be squeaky clean. The practice of passing chips – and the tolerance of that practice – should be considered as unacceptable in a public cardroom as splashing the pot with less than a full wager.