[TX_kiwi]

Spoiler - this thread has nothing to do with Daniel Negreanu.

At our regular home game last night, one of our regulars brought along his 13 year old son to play in our tourney and the follow-on cash game.

The young fella had obviously had a bit of coaching from Dad, because he aquitted himself very well. He went all-in against another guy in the first blinds level and won, doubling up in the process. He caught some good cards after that and continued to build his stack to assume a commanding chip lead in the tourney.

However, he played rather loose and his chips bleed away as the game progressed. It got to the point where it was just he and I, heads up. His M was approximately 4 and I had about 10 times his stack.

I had a good handle on his play and he could be read like a book, so I was fairly confident. However, I wondered what was appropriate for this young guy on his first ever taste of tourney play. Three options crossed my mind. What would you have done at this point?

Note that the game is only a $5 buy-in, so there is little monetary gain at stake here. We play more for the social contact and bragging rights.

[wafflestomper]

I don't think I get it. Because he is a kid, you are thinking of playing differently?

I'd play him like any other opponent. Would you change how you play against your grandma? No way. I'd take her money too!

[TX_kiwi]

Originally Posted by wafflestomper

I don't think I get it. Because he is a kid, you are thinking of playing differently?

Exactly. The money's not the issue. The question is "Do you set out to crush a kid in this position?"

I've reflected on my subsequent decision a lot today. I'm just interested in the consensus here on CT (and whether it would be different to the collective sentiment on, say, a parenting forum).

[wafflestomper]

Now I'm curious as to what you chose. But I guess I'm going to have to wait a while...

I would hope that the dad who spent time teaching his son about how the game of poker works (mechanically and strategically) also talked to him about how to play games in general.

I remember playing Monopoly with my grandmother as a kid and landing on Park Place and losing close to all of my money. I started to cry. She told me to cut it our right then, or she wouldn't play with me anymore. Games aren't to be cried over. They are games. And she doesn't play with people who cry. I never cried playing a game after that. That's called not being a good sport.

What lesson would you be teaching him if you took it easy on him because he was a kid? I think of this a little differently than if I was playing a game of 1 on 1 basketball where I have a physical advantage over the average 13 year old. Just my $0.02.

[TX_kiwi]

Originally Posted by wafflestomper

I think of this a little differently than if I was playing a game of 1 on 1 basketball where I have a physical advantage over the average 13 year old. Just my $0.02.

I'm not challenging your position, however, how is an obvious advantage in poker different from a physical advantage?

[wafflestomper]

Good question. In my mind (and I haven't thought this through much) the difference is that in basketball, I have a physical advantage. I am bigger. There is nothing he can do about being smaller. It's just a fact.

In poker, everyone is physically equal. The only thing that makes you different is your experiences and how you use what you have learned to your advantage.

Should a beginner beat an experienced player in basketball? No. Poker? Not unless they suck out. I suppose I could see someone arguing to beat them in poker, but to make it a close loss. But that can be a tricky thing to do, and I think the better lesson is that there is a lot of work ahead of you to be a good poker player. Again, I haven't thought this through a whole lot, so there may be some large and obvious holes in my thinking...

[jojobinks]

you have 95% of the chips in play. playing bad isn't going to stop you from winning nearly every time. crush his soul. he finished second...he should be proud.

[mike33]

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by wafflestomper

What lesson would you be teaching him if you took it easy on him because he was a kid?.

And I agree with this.

Originally Posted by TX_kiwi

I'm not challenging your position, however, how is an obvious advantage in poker different from a physical advantage?

Having said that, I play quite a bit of heads-up with my 8 yr old. Granted, there's a big difference between 8 and 13, but... Anyway, most of the time my boy is very easy to read and has predictable play. However, when he concentrates he plays very well and is able to pull off some nice bluffs in the process. One thing I stopped doing very early on was playing soft with him. It wasn't teaching him anything and we might as well have been playing war. After I stopped doing that I could tell that he started learning and adapting.

I don't let him play in my home games because I don't think it's fair to the other players. He's trying to talk my into it though, so I may set up a game with some guys that don't mind him playing or playing for just $5.

Anyway, I voted for option 3. However, I hope you gave him some excellent props for how well he played.

[trutan]

Originally Posted by TX_kiwi

His M was approximately 10 and I had about 20 times his stack.

Let me get this straight. You are HU in a home game tourney and you have an M of 200 ??????? What are your starting stacks and blind structure?


As for the OP question, I whoop him as badly as I can. Then I educate him on how not to bleed his chips off and tell him exactly how I "read him like a book".

[abby99]

The tradition in our family is that once the kids are old enough to play with their own money, we don't soft-play them. We just play with sufficiently low stakes so that they can really afford their "tuition."