101–110 of 242 posts
Yeah... Teach your kids the games they are interested in, and use that as an opportunity to build bonds. Poker, chess, go, Catan, Magic, whatever. Trying to optimize your child is so backwards to me.
The main downside is of course that the bidding system can be quite complex. We were constantly asking my dad what a certain bid meant and what to bid in certain situations. We never really managed to get out of that phase before we switched to simpler card games. I still don't know how to bid properly.
How about we play competitive Pokemon instead? Its got all the reads, bluffs, random chance, meta-gaming, math and strategy, and none of the gambling. ------ Don't get me wrong. Poker is a great game. But if we're talking about "reading" the opponent, relatively simple decisions that have deep mathematical backgrounds... a large variety of "simultaneous choice" video games (Pokemon, being a turnbased game with 60% to…
Pricing risk is something I assume Pokémon doesn’t have. But I’m not going to encourage my kids to play poker. I will teach them the game if they want. But without the risk of actual material loss, the game loses a lot. Money is highly emotional. It’s gain or loss, the emotions that triggers, manipulating those emotions in others, predicting their behaviour based on their state, and even simulating “tilt” and present…
I thought for a couple minutes about whether this was really noble, or flawed thinking. I didn't come to a conclusion.
I doubt it's very important if children gamble with money or not. I think probably most of them do at one time or another, anyway.
My problem with this article: I did not see a concrete suggestion for where children should play poker. Clearly, they cannot play at casinos or for real money online. I suppose they could play for fake money online, but there the dynamics are much different. (Why not go all-in and risk it all if you can just create a fresh account if you lose?) Fake money tournaments, where the goal is to come out on top instead of m…
They could play online with micro stakes. The smallest I know is 1p/2p game. Has a lot of players, people take it pretty seriously as these are the stages you play when learning. And you need about 50 buy ins (100$ total budget) to have enough to learn. This is not super cheap but can easily last for a year or more assuming the person is actually learning to play rather than doing mad gambling.
Says who? Did you make this up?
My problem with this article: I did not see a concrete suggestion for where children should play poker. Clearly, they cannot play at casinos or for real money online. I suppose they could play for fake money online, but there the dynamics are much different. (Why not go all-in and risk it all if you can just create a fresh account if you lose?) Fake money tournaments, where the goal is to come out on top instead of m…
I believe it's Theory Of Poker by David Sklansky that has a great section in the beginning comparing poker to other games, and specifically to tennis, which I've never forgotten. I read this like 15+ years ago, so I'm paraphrasing, but it explains the core of why poker and other games mixing skill with chance are so counter-intuitive to humans and difficult to learn compared to games that are primarily skill-based li…
I never did read Sklansky, even though I read nearly every other author on the topic. I recently started collecting gambling books. I prefer "stories" books, but I like poker strat books, too. Some of them from the early 2000s are hilariously bad nowadays.
One of the worst things about poker IMO is that everyone unnecessarily links it with gambling. It's one of my favorite games to play with friends and money is never, ever involved. You just play to win as many games as possible. I feel like a lot of people miss out on a very fun game simply because they don't want to gamble and can't imagine playing without doing so.
Chess gives you great feedback. You know why you lost. You learn a stack of new strategies to win.
Poker you might win a lot of hands due to luck. Luck of the hands. Not just your but your opponent having a good but worse hand than you.
Teaching poker is probably harder.
Wouldn't Bridge be a better option than poker? It has many of the same elements, except for the gambling aspect, but adds cooperation, communicating with your partner through a bidding system where you're trying to figure out if you have a fit and can play. The main downside is of course that the bidding system can be quite complex. We were constantly asking my dad what a certain bid meant and what to bid in certain…
Bidding and the associated learning curve is a common deterrent, which can be side-stepped by turning to Minibridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minibridge)
One of the worst things about poker IMO is that everyone unnecessarily links it with gambling. It's one of my favorite games to play with friends and money is never, ever involved. You just play to win as many games as possible. I feel like a lot of people miss out on a very fun game simply because they don't want to gamble and can't imagine playing without doing so.
> It's one of my favorite games to play with friends and money is never, ever involved. I personally hate playing poker without real money. I feel like taking out money gets rid of one of the most interesting thing about poker. I don’t really like fake money either as many people don’t play as seriously as when there is real money involved. I noticed that even when the amount is very small (so it might as well be fak…
I've noticed this with some people too and it's really baffling to me. Do you not play any other games seriously? When you're playing a video game or a board game do you also just not bother trying to win because there's no money involved?
Why do people take exception to this for poker but not for any other games?