Keith McCready got money from his dad to play money games against his dad. Unethical?

[DaWizard]

I think it was in a video about Keiths life where I heard that his father, a pool room owner, gave Keith money to play money games against his dad.

Of course it's not great to expose a kid to gambling. But is it unethical? Would it be beneficial in some way to learn about losing and winning with money at stake at young age?

 

[white1]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. A personal decision between a father and his son.

 

[Black-Balled]

Don't fall for analyzing yesterday by today's criteria.

It isn't interesting or valid to either time.

 

[DaWizard]

Im not judging them. I wonder in general if it's unethical and what the pros and cons are for a kid.

If I recall correctly the documentary presented it as unethical. And I wondered.. Is it?

Making a kid play money games with the money he earned selling lemonade: unethical. But if you give money and then obligate to play money games.. Is that unethical?

 

[fjk]

Hmmmmm, personally, I don't believe gambling is unethical. Whether someone is spending their money on green's fee golfing, dining out at expensive restaurants, buying $300 sneakers, or gambling their money away, it's all their money to do what they please with.

For 30 years, I played poker with my dad, grandfather and their friends. It was a semi-friendly game and sometimes someone lost enough where it impacted their month. We all enjoyed getting together and we all loved playing though. My dad and grandfather are both gone now and I'd trade my right arm for one more Friday night poker game with them.

We all gambled together at pool too, just not as regularly. I used to get my poker money back playing pool. My dad and grandfather knew I was going to get the money on the pool table, but looking back, I don't think they cared.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Of course it's not great to expose a kid to gambling.

Yes, this is child abuse.

 

[garczar]

Im not judging them. I wonder in general if it's unethical and what the pros and cons are for a kid.

If I recall correctly the documentary presented it as unethical. And I wondered.. Is it?

Making a kid play money games with the money he earned selling lemonade: unethical. But if you give money and then obligate to play money games.. Is that unethical?

why are you even bringing this ancient shit up? what is your point/goal here?? planning on puttin your kid in the box to pay some bills? seriously wtf.

 

[eastcoast_chris]

why are you even bringing this ancient shit up? what is your point/goal here?? planning on puttin your kid in the box to pay some bills? seriously wtf.

You have an opinion (which you have to voice) on everything? Sometimes just keep scrolling.

 

[gregcantrall]

Of course it's not great to expose a kid to gambling.

Gambling is a misnomer. Playing for money is a contest of skill. While there are elements of luck the player with the best skills prevails in the long run. Playing for money is a proven way to develop skill.
A long time ago in the state of Washington a judge ruled that Playing for money was a contest of skill and not gambling therefore the debt would be paid. The losers claim that it was a gambling debt didn't hold up in court.
If the story about Keith is indeed true....... Seems that Keith developed some pretty good skills.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Truth or, Urband Legend, I am sure JAM might know TRUTH.

 

[jasonlaus]

I think it was in a video about Keiths life where I heard that his father, a pool room owner, gave Keith money to play money games against his dad.

Of course it's not great to expose a kid to gambling. But is it unethical? Would it be beneficial in some way to learn about losing and winning with money at stake at young age?

Oh shit, you done it now

JAM gonna have your ass

 

[gregcantrall]

A long time ago in the state of Washington a judge ruled that Playing for money was a contest of skill

Shortly after the ruling was made, I was playing for 10 a game when a youngster put his quarters up. We politely informed him that we were playing for 10 and he was welcome to challenge at that rate. He puffed up and said, "Don't tell me you're gambling! You can get the house in a lot of trouble for allowing gambling."
My reply was, "OK we are not gambling. it's a pool tournament. Single game, single elimination, $10 entry. When this tournament is done we will play another. Do You want to enter?" He walked away grumbling and mumbling as he had no rejoinder.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

I think it was in a video about Keiths life where I heard that his father, a pool room owner, gave Keith money to play money games against his dad.

Of course it's not great to expose a kid to gambling. But is it unethical? Would it be beneficial in some way to learn about losing and winning with money at stake at young age?

