[Mendacious]

I have no opinion on the 50% chance/skill analysis, because it is so poorly defined. The answer depends entirely how you frame the analysis.

I think that a reasonable argument can be made that any wagering that involves skill (such as poker, most sportsbets, blackjack, picking horses, etc.)is ultimately more governed by skill that by chance.


I think what seperates poker from ALL other forms of gambling is that generally, it has by far the greatest amount of wagering AFTER information is received. The ante is relatively small relative to all the other bets, and all of the other bets are done after the player has information, and that does not even take into account the fact that a large percentage of poker has to do with the players actions themselves and not the cards. So, to the extent that ANY wagering is more governed by skill than chance, Poker would have to be that game. I would go so far as to say that the fact that this type of language is in a statute at all makes it almost a no-brainer that poker specifically is being excluded. One of the rules of statutory construction is that it is assumed that language and provisions are intended to have meaning. To the extent that there is a clear carve out for games involving more skill than chance, arguably this HAS to refer to poker.