Losing so they can win

[lucypevensie]

When you play games (like board games and such) with your kids do you lose the game on purpose sometimes so that you kid can be the winner? I've personally never felt obligated to make myself lose so that my children can win. Not because I'm a big meanie though. We can learn to have fun with games even if we lose. It is also important to learn how to be happy for the winner.

I will, however, offer suggestions of strategy throughout the game which might ultimately help them win the game.

 

[Redguard]

I try to keep it in balance.

There are games that can be won intentionally and then there are games that are merely won by chance.

One of Pinkguard's more recent favourite board games is Trouble (or Frustration, or Popomatic, depending on where you live).

There are times when she's whooped my butt at the game and she jumps up and down as happy as can be. Then there are times when I'll win and she'll look completely ruined.

But if we're playing Tic-Tac-Toe (she hasn't yet "mastered" the strategy), then I'll try to make it a 50/50 win/lose ratio.

 

[Surrender2Win]

When you play games (like board games and such) with your kids do you lose the game on purpose sometimes so that you kid can be the winner? I've personally never felt obligated to make myself lose so that my children can win. Not because I'm a big meanie though. We can learn to have fun with games even if we lose. It is also important to learn how to be happy for the winner.

I will, however, offer suggestions of strategy throughout the game which might ultimately help them win the game.

It really depends on the age for me and I don't go overboard with it, like Redguard, I keep it in balance.

 

[cobweb]

Sometimes I let them win and sometimes I don't. It depends on what kind of day we are having.

My oldest is special needs and while we are working on good sportsmanship, sometimes losing can send him over the edge. If he is having a particularly rough day, I'll let him win. Otherwise all bets are off.

 

[GolfingMom]

When you play games (like board games and such) with your kids do you lose the game on purpose sometimes so that you kid can be the winner? I've personally never felt obligated to make myself lose so that my children can win. Not because I'm a big meanie though. We can learn to have fun with games even if we lose. It is also important to learn how to be happy for the winner.

I will, however, offer suggestions of strategy throughout the game which might ultimately help them win the game.

That's how we handle it. We have family game night about 2X/week sometimes more. My youngest is still learning how to handle not winning. We've taught them that winning and losing is part of life. It wouldn't be fair to them to always let them win since that is what they would expect all the time.
I do know the sports teams in our town all have winning/losing. I've heard some towns have gotten rid of keeping score so everyone wins.

 

[JulySheMustFly]

I've heard some towns have gotten rid of keeping score so everyone wins.

My nephew's one league was like that. I was kind of thinking what's the point of really putting out the effort. Eh, I'm competitive though.

 

[Birbitt]

I generally will let one of the boys win if we are playing a new game they haven't played before so that they will be encouraged to continue playing the game, but if we playing a game that they have played many times before I just play the game with them and see what happens and they win many games that way too. So I guess it's only with new games that I let them win though they do win many times even if I don't let them.

 

[heart of peace]

I don't believe in encouraging a competitive spirit in young childhood (I think healthy competition is better introduced during the adolescent phase of development). I prefer to encourage a spirit of community. In this line of thinking, I seek out games where competition wouldn't be encouraged. Rather, I prefer games where the actual game playing is so much fun that winners/losers have no bearing on the players because the game is played for the fun and not for who will be the victor.

I worry about excessive competition in childhood as I believe it deters my child from learning how to be the best *he* can be without the extrinsic motivator of being declared victor over another person.

 

[pmcleanj]

Some games -- chess, go, hex, cribbage, cribbage -- you can offer a handicap that evens the chances. It may look a little silly to start the game with Black already spotted fifty stones, or with White fielding a full set of pieces against a Queen and a Rook, but if that's what it takes to make the game challenging for the stronger player why not?

But once the game is started and the handicap is set, I prefer to play flat out. That way what you're role-modelling is the joy of problem-solving, of rising to the solution, of facing the challenge -- and if the handicap is set right, then half the time you'll get to role-model being a good loser, and the other half the time you can role-model being a gracious winner. I like to down-play the role of competition, but I enjoy the challenge itself and I like to share that pleasure with my children.

I haven't figured out a good way to handicap Bridge, though; and that's what I enjoy most. Dean can't abide the game, but with my foster-daughter coming to stay with us during the week next year we'll have a foursome without him and there's a chance we may be able to play a few distaff games. Or not: the girls don't seem to find counting points and finessing as thrilling as their mother does

 

[coffeegal]

i do try to keep it in balance. if i'm playing say memory with my 3 year old, normally i let him win, more cause i want to work on his memory. when my oldest was 3 i didn't have to try to let him win at memory- he'd kick my butt with no help from me. he has his daddy's detail mind.
if i'm playing with more than one child (like the 3 and 6 year olds not the older ones) i usually take myself out of the equation, tho sometimes i'll really try and win just to keep them from fighting each other.
when i play with the older 3 (who are 7,11,13) that is a different story.
if we are all playing uno i go after the big kids and help the little ones.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I'm too competetive to let anybody win...ever...lol!! We actually play a lot of cooperative games thrown in so that every game we play isn't a win or lose situation.

I figure they get to learn the game, learn how to win and how to lose...eventually they get better than me and get to feel the genuine joy of having won. I hated when I knew people let me win. If there's someone who is needing one for the win column--then we play something with teams (like Sequence) and that person gets to be on the strongest player's team-which often is not me.

 

[TexasSky]

When the children were younger, whether I let them win, helped them, etc., or not was dependent upon a lot of things.

While I think losing is as important a skill to learn as winning is, I also was very aware of the fact that there is a 6 year age difference between my children, and the youngest was unfairly and unevenly matched against the oldest and adults. I was also aware that if you are always the loser, you learn to hate playing games, and I think the fellowship pluses of a game outweigh the negatives of throwing a game occasionally.

