how to handle different bankrolls for a home game

[trojanrabbit]

We have a semi-regular home game with 5-7 adults. We're all family and we have recently been letting 1 or 2 of the players' kids start playing (they are about 13). The problem is we want them to play with real money so they actually care about their actions, but they can't play for our stakes. Not that they don't really have the money, but the parents just don't want them gambling for so much. Skill level hasn't been much of a problem, they are about as good as some of the other players.

What we've been doing so far is having them buy in for the full amount, but they win or lose only a quarter of the difference in chips. So if at the end of the night one kid loses $40, he pays $10 and the adults have agreed to split the difference and divide the $30 loss between them.

We occasionally do tournaments as well and try to do the same thing. The kid's buy in is only 1/4 but he only wins 1/4 as well. The difference is made up by the adults.

Does this really seem the best way to do this? Does anyone have any other suggestions? I was thinking that for tournaments we could have the kids buy in for a smaller amount and they start with fewer chips. They could contest for the full prize, but would start with a smaller stack and so would win less often, but when they do they would win a lot. This seems a little unfair as well since they start off short-stacked. Has anyone here come up with a solution for something like this?

[daryn]

seems bad. just let the kids gamble or don't let them gamble.

[highlife]

i really think its a bad idea to let 13 year olds gamble at all.

if you are going to let them play set it up tournament style and just give them free entry. is a 13 year old really going to beat adults in holdem? if so you've got other problems!

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
i really think its a bad idea to let 13 year olds gamble at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, we need to start trying to make this world a better place, both for our children and for our children's children. But then again, children shouldn't be having sex...

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy



Ten

[coyote]

seems to me that if they are old enough to play in the game, they are old enough to play for the full stake.

By limiting their losses, you are shielding them. What do they learn? That mommy and daddy will always be there to fix any mistake?

Seems like a good time to for them to start learning that their actions have consequences and how to deal with those consequences i.e. losing all their money and not being able to go buy that cd they want or take the trip to the water park with their friends.

[pukenpete]

I say don't play with the kids period b/c hanging out with 13 yr olds just isn't fun. No one wants to lose to a kid or take a kid's money and you can't talk about stuff with them hanging around. But if you do, let 'em gamble at the full amount. Teaches a valuble lesson on the evils of gambling since $40 is a lot for kid. My dad certainly never played for "fake" or "reduced" money when he taught me how to play cards and he certainly never gave me back anything I lost and rubbed in every loss with "gambling isn't fun, is it?" Still, I learned how to play and haven't squandered my life savings away gambling. That F'ing stock market on the other hand...

[Big O]

I have to agree. bad news for a 13 year old to gamble.

[kasual]

Here is my take on this:

To answer your question, I don't believe there is an easy way to deal with different bankrolls. The stakes are the stakes, if any player, being 13 or not, if they can't play at the stakes they shouldn't be at the table. Period. If the kids like to play or they'd like to play with real money, then set up a small game for them with smaller stakes.

As far as the ethics of children gambling, there are alot worse things they can be doing, and come'on, is hold'em really gambling? haha. No but seriously, valuable lessons can be learned on a poker table, from financial skills to people skills. It's really at the parent's discretion.

[Big Country]

I agree that there are far worse things that kids can be doing. One of my favorite times as a child was the week i spent at my aunt and uncle's house. We'd usually do some fishing, go to a ball game, help out in his yard, etc., but each night we'd mess around and play some poker. Essentially every crazy wild card game you can imagine.

What he would do is buy my brother an I in for 10 bucks or whatever. If we won, we kept the money, if we lost, we got $hit-O, which meant we had to go scoop the dog poop in his backyard, since he hated doing it and had two big golden retrievers.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree. bad news for a 13 year old to gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

My grandfather taught me to play poker when I was about 8. He would come to town and the two of us would play poker at the dining room table for hours until my Mom got home from work.

I'm 34 now, and my Papa is long gone. For the rest of my life, I will cherish those personal moments with him. No one has ever said that he corrupted me by teaching me poker, never even thought of it.

Back to the question: I'd just lower the stakes for everyone when the kids are in the game. Thats what we do. If the kids are playing, then we make it a one dollar tournament. That's the only difference. You're still fighting for the same T1000 chips, and it's best to have fun and learn.

Ten

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially every crazy wild card game you can imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything like these games? (http://www.thecagles.com/poker) /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Ten

[dcJohn]

Why? Poker actually teaches some fantastic lessons in math. If the child is smart enough to understand the basics of probability--game theory might be a bit much, but expected value/utility isn't tough math--then it would be a great learning opportunity.

I'd just be sure to really talk about it, use it as a learning opportunity, and be sure to caution against stupid gambling and doing it in inappropriate settings (e.g. no getting cash games in the school playground).

[Toonces]

It wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to run a tournament with a $5 entry fee or so and have the adults make a side pot for another $25 or so going to the winner just amongst themselves. It may mess with your strategy some, but it's just for fun.

[jdoe]

I would have to say when I first read your post I was just appalled that you would even consider letting 13 year olds play.

Then I started to think, I was allowed in my grampa's game when I was 13. I had cousins that were older that were not allowed to play because if they lost a hand they would go hide under their bed and cry.

My dad taught me to win and lose like a man with my own money. Full stakes. Today I think I am a better person because of it.

My grandfather has long passed, but I remember sitting at that 25 cent poker table with grown men and being treated as an equal.

A memory I still accociate with red soad pop.

Jdoe

[LetsRock]

Well it's not something I would do. If I was training kids, I'd just have them play in a rediculously low stake game, seprate from th adult game. Yes it would be for real money - they need to learn that, but the stakes would be small enough that it wouldn't hurt them too bad.