No, I am saying the argument fails because it confuses people
No, David. I am saying that the argument fails because it confuses people. (I think that Plato's cave story had something along the same lines.)
I am illustrating that the argument for demonstrating "skill" fails. It is an analogy which applies only when the rake/hold/payout conditions are favorable.
If you try and define skill by reference to winning or losing, you are bringing into question the definition of "winning or losing". For most poker players, playing itself is "winning", and entertainment is the payout. The financial outcome attendent to "skill" misses the point. A player who enjoys the game is 'winning", whehter or not he makes money at it.
Building a political argument on "skill/winning" defined as winning money is foolish. Entertainment/television built poker's popularity, popularity can equate to potential political clout. Arguments based upon deliberately losing, aside from their other flaws, are never going to "save" anything.
|