Re: My typical day
 

You are asking about work.

But the issue that I see here is that you are paying someone else to raise your child.

jw

Re: My typical day
 

None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

Re: My typical day
 

No time for wild sex on a "typical day"?.

Re: My typical day
 

nh. That's why I'm never going pro.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and they can play for fun against other people who are playing for fun, or they can play for fun against people who are constantly studying to improve at taking their money. This "we provide a service" line is pretty amusing to me. Remove all the 2+2ers from Party Poker and you'll certainly have more enjoyable and less costly games for the fish. Expert players ruin the experience just enough to make money, but not enough to scare the fish away entirely, and they use variance as a smoke screen. Let's not kid ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like casinos and all other service businesses, we charge for the service we provide. That service is competition, gamble, and fun. That is, competition and gamble provide the fun for the fish. Fun (i.e. entertainment) is what they are buying. The fish could easily decrease the competition in their game by dropping down a level or two. But that would decrease the gamble, too. On the whole, they would have less fun, so they stay at the higher level, where they are destined to lose over the long run. But that's ok because they are there for fun, and their loses have simply paid for their fun.

It is common knowledge that the casino has the edge in all table games. Yet millions of people play them anyway. Why? Because gambling is fun. Winning gives us a rush of euphoria. Apparently, for many people, that short-term rush is worth the long-term losses that are inevitable in those games. The same is true for the losing poker player. He is paying for that short-term rush with his long-term losses. It is his choice to do that, and there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him a fee for his fun.

Re: My typical day
 

" If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem."

No. You are giving up possibly the biggest joy in life. You will never get a chance to revisit this sh+tty decision 5 years from now. Dump the daycare and raise you kids. You alreadt know it's the right thing to do or you're not really a Mom.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to try and respond to the previous response to me as well as this post.

Yes, I sleep about 6hrs a night. I'm fortunate that I function pretty well with that level of sleep. I'm 32 and it affects me more now than it did 5 years ago. Not everyone can survive on 6hrs sleep (my wife definately can't). I'm not suggesting that you should get only 6hrs sleep. I am suggesting that there might be other times during the day when your husband is around to take care of your child or when your child is asleep that you could play.

I have a great deal of respect for you trying your best to save $$$ and buy a home. Its not an easy thing to do. I'm not questioning that you love your kid or that you want what's best for your child -- having enough $$$ to support a family is tough these days. I just think that taking your kid to day care every day isn't the best solution, but I'm not living in your shoes and I don't know the answer.

As for the post quoted above : if both you and your husband are home then one of you should be able to play. A 2yr old shouldn't "demand control of every computer." One of you takes care of the child, one of you closes a bedroom/office door and plays. If the child is loud, the caretaking parent can take him/her to the park or for an errand.

If you are in a situation where you HAVE to do it the way you describe then go for it and I hope you run well!

Best of Luck,
FishNChips

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have two choices. Either keep dropping your child off at daycare or figure out another solution.

As stated by Fish and Chips, it's much better for the child if he stays home with Mom or Dad and does not go to daycare.

In My Opinion, you are making excuses here to justify putting your only child in daycare. He will only be three ONCE. Right now, YOU are God to him. In five years he won't give you a hug and kiss in fron of his friends and in 10 years, when he's a teen, you go from being God to being an [censored].

You have a unique opportunity to stay home with your child. Hold off on the house for 18 months until he starts school and you can play poker then. Or just hold off for six to eight months and put him in pre-school for three hours a day.

When he leaves for college in 15 years will you says "I'm so glad I played poker when he was three" or "I'm so glad we sucked it up for 18 months so I could stay home with him. I'll have those memories forever"...

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
No time for wild sex on a "typical day"?.

[/ QUOTE ]

mention of a child pretty much eliminates this option.

you kids these days are so much fun!

FishNChips

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have two choices. Either keep dropping your child off at daycare or figure out another solution.

As stated by Fish and Chips, it's much better for the child if he stays home with Mom or Dad and does not go to daycare.

In My Opinion, you are making excuses here to justify putting your only child in daycare. He will only be three ONCE. Right now, YOU are God to him. In five years he won't give you a hug and kiss in fron of his friends and in 10 years, when he's a teen, you go from being God to being an [censored].

You have a unique opportunity to stay home with your child. Hold off on the house for 18 months until he starts school and you can play poker then. Or just hold off for six to eight months and put him in pre-school for three hours a day.

