I don't see any positive message that the dad passed here, rather he just makes the boy's condition worst since he will have to spend such a huge amount of money outside with strangers.
The father could have suited a better way to solve this issue, instead of chasing the boy away, because for me, the boy has done ok to have returned ned home with his bounty rewards.
Indeed, there was no positive message given by the father, but at least we can conclude that the father did not want his son to make money from gambling, maybe because the father had a bad perception of gambling, so he indirectly forbade his son not to gamble.
Spending money outside like what do you mean?
What is clear is that the child gave the money to the father even though he refused but I'm sure he will still use the money for his family, such as opening a business or repairing a place to live and even buying a house.
It seems like the boy didn't really get kicked out by the father because after all a child is still the responsibility of the parents.