Do you have to post when you wonder?

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Gambling is a misnomer. Playing for money is a contest of skill. While there are elements of luck the player with the best skills prevails in the long run. Playing for money is a proven way to develop skill.
A long time ago in the state of Washington a judge ruled that Playing for money was a contest of skill and not gambling therefore the debt would be paid. The losers claim that it was a gambling debt didn't hold up in court.
If the story about Keith is indeed true....... Seems that Keith developed some pretty good skills.

Yeahhhhh.. If only it were that simple.

Some people's brain chemistry/circuitry are wired to get a supercharged dopamine kick out of gambling. No matter "what" they are gambling on. Many of the very best players in the US are gambling addicts. Win it at pool, lose it on/at the horses/cards/casino...

Viewed through this lense, "forcing" a kid to gamble is absolutely, 100% child abuse.

But hey... What am I saying? Exploiting our children for profit is part of the American way of life.. Nobody cares so long as they don't get to see the negative consequences, and are entertained by the young talent.

All that being said.. Keith is a treasure in the American pool scene.. Might he have had a very different life without the forced gambling? Maybe. Would it have been any better? Who knows? I have no dog in this fight. But what I CAN say is.... He is very much an example of "survivor bias". He turned out to be a fantastic player and a good gambler, so it all worked out... But.. What if he wasn't?

 

[Taxi]

Making a kid play money games with the money he earned selling lemonade: unethical. But if you give money and then obligate to play money games.. Is that unethical?

I once had a GF who knew a neighborhood kid, maybe 15 or 16 years old, who loved my tales about pool rooms, even if he'd hardly ever been in one. I told him that the best action room in DC (at the time) was Jimmy's Golden Q, on T St. across from the Howard Theater. And when I told him about the legendary Strawberry he got even more psyched up.

So about a week later I ran into him again, and got a story that still cracks me up. Seems like he went down to the Golden Q, when in comes Strawberry, who loudly shouted "I'm here to gamble, but I ain't playing for nothing less than a dime!"

Whereupon the kid reaches into his pocket, pulls out a shiny new Roosevelt 10 cent piece, slaps it on the table, and tells Strawberry "I'm ready". And he was being serious!

It took him about a week to get the laughter out of his ears, and I don't think he went into too many pool rooms after that.

 

[sjm]

It is not clear that this is a matter of ethics.

 

[straightline]

He did learn to freewheel like nobody's business. Showed me it really isn't.

 

[Mensabum]

I think it was in a video about Keiths life where I heard that his father, a pool room owner, gave Keith money to play money games against his dad.

Of course it's not great to expose a kid to gambling. But is it unethical? Would it be beneficial in some way to learn about losing and winning with money at stake at young age?

Was for me.

 

[Black-Balled]

Shortly after the ruling was made, I was playing for 10 a game when a youngster put his quarters up. We politely informed him that we were playing for 10 and he was welcome to challenge at that rate. He puffed up and said, "Don't tell me you're gambling! You can get the house in a lot of trouble for allowing gambling."
My reply was, "OK we are not gambling. it's a pool tournament. Single game, single elimination, $10 entry. When this tournament is done we will play another. Do You want to enter?" He walked away grumbling and mumbling as he had no rejoinder.

Why didn't you play one for funnies with the kid?

Damn.

 

[gregcantrall]

Why didn't you play one for funnies with the kid?

Damn.
View attachment 802591

Well there were 8 tables in the bar. The other 7 were funnsie tables. I was working playing 9 ball at 10 a rack allowed me to make a little better than Union scale..
There was an occasion when I was working at a refinery in Canada making good money. I had just won the first game for 20 and my opponent pulled out a hundred dollar bill. I said, "I can match it but not break it. We can use a marker under the rail." As he agreed a recreational player approached and insisted on his right to a funnsie game. This gave my customer the chance to go to the bar and make change. Pluss the intermission gave him the chance to think and slip the hook. So I made 20 instead of the hundred he had available. Grrrrr. Funnsie ain't fun for Me.