When he leaves for college in 15 years will you says "I'm so glad I played poker when he was three" or "I'm so glad we sucked it up for 18 months so I could stay home with him. I'll have those memories forever"...

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh... when I read something like this it makes me realize that I'm often an overblown windbag ... HRFats has said in 3 paragraphs what I've tried to say in like 15 posts in this thread.

Spot on sir, spot on!
FishNChips

Re: My typical day
 

Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You've got your priorities really screwed up lady!

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[/ QUOTE ]

hey now, don't go blaming poker for this! Toddler's are sex killers, they don't need any help.

If you were dropping your kid off at day care so you could have sex us parents would ALL understand!

(see, I can get off my high horse and have a little fun =) )

FishNChips

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Seiously...


...what is sex [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you were dropping your kid off at day care so you could have sex us parents would ALL understand!


[/ QUOTE ]

Now THERE's an idea!!! That must be why my baby sitter charges so much and I gladly pay her.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were dropping your kid off at day care so you could have sex us parents would ALL understand!


[/ QUOTE ]

Now THERE's an idea!!! That must be why my baby sitter charges so much and I gladly pay her.

[/ QUOTE ]

you pay your baby sitter for sex? Now THAT is a good idea!

FishNChips

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
you pay your baby sitter for sex? Now THAT is a good idea!

FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't everyone here do that? Noone ever said sex with their SPOUSE. I think the original post was something about wild sex. Like THAT's gonna happen with my wife. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: My typical day
 

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but here's the problem: you're charging a fee for your services, but a lot of people are giving it away. To use your casino comparison: if you were in some kind of collective casino, running a standard roulette table, but there are four people on either side of you running a table without the zeros (i.e. mostly neutral-EV), are you still providing a service? I suppose, but it's neither a necessary nor desireable service. It's a service that your casino patrons would happily go without, if only they were sophisticated enough to know the difference that losing the zeros makes. The mob was providing a service too when they were kind enough to offer "protection" to local shopkeepers.

I exaggerate, of course, but I really think that you're kidding yourself here. If anything, the fee that fish pay is the rake. Losing their money on top of the rake isn't a "fee" for the action, because they can get their action from other fish, which will be neutral-EV. You're not charging them for their fun; they would be getting that anyway. You're charging them for their ignorance, or at least their ignorance relative to you: someone who spends substantially more time learning and playing this game than they'd care to commit.

And I'm sure that you're not suggesting that without the pros, or even the 2+2ers, that the tables would be virtually empty every night. There would still be thousands of games taking place on many different sites; the only difference being that the fish would have more money in their accounts at the end of the night than they would have had otherwise. Good players are not props, nor is their presence as such required.

One last thing: you conclude by saying that "there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him (the fish) a fee for his fun." That's true; there's nothing wrong with it, and that's why I happily play poker, and win. The delusion that a few posters seem to be under is that they're productive members of society, charging a fee for a service, like an accountant or masseuse. And that's just not fair.

Re: My typical day
 

Pro online players don't provide a service because the game is there with or without them and the experience is no way enhanced by their presence. Partypoker or whatever site you play on is the one providing the service. Certain professional players that play live provide a service, similar to that of professional athletes and actors. Would a rich fish rather play against other rich fish or against Phil Ivey?

Several people seem to be missing the idea that the ~ $15k income is fixed. That's not true at all. Because the income was derived from an initial bankroll of $500 or so, the OP is making much much more now than when she started. Her current annualized income might be more like $50k or even more.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but here's the problem: you're charging a fee for your services, but a lot of people are giving it away. To use your casino comparison: if you were in some kind of collective casino, running a standard roulette table, but there are four people on either side of you running a table without the zeros (i.e. mostly neutral-EV), are you still providing a service? I suppose, but it's neither a necessary nor desireable service. It's a service that your casino patrons would happily go without, if only they were sophisticated enough to know the difference that losing the zeros makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your analogy, the consumer has the choice between a neutral and a -EV game. That would be analogous to a choice between a poker game in which his opponents are, on the whole, equal in skill to him (let's forget the rake for now) and a game in which his opponents are, on the whole, better than he is. If such a choice existed, obviously the consumer would and should choose the neutral EV game. And if the choice of a +EV game were added, he should of course choose that one. We should all choose the game with the highest expectation.

But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.

