Underaged Poker

[golFUR]

I have very little concern for the legal issues. You break the law and get caught, you pay. Break the law and don't get caught, good for you, not my pidgin. I worry about whats on my plate and leave others to their own for the most part.

What I can't countenance however is having my adults only establishment run over by chattering children. One of my favorite things about gambling is that I am (supposed to be) assured of a child free few hours. No retarded grammar, no ridiculous pop culture chatter and no youthful "I'm immortal and you smell like you are dying" disrespect.

aha ahahah u idjiot! i ttolly blufd u! i am l33t n u r a f00l!!!!1 LOL!!1 AN NOW THAT I NO HOW MUCH U H8 CAPS I M G01NG 2 BRAKE TEH KEY OFF LOL!!!1

It is as inappropriate for a kid to sit at my table as it is for me to go sit on the swing set with the toddlers. Does a kid sitting at a table imply disrespect and lousy play? No more so than an unshaved 20something playing on the tire swing implys child molester. Nevertheless, for the sake of the comfort of those around you acknowledge the rules society has deemed necessary for smooth daily functioning and if you are underage, teach your friends to play poker. If you are of age, build your own swing set or wait till the kids are gone.

Yeah yeah, I know its stretching an analogy, but you get what I mean. If you don't, think before advertising that fact eh?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I always find it amusing that Americans are responsible enough to decide who drops bombs on their behalf three years before they are allowed near a drink that might make them be sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legislation making the drinking age so high only came about in the last decade or two. 18 was the common drinking age in most states before that. For instance, I could drink at 18 in Hawaii, but when I came to California at 20, I couldn't anymore. Then Hawaii changed their laws on that too.

A lot of laws are just based on the times, and then that gets enshrined as the way things naturally ought to be.

Sometimes it's for the good, though. The voting age actually used to be 21. Good thing they dropped it so that now if you're old enough to be sent to die in some stupid war, at least you're old enough to have some chance of voting on the matter. It makes it at least a little harder to just treat kids purely as cannon fodder, but more importantly, it's just the right thing to do that we give equal rights to those we expect to lay down their lives for us whether they want to or not.

Personally, I think the ages should all be in sync. If you're old enough to decide at gunpoint out in some foreign city who lives and who dies, it was ridiculous that you couldn't vote and that today you can't even buy a beer. Society should either recognize you as an adult or a child, not play silly games dancing between both. At the very least, someone who can expect to endure the worst possible consequences in life and to exercise life and death responsibilities on a regular basis because of his supposed maturity should be able to enjoy all the benefits of his maturity too.

Hell, I know if I were sweating bullets whether I was going to live or die or go through things worse than death every day, I could use a few beers after.

[Gatts]

[ QUOTE ]
your comments in this post and your comment on your location is immature. while you may think it is cute to either be representing a minor, or you think you are grown up if you actually ARE a minor, i for one do not appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hear that.

[ QUOTE ]
this forum does not cater to minors, and i don't want to have open conversations with someone who is flaunting the fact that he is underage. while i don't think it is entrapment, it is certainly not good for any of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see nothing about age in the Forum's terms of conditions.


[ QUOTE ]
grow up and stop making the comments about your age. also, remove that line from your location. we don't want to talk to children who are acting like children.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry that I stated, on topic, that I was a minor. The location is simply something similar to what other posters have done with their subject line - and does not explicitly mention my age (I might be a non-US citizen, etc).

I'm also sorry that by acting like a child, I have induced you to act like one as well.

Was that immature? Yeah, maybe.

[Sponger15SB]

Well put as usual Blarg.

and I might as well extend the ass kissing a little further to say that most of your posts are excellent and a pleasure to read.

[LoaferGee12]

Draggin an old thread up here. If a site like Party or Empire does find out you've been playing underage. Will they / can they seize your money?

[nebben]

I started playing poker at 16 online for real money. I am now overage, but I had to learn some real hard lessons (including money management.) The fact that a 17 year old has 2400 to lose as he pleases is insane.

[Toddster18]

This issue fascinates me very much. I see merit in both sides of the argument, but tend to understand one more than the other. Ignoring the "legal" aspect of it, I'm interested what people's personal issues are of gambling.

I well understand that many people have an issue with minors at their table, but I think this is by and large a steoreotypical issue. Would you not rather have a respectful and quiet 20 (or 17) year old at your table than a ragingly drunk local who loves nothing more than berating players in every hand, and you know is spending his entire paycheck tonight and bringing no money home to his kids?

I fail to see the logic behind those who say "kids under 18 just dont have enough experience to know the value of money, etc . . ." What about a 17 year old kid who has played the game since he was 13 or 15, is extremely bright, has experience with financial swings, and has no responsibilities tying him down? Isn't he a better candidate for the game than a 30 year old struggling to support kids who can't afford to lose the money because of responsibilities? Or how about alcoholics? Should they be banned from the table?

Stereotyping is just a bit illogical. I completely understand if a company's policy is such that they do not wish for minors to be part of their business. Its logical. And even so for online sites. But for a person to say that someone under X years old can never....INSERT ACTION HERE is just ignorant.

Sort of reminds me of the fact that an 18 year old kid coming straight out of high school is forced to enlist for selective services and can go out and fight and die for his country on the front line of battle.... but is "not" old enough to consume alcohol. Oh, the absurdity of stereotypes!

-Todd

Note: Before the [inevitable] "quit your adolescent whining..." posts come, i'll preemptively attempt to quiet them. No, I am not [gambling-age] minor. Yes, I did begin playing well before I hit legal age. So that is where my apparent bias comes from.

[contentless]

It's not correct to draw a straight analogy to drinking, but it applies in this scenario, as in all age arguments. It's illogical that an 18 year old can vote and go to war but not be able buy a beer, yet statistics show that raising the drinking age to 21 does, in fact, lower alcohol-related accidents and fatalities.

By the same token, while we don't have statistics on 14 year olds making ruinous gambling decisions, it's still quite obvious that those that are underage are much less able to support a gambling hobby/addiction and much more likely to run up debts due to this reason. Sure, its short-changing minors to classify them under a large umbrella and file them as ignorant and incapable some minors are spoiled, but the government has an obligation to protect its citizens to a limited extent by taking away privileges.

Furthermore, gambling is often addictive, and no psychological test will show that gambling (or partaking in other 'addictive' behaviors) at an early age does not reinforce destructive addiction.

I'm a minor in drinking terms, and I used to rail against the drinking age. Now, I realize the merits of the law and the reasons behind it, and instead of arguing against it, I break it. But that's my business, and in the meanwhile, I know that someone has society's back.

[scotty34]

Yes, its part of their T&C

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
It's illogical that an 18 year old can vote and go to war but not be able buy a beer, yet statistics show that raising the drinking age to 21 does, in fact, lower alcohol-related accidents and fatalities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does, because there are less people drunk and screwing around. If you raised the legal gambling age to 30, there would be less degenerate gamblers racking up huge debts and destroying their lives. If you raised the draft age to 21, there would be less young people dying in wars overseas.

[ QUOTE ]
still quite obvious that those that are underage are much less able to support a gambling hobby/addiction and much more likely to run up debts due to this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, with what money is a 14 year old going to run up huge gambling debts? His allowance? A bank certainly is not going to give him a loan or credit card. Secondly, I think its just as possible that a 21 year old can form a serious gambling addiction as a 14 year old, if not moreso. The money actually means something to the 21 year old, and if he loses it, he "needs" to get it back. In the case of a 14 year old, he might be bummed out, and can't buy a video game or something. In this case, I think the 14 year old is more likely to learn a lesson and move on, while the 21 year old has a greater chance of forming addiction.