Underaged Poker

[Toddster18]

[ QUOTE ]
statistics show that raising the drinking age to 21 does, in fact, lower alcohol-related accidents and fatalities.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is meaningful. Powerful. But there is a major problem I have with it.

I guarantee that fatal accidents would significantly decrease if the legal drinking age was raised to 24. Moreso to 27. A hell of a lot moreso if it was raised to 50, right? Or how about if you banned all people with a history of alcoholism in their family from entering bars and/or receiving drivers liscenses. Etc, etc . . . The varying "lines" are sort of ... absurd.

I guess the addiction argument probably has a solid amount of merit. I am unexperienced in addiction studies, and wouldn't know myself whether such tendencies manifest easier at a younger age, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I'd believe it. So if that is why you don't like the other, then I support you. Probably good.

I guess what I'm really getting at, though, is its very poor logic for some of these people to post as they have that "kids just can't [insert whatever here]". People need to open their minds. Sure, maybe most minors aren't prepared (of course, I'd argue most adults who enter the poker world aren't either). But the point is, some are. ZeeJustin sure was. To a much lesser extent, I believe I was, at the time.

Question: Does anyone here believe that if are under a certain age (we'll say 21 or 18), then (ignoring legality) you should not be allowed to play poker, unquestionably?

-Todd

[scotty34]

Maybe they should introduce a graduating limits plan. In the province where I live, we have a graduating drivers licence program. You start of with your Learners, which has certain restrictions. You have this for a year, take a test, and you now have your Novice, which reduces some restrictions. Another year and a half later, you take another road test to get your Full Priviliges.

Maybe for 14 year olds, they can't play above limits of .05/.10. Once they turn 16, they can go up to .25/.50. And keep moving up until they are of proper age.

This was mostly meant as a joke, but the more I think about it, it's an interesting idea. Probably would never go over with most people as it could be said it "encourages gambling." The argument could go both ways though.

[yoshi_yoshi]

I think the age at which a person can ___ should be directly related to how far the law can prosecute offenders.

Point being, the reason you shouldn't be able to own a gun before you are 18, is because if you go out and kill someone when you are 16, you won't be treated with the full extent of the law. It would be unfair for it to be legal for both a 16 year old and a 30 year old to own a gun, if say, the 16 yo would only get 20 years in prison for commiting the same crime that the 30 yo would get life for.

The same is true for addictive substances. If your addiction to cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling causes you to go out and rob someone for money, then the punishment should fit the crime. I say, if minors are going to be allowed to gamble, then they cannot receive softer treatment in courts if they do something ridiculous as a result of their gambling.

Of course, since minors AREN'T (and shouldn't be) treated the same way in courts, then it's correct that they have some privileges restricted.

[AncientPC]

For every 14-year-old bright enough to play poker, there are masses that aren't responsible enough. For that reason alone they shouldn't be allowed to play until they are a legal adult (18) and have financial responsibility.

[scotty34]

The point of laws such as those pertaining to drinking and gambling are not to ultimately protect society from the abusers. Those laws are in place to mostly protect the individual from doing harm to himself. The former is a part of it, but not the main reason for the law.

[contentless]

I'm not against minors playing poker. Like I said about the alcohol, I am not of drinking age, and I do break the law. But of course, we all realize, that the law isn't always the optimal solution, it is simply a solution.

The counter-argument, by the way, to the "there would be less drinking accidents the older the drinking age" is that it's up to the government to decide the age. It may seem like a cop out, but "the law of diminishing returns" plays into this, as well as voting demographics. Abolishing alcohol, the extreme end of that argument, isn't a solution. The 18th and 21st Amendments are testaments to that. The reason why the states can get away with a 21 year old drinking age is because of voter demographics. With the lowest voter turnout of any group, no one feels obligated to care about those stranded in alcohol limbo. Similarly, there are no benefits to the voting population to legalize underage gambling.

I definately agree that people shouldn't be spitting ethical and moral venom at minors gambling, but I guess the point is pretty much moot. The intarweb has made enforcement impossible, the role of parents in the lives of their children is diminished, and I'm not sure anyone really cares all that much, compared to the other problems of society.

As for scotty's reply...
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right in that banks aren't going to give a minor loans or credit cards, and I'm wrong in saying debts. I definately misspoke. It'd be a stretch (on my part) to say that 14 year olds will go steal to fund their habits (much like drug...hobbies), but they're no more likely to than adults.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not so much as a need/want as it is a reinforcement of a negative behavior. Gambling doesn't become an addiction for a lot of us because of education. We recognize the traps the casinos lay, the traps inherent in play and we learn to play to best avoid these. Variable reinforcement, however, is the easiest way to get the mouse to hit the button. The player doesn't know how his actions will affect the outcome, just that the outcome will come about because of his actions, and so he acts. It's not an easy behavior to shake, especially since Vegas, both on- and off-line are designed to reel victims in. The younger someone begins this behavior, the more ingrained it becomes. Your argument isn't fully fleshed, it's just a scenario. If the 14 year old's family didn't have the money to pay for heat, and asked him for his allowance back, do you think he'd need it just as much? What about a 21 year old that lives off a fat inheritance? Wants and needs are circumstantial.

[Awesemo]

I feel like an important thing about underaged gambling hasn't been mentioned here. I personally started online at age 17, after working at Papa John's for $6/ hr. Online poker is simply the best job a person under 18 can get, by far. I made at least three times more playing online poker at 17 than I did working at Papa John's. As long as the people take it seriously, I don't see any problem.

[Wetdog]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why the states can get away with a 21 year old drinking age is because of voter demographics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real reason is that they would lose out on federal highway construction funding grants. With the current Talibaptists in power, don't be surprised if the Vollstead Act is reinstated.

[droolie]

I'm not a big fan of any law that says something is OK for an adult but not OK for a minor. I'm in my 30's now but I vividly remember such laws making me more interested in doing the activity than I would have been had there been no law in the 1st place.

Gambling is by definition risky behavior that a very small percentage of the population do responsibly. Why would we expect teens to be any better at it? Parents need to watch the computer usage by their kids, online gambling included because lord knows there are worse things on the interent than being able to lose some money in an activity that is LEGAL for adults. I also don't think teens are at much risk compared to adults because many of them have no reasonable ability to get seriously in debt. They may max out a couple credit cards but they aren't taking out 2nd mortgages etc...Most of them have their parents to bail them out and a lesson is learned. I'm reasonably sure I would have been just as successful at poker when I was a teen as I am now. I was a pretty friggin' smart prep-school prick and surely could've made more bonus whoring than I did flipping burgers in the campus coop. That being said I doubt I would have had the chance to do it because my computer activities would have been restricted and monitored by either my parents or the school.

The idea that an 18 year old can handle this responsibility but a 17 year old cannot seems absurd to me. No light switched went off in my head when I turned 18 (or when I turned 21 for that matter). The whole legality issue is poorly conceived and poorly applied. I say make parents responsible for the actions of their children and get the age laws off the books.

[Toddster18]

[ QUOTE ]
For every 14-year-old bright enough to play poker, there are masses that aren't responsible enough. For that reason alone they shouldn't be allowed to play until they are a legal adult (18) and have financial responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define responsible enough? What does a kid have to lose? His allowance money? His money for taking a high school girlfriend on dats?

How about this one. I started my own small business at age 14. At age 15 I took out my first $25k loan. By 16 we had gone through approximately $80k of product. At age 17, I am financially responsible enoguh to play .50/1 at the party limit tables? Isn't the question a bit absurd?