[ QUOTE ]
If anything, the fee that fish pay is the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the fee the casino charges for hosting the game. There is another fee, which is the fee the winning players charge the losing players to play in a game that is exciting, but which is too high for their skill level.

[ QUOTE ]
Losing their money on top of the rake isn't a "fee" for the action, because they can get their action from other fish, which will be neutral-EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they couldn't. There are winning players in every 5-10 game. To get their action for free, they would have to move down a level, and they don't choose to, because the stakes aren't high enough to get them excited.

[ QUOTE ]
You're not charging them for their fun; they would be getting that anyway. You're charging them for their ignorance, or at least their ignorance relative to you: someone who spends substantially more time learning and playing this game than they'd care to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I'm charging them to play at a level that is exciting for them, but which is too high for their skill level.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm sure that you're not suggesting that without the pros, or even the 2+2ers, that the tables would be virtually empty every night. There would still be thousands of games taking place on many different sites; the only difference being that the fish would have more money in their accounts at the end of the night than they would have had otherwise. Good players are not props, nor is their presence as such required.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an unrealistic scenario, though, because, bad players will always attract good players, unless the stakes are too small to make it worthwhile for the good players.

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing: you conclude by saying that "there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him (the fish) a fee for his fun." That's true; there's nothing wrong with it, and that's why I happily play poker, and win. The delusion that a few posters seem to be under is that they're productive members of society, charging a fee for a service, like an accountant or masseuse. And that's just not fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're offering the same service that a casino is offering: entertainment. And if that entertainment could be found elsewhere, I'm sure the fish would go there. But the fact is, the fish attract the sharks, so there is nowhere else for them to go. They are destined to feed the sharks until they drop down to a level at which they themselves are the sharks.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem. Playing poker, oh my god. Even ppl on this board feel this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel that way...putting this child in daycare full time and letting him be raised by strangers is borderline child abuse, IMO, regardless of the job. I know "everyone" does it. "Everyone" is wrong.

If you were a single mom or something, ok. But your husband has a college education, you could live fine on what he makes. If you say you can't I say BS. You simply choose lifestyle over staying home and raising your kid, as most people do, which is wrong.

Maybe you can't live in the same size house and drive the same cars and maybe you'd have to cook at home and go out to eat less, etc. but it can be done.

You will never get this time back with your son. He needs his mother. There are plenty of ways he can get to play with other kids without being in full time daycare, that is a pathetic cop-out.

My wife never worked a day from the time she got pregnant until my son started 1st grade. But she's never at work while he's home. And no I didn't make great money at the time. We made a decision to cut our lifestyle and live on one income.

I would work 3 jobs if I had to to keep him out of daycare.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is my whole point, playing poker is not like having a job. If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem. Playing poker, oh my god. Even ppl on this board feel this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, its your life, do it how you want. I don't think that playing poker all day is a waste of your life, but you asked for opinions and I think it stinks that you drop your kid off at day care so you can play poker. See my other post for more on this, but one of the great things about on-line poker is that the game is ALWAYS there. Hang out with your kid during the day, play poker at night. Your husband can deal with limited time together for a cuple years until Jr. is in school, but these first few years are so huge in your kids development that if you CAN its better to spend the time with the kid.

There are plenty of people that would KILL to be able to stay home with their kid but can't. If you are a winning poker player and can make enough to bridge the gap then do it at night.

Again, its your choice. But don't ask for opinions if you don't really want them.

FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way does it stink. I think it is healthy for a child to interact with other children instead of being home with their mother all the day. There are other benefits besides developing social skills, such as strengthening the immune system.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
Back home 10:30am and start playing 5/10-10/20. Stop playing around 3:30. Have lunch. Doing housing work...
Pickup kid around 5:30. After 9:00pm play some more poker till 12:00. Sometimes no poker at night.


Good thing is I only "work" 4 - 5 hours a day.

Am I wasting my life here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds more like you wasted time while in math classes.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is healthy for a child to interact with other children instead of being home with their mother all the day. There are other benefits besides developing social skills, such as strengthening the immune system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So take the kid to the park. Take him to play dates with other kids in the neighborhood. Take him to a Mother's Day Out program for 2 hours 2 or 3 times a week.

There are other choices in between full time daycare and total seclusion, geez.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is healthy for a child to interact with other children instead of being home with their mother all the day. There are other benefits besides developing social skills, such as strengthening the immune system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So take the kid to the park. Take him to play dates with other kids in the neighborhood. Take him to a Mother's Day Out program for 2 hours 2 or 3 times a week.

