The idea of pocket money is usually that kids can spend it on what they want. That includes sweets. Although of course parents can say "no" - but that goes for virtual items, too.

Teaching kids to gamble - I would see it as the opposite, teaching them not to gamble. They will be confronted with gambling opportunities all through their lives, with higher stakes. Better to learn with pocket money.

Here in Germany afaik there is also a law that children are not able to do business transactions. That means if you sell something to a kid, the parents can come back to you and say the transaction is invalid. I wonder how that works out with virtual goods and games?

If people learnt not to gamble by gambling there would be nobody with gambling problems. Teaching kids how not to gamble by gambling can be pretty bad for people who have addictive personalities, getting that gambling high and wanting to replicate that again and again.

Teaching your kid it is a waste of money and not to endorse that practice might be a better choice.

It's not "teaching not to gamble by gambling", obviously. You have to talk with your kid, explain the methods of the gambling games, and stuff like that.

I don't think shielding kids from everything bad in the world usually results in them being able to deal well with bad things in the world as adults.

Not saying they should play those games that have gambling elements. But I also don't find it straightforward to say it is unequivocally bad.

With sweets I know stories of kids who weren't allowed any sweets who developed an excessive sweet tooth later on.

> Teaching your kid it is a waste of money and not to endorse that practice might be a better choice.

how do you teach them? this sort of abstract conversation would have gone in one ear and out the other when I was a kid. I only ever learned stuff was bad if I actually experienced consequences from it.