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.
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.