[Skallagrim]

Thank you Mr. Sklansky for another weapon in the battle to keep/make poker legal. I truly like this argument and will use it. I am an attorney who often has occassion to work in this field.

I would also be interested in how you would respond to the skill v. chance argument if it were phrased in this manner: Does chance account for over 50% of the results (of individual hands) in Poker?

I ask it this way because many state laws define games of chance as those in which chance predominantly determines the outcome. Thus if the outcome is determined by things other than chance (not just skill) more than 1/2 the time, poker is not gambling as legally defined (in those states).

My experience with poker is that the chance element, the random distribution of the cards, does not determine the outcome over half the time. In my games (mostly cash NL hold-em) it hardly seems that 1/2 the hands actually go to showdown becasue of the player's actions of betting, raising, bluffing and folding. And even in those hands that do go to showdown, player actions are still determining most of the outcomes becasue the skilled player gets his money in when his math and psychological skills tell him he has the best hand, and often he has bet out others who might have beaten him. And when he has the best hand, he usually wins because, of course, having the best hand before the showdown means precisely that he has the hand most likely to win. Suckouts happen of course, but do suckouts determine the winner over 50% of the time? Of course not. That is how I intend to present my case the next time I am called upon to do so, and I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the way I have phrased the question.

Thank you anyway for your help on this subject.