There are other choices in between full time daycare and total seclusion, geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And she has chosen an option that works for her. But young men(?) on this forum can't accept it but tries to twist it into a moral argument that is as modern as the Gutenberg way of printing books.

Re: My typical day
 

i was going to read through the whole thread but was disgusted with all the absurd remarks about daycare. It is POSITIVE for children to be put in social environments away from home at an early age. Read some parenting books, take some child psychology classes. Any parent that keeps their kid at home when they can easily put them in a good day care a few hours a day/week is doing their child a diservice. I'm sure some people have already addressed this, but I still noticed the same kind of posts on the last page of this thread.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. And she has chosen an option that works for her.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, works great for her. For the kid, not so much.

[ QUOTE ]

But young men(?) on this forum can't accept it but tries to twist it into a moral argument that is as modern as the Gutenberg way of printing books.

[/ QUOTE ]

If thinking a baby is better off with his mother than in day care makes me less than modern, I'd rather hang out with Gutenberg, thanks. I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't have a child.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is POSITIVE for children to be put in social environments away from home at an early age. Read some parenting books

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is, for 4 or 5 hours a week. Not 30 or 40 or 50. Which parenting books recommend full time daycare over a stay at home parent? That's right, none.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, works great for her. For the kid, not so much.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know zilch about her and her child, yet you seem to think you can judge her. Quite arrogant. Most research point towards daycare being positive for the development of children. But hey, whats science against moral condemnation. I guess putting the scarlet letter on others brings you more joy than entering the 20th century mentally.

[ QUOTE ]
If thinking a baby is better off with his mother than in day care makes me less than modern, I'd rather hang out with Gutenberg, thanks. I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't have a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you are american. Because that is the only country that where someone would be branded a bad mother for using daycare.

Re: My typical day
 

I'll say it again. 4 or 5 hours a week of interaction with other kids away form home is GREAT. NECESSARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I never said it wasn't. All daycare is not bad. Read that again. I agree with you there.

But that's not what happens. They're there ALL DAY. EVERY DAY. 40 hours a week. Sometimes more. And it's not so they learn social skills and build their immune system. Those are rationalizations.

They are there so their parents can work more and afford
better cars and a nicer house.

Yes there are single parents, etc. that have no choice. Families with 2 young healthy educated parents can live on 1 income if they choose to. That's who I'm talking about.

Re: My typical day
 

LOL, i just reread the thread and noticed only one person wasn't living in 1950 still. Children that are put in daycare between the ages of 3 and 5 develop better reading skills, speech skills, social skills, and are more ready to adapt to changing social environments. There are always crack house day cares, and there are always daycares that do fabulous things for children. The fact that a child is alowed to interact with other children on a daily basis in an academic environment is very positive. You can't reproduce this environment through networking with other parents. Anyone with kids who have them as their "top priority" should consider a good day care if it is affordable. I have two kids and have a good network of parents. We all put our kids in daycare, even though most of us don't need to.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll say it again. 4 or 5 hours a week of interaction with other kids away form home is GREAT. NECESSARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I never said it wasn't. All daycare is not bad. Read that again. I agree with you there.

But that's not what happens. They're there ALL DAY. EVERY DAY. 40 hours a week. Sometimes more. And it's not so they learn social skills and build their immune system. Those are rationalizations.

They are there so their parents can work more and afford
better cars and a nicer house.

Yes there are single parents, etc. that have no choice. Families with 2 young healthy educated parents can live on 1 income if they choose to. That's who I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women in the workplace. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Not like the good old days. Those selfish evil women should know their place.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]

Women in the workplace. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Not like the good old days. Those selfish evil women should know their place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sarcasm. Did you even read my post? Where did I say women shouldn't work? My wife works while my son is at school.

And yes I do think choosing money over time with your baby is selfish. And yes I think 40 hours a week with the mom and 10 hours in daycare is better than the other way around, but hey, I'm just old fashioned like that.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Women in the workplace. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Not like the good old days. Those selfish evil women should know their place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sarcasm. Did you even read my post? Where did I say women shouldn't work? My wife works while my son is at school.

