[tompston]

A very large part of being a good poker player means that you can control your emotions and look at things objectively in: - tricky situations - long losing streaks when the expected value (EV) of your actions is positive in the long run, but the short term outcome is negative.

Sounds like a skill that could be useful in other areas too.

Controlling tilt is such a big part of the game that there are books written on the subject and it is one of the factors that decides whether you can be a profitable player in the long run.

Saying that poker should be avoided because tilt is bad means that trading also should be avoided because tilt is bad and it can lose you a lot of money.

Yes, if you go into poker to gamble, you will lose money fast. Yes, people who don't know anything about the dynamics of the game will lose to better opponents in the long run. The same applies to chess and trading. Play against better opponents and you will lose, in any game.

Yes, people with addictive personalities or gambling inclinations should most probably avoid poker. But does Billy have gambling problems right now because he played poker with fake chips with his grandma for fun when he was 6? Or are there other bigger factors happening in the background? Is this a confusion between treating the symptoms instead of the disease?

[pawelmurias]

> But does Billy have gambling problems right now because he played poker with fake chips with his grandma for fun when he was 6?

Teaching a kids a gambling game in depth seems like it would increase their chance of getting interested in gambling unless you do this in an abusive way to gave them hate card games.

Just teaching the rules of poker doesn't teach them any of the lessons from the article.

[matwood]

Keep in mind that poker is not generally considered gambling and is instead a game of skill. Top players over time have a +EV over less skilled players.

Another part of poker that people tend to gloss over is bankroll management - another critical life skill. A larger bankroll lets someone take a few more asymmetric bets, but first they have to build that bankroll. Sounds more and more like life...

For example, a kid deciding to go to college or not for CS is making the same calculations as they would in a poker game. They have imperfect information, there's a monetary component and an EV component.

[tompston]

The article says that the argument for teaching poker is not because of memorising the rules, but understanding the concept of risk and making decisions on incomplete information. There's a lot more to chess than the rules also.

Intentions in this situation matter. If you (the parent) want to teach someone to play a game (your children), then why exactly would your intention be to sabotage them to win some fake chips?

I do understand the concern that exposing gambling to kids does not sound like one of the best ideas out there. And i don't think that variance is a topic that will be easily understood by six year olds. But poker is in the gray zone between gambling / not gambling. Meaning that 95% of people who play will lose money. The same percentages can be seen in stock trading. So the question remains, why can some people win in the long, while most lose? (95% is a guesstimate, might be higher)

> Teaching a kids a gambling game in depth seems like it would increase their chance of getting interested in gambling

I'm assuming the same percentage of people with deeper interest in how things work will say the same thing about chess. Or any other game.

Intentions do matter. Explain the problems of gambling in terms of expected value to your kids, and you will increase the chance that they will understand why the vast majority of gambling is not good.