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.
I think that in this situation genes do not play any role, it's all about upbringing. If the future father refuses gambling and will not show his child such an example, it is unlikely that the child will gamble only because his relatives are avid gamblers. If the child becomes a gambler, the reason for this will be the social environment in which he lives, rather than the genetic characteristics of his organism.
If he does become a gambler, he will hardly want to do it with his father. After all, both will understand that this dependence is not very good. I think they both will be uncomfortable and the situation will be awkward.
Other factors will come to play as well, such as the financial situation of the family.
Normally, a son of a gambler would feel resentment for their fathers actions, and would choose to refrain from gambling all their life with the thought that gambling has ruined their life. This would of course be different if he had a different outlook towards his fathers gambling, such as if it was their way of bonding or it has improved their life for the better. It all comes down to how the son will deal with it, and react to it after.