Do you play poker with your kids?

[Colchester Kev]

My view fwiw (and no i haven't got kids) would be that, although as a parent you can have a big influence in the paths/choices your kids make, ultimately they will find their own way and have their own interests!

+1
My sis teaches and does a bit of psych and was explaining 'Broccoli Theory' as she calls it. Basically some are advocating, for example, denying kids broccoli and sprouts for a couple of years (7-8) so they want what they can't have, then letting them loose on these 'treats' after a bit to make sure they eat them. Same thing would go for telling kids poker's bad bad bad. Half of them want to rebel against anything parental at some point anyway...

Although sprouts truly are the spawn of satan.  I remember reading that there's a chemical in sprouts that means some people have an almost allergic reaction to the taste.

they taste a lot sweeter than they used to, probably genetically modified or something these days

I think sprouts are of the foods that separates Regular Tasters from SuperTasters...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster

as in "I don't give a f*ck if you're a supertaster, sprouts play no part in a Fry Up" Dr C. Kev, Colchester Inst. for Nutritional Sciences.

That research cost me 30p out of my budget and 3 seconds of my time !!   

[Fisher]

Well as for my 6 year old, she start playing poker when she was 4 years old.  It all started when she started showing the concept of wanting to count.  For instance saying numbers, but not in the correct order, and pattern matching with things like toys, aligning them up in a row, and others.  During this time, she notice me Daddie watching the poker shows and people clapping in the back ground, and the numbers on the tv screen.  So, why not, buy some cards.  Show her how the numbers correspond to how many pictures on the cards.  4 of hearts, 4 large hearts in the middle of the card, don't include the small (baby) hearts next to the numbers.  And the shapes, Hearts, every girl loves hearts.  Diamonds, shiny things on that cartoon Trollz.  Clubs, kinda difficult, but got that shape, and Spades.  Just say Black heart spades.  Notice the spade upside down, showing the ace of spades, looks like a heart with a stem, and point at an apple with a steam.  Then Poker chips, best to get ones with denominations or numbers starting with 1.  We bought $1, $5, $10, $25, $100, $500, $1000, $5000 (pink).  So counting by ones, she learned how to count by 5's, 10's, & 25's up to a hundred.  Then instead of saying "ten hundred" say "one thousand".  So you have the hundred's family, and the thousand's family.  Once she knew about the comma being "thousand" then showing her another comma "million" was a piece of cake.  So shoving in the middle of the table $485 chips looked like a lot, but telling her, it's only 1 $500 chips, the perception of amount dollar wise was easily taught.  Because someone puts in a lot of chips, VALUE WISE, it's pretty small if you have the larger valued chips.  Simple way of showing what is smaller and bigger dealing with numbers.  And she knowing how to shuffle cards too is a plus.  So playing poker for a solid 4 1/2 years with the knowledge of the game is quite awesome if you as me.  The most difficult hand to describe was the STRAIGHT.  Because you have many types to make a straight, open ended, gut shot, double bell buster gut shot, etc.  But a pair, two pair, and three of a kind, and four of a kind, and of course full house (in that order) was easy.  And the easiest, FLUSH.  All same suite.  So when she got a flush, the deal was to "GO FLUSH THE TOILET".  Gotta make the game fun somehow.  Showing Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10 which one was higher, tape some cards on the wall with the ACE being highest to the ceiling, and then King, Queen, Jack, and 10 being the lowest.  So you ask, which one is HIGHEst to the ceiling?  Well that ACE, then KING.  So you ask, which is HIGHER TO THE CEILING, King or Queen?  Point at the wall.  And as for the Ace being ONE or the Highest card, that was simple.  During a straight with A,2,3,4,5, you look at the numbers and it's just one, the smallest, anything else it's the highest.  It's a "MAGIC CARD" that changes it's mind on a straight hand.

[pokerfan]

tl;dr  to Blonde

[kinboshi]

tl;dr  to Blonde

[Eyeofsauron]

I taught my nephew (aged and niece (aged 11) how to play Badugi the other day, as it's one of the easiest poker varients to learn. Due to time constraints we played it no limit rather than limit. My very first hand I made the nut Badugi (A,2,3,4 all different suits) without having to draw any cards. My niece soon picked up that I had a made hand and folded, but my nephew is too reckless and stayed in the hand all the way, losing all his chips, despite me giving as many clues as I could about my hand! I've advised him never to take up poker.

[Djinn]

I think there is a different between teaching them to play poker and playing for money.

You can teach someone the game without the gambling element, just make sure its a freezeout game for no money just bragging rights.

Apparently people play Halo tournaments online for cash, or gamble on golf games, that does not make the game inherently gambling.

