Re: Does becoming a parent changes the gambler?

This was the discussion topic we were having last night, a bunch of gambling friends and one of them an expecting dad. There were counter arguments that his child also would turn out a gambler like he is.

The arguments were that it is his in his gene and that'll pass on to his child, since every one in his family was a gambler.

The counter argument was that the child would make a logical decision and genes won't play any part in this.

Which brought us to another important question what if turns out a gambler would they both play together. Would he be comfortable?

Amid this he walked out and texted me he didn't wish to gamble anymore, so wanted your views on this.

First of I want say that I agree with those who said that inclination to gambling can't be inherent. Secondly, kids when they grow up tend to behave in contradiction to what their parents do. For example if parents smoke their kids don't smoke and vice versa. I know there are other opinions on this, but that's what I know from my experience. From what you have written I have an impression that your friends were joking mostly and also that none of you is actually an addicted gambler. And that's a good thing. Keep it healthy, guys. Gambling can be fun if you don't let it ruin your life.

In many cases children don't follow parents patterns when they see it in a negative way, in a traumatic way. For an example: If the child has negative memories about the parents drunken, he will probably stay away from alcohol. The same can happen about gambling, but if there aren't negative memories about parents + gambling, there are higher chances this child will gamble too.

But we can't predict it, the child may gamble or may not gamble, it's a surprise and everything parents can do is to be prepared to deal with this situation better as possible if it happens.

The worst thing parents can do for their kids is telling them to stay away from gambling because it's a known fact that the forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest. It is much better imo to let them play in the early age, to let them lose $10 and then to explain them that gambling is about losing your money. Thus after losing $10 while in their childhood they will be protected from losing thousands of USD, years later when they become adults.

Well i don't think it's a good idea to expose your children to gambling espexially that they're not earning their own money. They still don't know the importance of proper spending and if they see it as a game to enjoy, you probably would risk having your kids ask for money for gambling. There are a whole lot of alternatives you can you teach your kids you know

I know, but as a parent of two I can say, sounds good doesn't work. If you force-feed your kids with knowledge all the time, they will most likely start rejecting it at some point, however useful that knowledge might be for them. Teaching your kids that gambling will never make them rich using the examples of their own playing is better than just forbidding the thing imo.

I also believe that children should never be burdened with what we think is best for them. They should be allowed to explore and understand the world by their own. Every individual has his own way of perceiving thing, let them see the world from their own eyes. All we can do is let them know the harms of gambling and leave the decision of adopting it or not to the kids. They will learn and grow by experiments and mistakes.

Absolutely. I'm glad you are with me on this. If only all the parents know that by forbidding things they make them more desirable. This is actually a serious question related not only to gambling but to many other dangerous things like drugs, alcohol etc. Not that we should make our kids try all of them, but we shouldn't avoid open discussions, we shouldn't be just saying "It's bad and that's it." With gambling it's easier. We can even let them play a bit in order to show them that however lucky you are your balance will come to zero eventually.