And yes I do think choosing money over time with your baby is selfish. And yes I think 40 hours a week with the mom and 4 or 5 hours in daycare is better than the other way around, but hey, I'm just old fashioned like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what if the money the mother earns is the difference between a university education or not for the child when he get older. Is her actions still selfish? What about if it makes the difference between great and poor healthcare for the child? Is it still selfish?

You don't have to point out that you are old fashioned. Your Eisenhower era views were obvious from the first post you made in this thread.

Re: My typical day
 

Yeah, i love the way men are so happy to work three jobs to keep the kids out of daycare - but actually stay at home with the kid themselves? Nah, that's Mum's job. If they had had the wonderful experience of taking care of toddlers full time, they'd probably appreciate the equal importance of a few hours peace and quiet whilst somebody else takes care of the little brats.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]

And what if the money the mother earns is the difference between a university education or not for the child when he get older. Is her actions still selfish? What about if it makes the difference between great and poor healthcare for the child? Is it still selfish?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are plenty of ways to play for college when the time comes. Loans, grants, financial aid, or even working and paying for their own college like I did.

The health care or other financial hardship is a fair point. I already said some people don't have a choice, mom has to work. So how about this novel idea: Mom works at night while dad is home, or vice versa. I just blew your mind, right?

Sure the parents don't see each other as much, but they're not babies who need constant attention and teaching. They'll be fine.

Surely you'd agree that's preferable to having the kid spend 8 hours a day in day care.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And what if the money the mother earns is the difference between a university education or not for the child when he get older. Is her actions still selfish? What about if it makes the difference between great and poor healthcare for the child? Is it still selfish?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are plenty of ways to play for college when the time comes. Loans, grants, financial aid, or even working and paying for their own college like I did.

The health care or other financial hardship is a fair point. I already said some people don't have a choice, mom has to work. So how about this novel idea: Mom works at night while dad is home, or vice versa. I just blew your mind, right?

Sure the parents don't see each other as much, but they're not babies who need constant attention and teaching. They'll be fine.

Surely you'd agree that's preferable to having the kid spend 8 hours a day in day care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I think day care is healthy for a child, of course it isn't preferable. Their current situation seems normal and healthy to me. Of course I don't try to bash others on the head with the bizarre idea that day care makes someone a bad mother.

But feel free to continue to offer advice on how people you never met should structure their lives. What does it matter if the parents never meet, as long as the mother is hovering over her baby 24 hours a day. Because hey, that is the most important thing.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]
My background: last worked in 2002 as a programmer. left to take care of new baby. Start playing poker April, 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you take your kid to daycare???? Why not play poker around the times your kid sleeps and be full time mom. This gives you an advantage of not paying day care and being a better parent. You should easily get in those 4-6 hours of poker later at night and during nap times.

Re: My typical day
 

[ QUOTE ]


Since I think day care is healthy for a child, of course it isn't preferable. Their current situation seems normal and healthy to me. Of course I don't try to bash others on the head with the bizarre idea that day care makes someone a bad mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Time in daycare is better than time with a parent, even with money issues aside? Good Lord.

Are you really telling me 40 hours a week in daycare and 10 with the mother is better than the other way around? And I'm the one with bizarre ideas?

You're really not too bright are you? Did you read this earlier?

I'll say it again. 4 or 5 hours a week of interaction with other kids away form home is GREAT. NECESSARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I never said it wasn't. All daycare is not bad.

Was that somehow unclear?

I've said several times in several different ways daycare does not make someone a bad parent. I spelled out specific circumstances under which I consider it bad parenting.

I assume your kid will go to boarding school from birth through college. With so much rearing by strangers and so little time the parents, it will be the healthiest kid in history.

In your case I would buy it. Better yet just don't breed.

Re: My typical day
 

I think you're the one that's being persistantly a little bit on the dim side here. Previous posters are quite right in pointing out that daycare is helpful in socialising kids, and giving their immune systems a workout. Humans have never formed social groups that consisted of 1 parent alone with their children before the twentieth century, there is a huge amount of social and anthropological history that documents this. 40 hours of daycare is worse than 40 hours with a parent? Parent is ill/alcoholic/depressed/abusive - daycare is worse? Dream on.

I don't know what it is about some americans these days, they just have to tell everybody else how to live their lives in a complex and varied world, and there is no deviation allowed from their one true way. The last bunch to try this approach were the communists - it didn't end well for them i hear.

It's tough being a parent, there's no excuse for making it worse for people by laying down guilt trips on how much day care they use.