I disagree.  Poker is a strange game in that its intricacies are all concerning betting, especially NL.  The whole point of the game is to outplay other people for their stake regardless of how much that is.  One look at a play money game online and you can see that it barely replicates even a 1c/2c real cash game.  Why there should be such a huge discrepancy on how psychologically the game is viewed between playing for no stake and playing for microstakes is somewhat mysterious to me, but it is there and unavoidably so.  Obviously if the bragging rights are big enough, a tournament version could work, but the mechanics of a basic cash game would be all wrong if it were played for pasta shells.  If you want to teach kids a pure skill card game which doesn't rely on betting for its entire purpose, try bridge or rummy.

My grandma used to say:
"Bridge is a game of cards which can be played for money stakes.  Poker is a game of betting which is played with cards."
I think she is absolutely right.

My parents had a homegame because they are American and couldn't help themselves.  Of course if I wasn't allowed anything I wanted it, just like those blue fizzy drinks which make kids go mental, apparently. 

Anyway I badgered and badgered until I was allowed in for a couple of hours, with the proviso that I had to wager my own pocket money and if I lost it I wasn't getting any more.  It was a 10p/20p limit game, and I had a tenner, but for many many weeks I had £0 at the end of it.  This taught me simultaneously the "don't play with money you can't afford to lose" rule. 

[ScottMGee]

a tournament version could work, but the mechanics of a basic cash game would be all wrong if it were played for pasta shells.

I agree that Cash games cannot be taught to your children without the gambling element because this is about winning the pasta shells and keeping them forever.

Tournament games on the other hand are no different to draughts where to try to take the other player's pieces.

[WYSINWYG]

I think there is a different between teaching them to play poker and playing for money.

You can teach someone the game without the gambling element, just make sure its a freezeout game for no money just bragging rights.

Apparently people play Halo tournaments online for cash, or gamble on golf games, that does not make the game inherently gambling.

I disagree.  Poker is a strange game in that its intricacies are all concerning betting, especially NL.  The whole point of the game is to outplay other people for their stake regardless of how much that is.  One look at a play money game online and you can see that it barely replicates even a 1c/2c real cash game.  Why there should be such a huge discrepancy on how psychologically the game is viewed between playing for no stake and playing for microstakes is somewhat mysterious to me, but it is there and unavoidably so.  Obviously if the bragging rights are big enough, a tournament version could work, but the mechanics of a basic cash game would be all wrong if it were played for pasta shells.  If you want to teach kids a pure skill card game which doesn't rely on betting for its entire purpose, try bridge or rummy.

My grandma used to say:
"Bridge is a game of cards which can be played for money stakes.  Poker is a game of betting which is played with cards."
I think she is absolutely right.

My parents had a homegame because they are American and couldn't help themselves.  Of course if I wasn't allowed anything I wanted it, just like those blue fizzy drinks which make kids go mental, apparently. 

Anyway I badgered and badgered until I was allowed in for a couple of hours, with the proviso that I had to wager my own pocket money and if I lost it I wasn't getting any more.  It was a 10p/20p limit game, and I had a tenner, but for many many weeks I had £0 at the end of it.  This taught me simultaneously the "don't play with money you can't afford to lose" rule. 

Nice post!
You look like a poker superstar I saw on tv a while back.

[kinboshi]

a tournament version could work, but the mechanics of a basic cash game would be all wrong if it were played for pasta shells.

I agree that Cash games cannot be taught to your children without the gambling element because this is about winning the pasta shells and keeping them forever.

Tournament games on the other hand are no different to draughts where to try to take the other player's pieces.

Even with a tournament, there must be something at the end, a prize of some worth.  So, it could be money, or it could be a treat.  Maybe the loser has to do the washing up for a week.

[Jon MW]

a tournament version could work, but the mechanics of a basic cash game would be all wrong if it were played for pasta shells.

I agree that Cash games cannot be taught to your children without the gambling element because this is about winning the pasta shells and keeping them forever.

Tournament games on the other hand are no different to draughts where to try to take the other player's pieces.

Even with a tournament, there must be something at the end, a prize of some worth.  So, it could be money, or it could be a treat.  Maybe the loser has to do the washing up for a week.

No there doesn't.

The prize is you win all the chips and you win.

[kinboshi]

a tournament version could work, but the mechanics of a basic cash game would be all wrong if it were played for pasta shells.

I agree that Cash games cannot be taught to your children without the gambling element because this is about winning the pasta shells and keeping them forever.

Tournament games on the other hand are no different to draughts where to try to take the other player's pieces.

Even with a tournament, there must be something at the end, a prize of some worth.  So, it could be money, or it could be a treat.  Maybe the loser has to do the washing up for a week.

No there doesn't.

The prize is you win all the chips and you win.

Read Jen's post.  You're not really playing poker if there aren't any prizes.

[Jon MW]

I don't entirely agree.

The reason that play money poker doesn't resemble actual poker is because people are willing to lose knowing they can just reload and go again - they don't care enough about losing.

I think the mechanics of poker are complex enough that it doesn't just have to be about betting. Pontoon is a much, much simpler game - and some people still play that without any monetary value being attached for example.

The right competitive spirit is all that is needed to make the win by itself the goal without having to add anything.

[Jon MW]

Obv. cash poker can't work this way.