Teaching Kids About the Stock Market Through Games

  • Thread starter Thread starter moonman239
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Game Kids
moonman239
Messages
276
Reaction score
0
Here's a good way to help children understand the stock market: play a game. Write out cards that say STOCK. Make enough cards for each player. Pass out fake money to each player. Get dice out and decide which face values correspond to how much money will be spent on a stock. Make sure the players have enough money to afford the maximum amount. Then:

Player 1 goes first. He or she picks another player. Then Player 1 rolls the dice and he or she pays what the dice say to pay.

Player 2 goes next. He or she does the same thing.

The person who ends up with the most money is the winner.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
moonman239 said:
Here's a good way to help children understand the stock market: play a game. Write out cards that say STOCK. Make enough cards for each player. Pass out fake money to each player. Get dice out and decide which face values correspond to how much money will be spent on a stock. Make sure the players have enough money to afford the maximum amount.

So stock prices are determined by a roll of the dice? Wow! Come to think of it, it seems that's what a lot of financial advisers think (but they don't tell you). They don't do any better than darts on average, why not dice?

See observation 3, monkey throwing darts.
http://www.ifa.com/Library/whatsnewarchieve.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would you want children to learn anything about a stockmarket?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top