If we were playing something even the little one could play fairly well, I played it openly and honestly. If he lost, he lost.

This might be chutes and ladders, bingo, or yahtzee.

You don't really need "skill" to win those.
You may occasionally need a little math help, or reading help, but that's about it.

My daughter loved Scrabble.
I would usually just sit those games out and offer to help my youngest.
Giving him first chance to find words with the tiles, pointing out special opportunities on the board like adding ing to a word already there, etc., but sometimes he wanted to play when it was just the 2 of us, or just his Dad and he and I, and yes, I'd go for words at HIS vocabulary level instead of words at mine.

Whenever I was teaching a new game, I would alternate between letting a child win and losing, until the skill set was built up and they understood the game.

If it was bowling or minature golf or darts, I often didn't keep score.

With something like Monopoly, I considered it somewhat unfair that adults understood the advantages of doing things like buying up all 3 of one color, putting on houses and hotels, or buying Park Place instead of Baltic Avenue, so I either helped with advice, or I didn't take opportunities that came around.

With a game like Clue, a favorite at our house, I often knew the answer long before anyone else, and just didn't ever bother to ask it. I figure it was more important that the children keep playing, and figure out how to use the evidence and elminiation process, than it was for me to go, "Aha! I know who did it!"

I think balance is what really matters.

 

[cristianna]

I think this is a great question. And I can't wait to keep reading everyone's answers.

I agree balance matters. Part of life entails not always getting what you want and not always being first in everything. I think the best way to train a child in sportsmanship and congratulating a winner is to first start losing at home.

Many times we'll take a game and not play for points the first handful of times we play. Great games for something like that are: Charades (there's an actual boardgame of this), Whonu (I may have not spelled that right) and Scattegories (a bit tough if the children are young, but there's no reason they can't be paired up with a buddy to help them out).

The Family Fued dvd is one is good too, but it you'll have a winner and loser every time. With that we alternate who is teamed up with who.

 

[Neenie1]

I think it's nice to know that other people's kids have beaten them at games.

I laugh when i think how many times my 6 year old has beaten me at scrabble. Although I do help him out when he is having a hard time making a word, also sometimes it depends on the letters you get. If you get a bad batch of letters, it's really a hard game sometimes lol. (that's my excuse anyway)

 

[Linnis]

No.When my nephew would get upset about loosing I'd tell him to use that anger(about loosing) to fuel his need to get better at whatever we were playing. I would tell him to take his time and look at all the possible moves for Checkers or Chess. It made him a better player and he can beat me more times than not now.

DS isn't even 2 years old yet so he doesn't play games.

 

[lucypevensie]

That's how we handle it. We have family game night about 2X/week sometimes more. My youngest is still learning how to handle not winning. We've taught them that winning and losing is part of life. It wouldn't be fair to them to always let them win since that is what they would expect all the time.
I do know the sports teams in our town all have winning/losing. I've heard some towns have gotten rid of keeping score so everyone wins.

Family game night would be so much fun. My DS and I really love playing games, but my DD an DH don't care as much.

I've heard about those sports teams that don't keep score. There are a few schools that have banned tag because apparently it's an inherrently unfair game

 

[lucypevensie]

I'm too competetive to let anybody win...ever...lol!! We actually play a lot of cooperative games thrown in so that every game we play isn't a win or lose situation.

I figure they get to learn the game, learn how to win and how to lose...eventually they get better than me and get to feel the genuine joy of having won. I hated when I knew people let me win. If there's someone who is needing one for the win column--then we play something with teams (like Sequence) and that person gets to be on the strongest player's team-which often is not me.

I'm that way too. Very competetive. I also remember being allowed to win a few times. You're right, there just isn't the same satisfaction of knowing you won all on your own and with your own skill.

 

[lucypevensie]

I don't believe in encouraging a competitive spirit in young childhood (I think healthy competition is better introduced during the adolescent phase of development). I prefer to encourage a spirit of community. In this line of thinking, I seek out games where competition wouldn't be encouraged. Rather, I prefer games where the actual game playing is so much fun that winners/losers have no bearing on the players because the game is played for the fun and not for who will be the victor.

I worry about excessive competition in childhood as I believe it deters my child from learning how to be the best *he* can be without the extrinsic motivator of being declared victor over another person.

Interesting point of view. What are some examples of the kinds of games where there is no winner?

So, do you think board games like Sorry and the like should not be played by young children?

 

[Neenie1]

I've seriously thought about family game night too. (although dd is not yet 3, so she won't really be interested in playing just yet, although she does love Mouse trap) I think we might schedule one soon.

 

[lucypevensie]

Some games -- chess, go, hex, cribbage, cribbage -- you can offer a handicap that evens the chances. It may look a little silly to start the game with Black already spotted fifty stones, or with White fielding a full set of pieces against a Queen and a Rook, but if that's what it takes to make the game challenging for the stronger player why not?

But once the game is started and the handicap is set, I prefer to play flat out. That way what you're role-modelling is the joy of problem-solving, of rising to the solution, of facing the challenge -- and if the handicap is set right, then half the time you'll get to role-model being a good loser, and the other half the time you can role-model being a gracious winner. I like to down-play the role of competition, but I enjoy the challenge itself and I like to share that pleasure with my children.

I haven't figured out a good way to handicap Bridge, though; and that's what I enjoy most. Dean can't abide the game, but with my foster-daughter coming to stay with us during the week next year we'll have a foursome without him and there's a chance we may be able to play a few distaff games. Or not: the girls don't seem to find counting points and finessing as thrilling as their mother does

I've never tried bridge. Is it complicated? I have the Hoyle book of card game instructions and the bridge section is one of the longest in the book.