141–150 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So hang on, you play with just properties and simple cards; so in this simplified version of the game, you're mainly just trying to collect sets?
Yes, first step is teaching set collection. Then teach tactics that involve the other players’ sets. Then the full disaster. Easier than explaining rent to 4-5yo from the start.
Not sure I want my 4-year-old to know how to play poker though.
Why? Poker is a great way to learn a lot of life lessons about human psychology, money management, strategy vs tactics, game theory, and so much more. There is this weird protestant puritanism around so many aspects of life that confuse me. Every child is going to become an adult, but there is this attitude that they must be shielded from all adult knowledge until they're 21 as if that's helpful. Your kid can - throu…
It's based on deception, so teaches kids to distrust others and deceive others for the sake of winning.
It gives crazy adrenaline rushes that even adults fail to control. That can't be good for the brain.
You don't seem to realize that 4-year-old is extremely young, and kids that age need security more than anything. They need to know adults have their backs and are not in it for themselves. They need to know people aren't lying to them.
Sure you need to prepare kids for the real life, but there is an age for everything, and my opinion is that 4-year-old is not a good age to learn poker, just as it's not great to put 6-year-old in front of horror movies, or give wine to 10-year-olds.
There is plenty of time to learn money management.
Start your kids onto the path of gambling? No thanks. Better to teach them chess, xiangqi, shogi or go/baduk.
You can also use it to teach about the risk of gambling and simple probabilities. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you take the money out of it you have to replace it with something that matters to the players outside of the game itself for it to work. This claim is genuinely alien to me. I've seen people play lots of games very competitively without tying money in it. No one would seriously claim that chess hustler games are the only serious chess games, yet that claim looks oddly similar to the one made in poker. Why would…
Bit of a tortured example, but imagine if in chess every time you moved your queen you had to put $1 in escrow that you only got back if you won the game - do you think you'd still make exactly the same moves, or would you maybe play a sub optimal game to avoid moving your queen as much? And if you saw your opponent move their queen would you be more confident that they probably saw a path to victory than you would b…
Let me give you a counter-comparison: if regardless of which chess piece was moved, after both players had made a play, they could bet on the game outcome (therefore not changing the ev of a move), I'm not sure players would want to play differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you take the money out of it you have to replace it with something that matters to the players outside of the game itself for it to work. This claim is genuinely alien to me. I've seen people play lots of games very competitively without tying money in it. No one would seriously claim that chess hustler games are the only serious chess games, yet that claim looks oddly similar to the one made in poker. Why would…
The money is a countable resource that players are motivated to win and not to lose. The game can be played with a substitute, but it doesn't pan out the same way, because the players don't have the same relationship to other kinds of token. (Same applies to playing for pennies. The amounts have to be at least somewhat meaningful.)
That's kind of an issue, though. Richer players are advantaged, as are seasoned players who are used to lose large amounts of money. That's not really related to game skills, since there is no way to ensure that players bet something equally valuable to them, which in your reasoning means that some players start with an advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can also use it to teach about the risk of gambling and simple probabilities. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Europeans with their sip of wine for kids seems to have a very different outcome to the puritanical US attitude to alcohol and ban until old age.
Start your kids onto the path of gambling? No thanks. Better to teach them chess, xiangqi, shogi or go/baduk.
I have always been mystified by the popularity of poker. To me, it is an unpleasant game. First - the fact that it's played for real money. If I win, I feel like a common swindler stealing money that someone could use to pay their bills or buy something nice for themselves. If I lose, I feel like a swindler's victim. And if the people around the table happen to be my friends - why would I ever wish to victimize them,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the variance of amateur chess is far lower than that of poker.
Depends on which level of 'amateur chess', for kids there are real beginners who barely know the rules and ~1600-elo players in the same competition..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europeans with their sip of wine for kids seems to have a very different outcome to the puritanical US attitude to alcohol and ban until old age.
Different in the sense that they consume more alcohol? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c... That it is legal for children to drink under parental supervision also doesn't necessarily mean that parents will allow it, so the legal situation isn't necessarily the deciding factor.