Re: No, I am saying the argument fails because it confuses people
One issue with the skill argument is that skill in NLE, for example, is relative - even, maybe especially, over the long run. That only stops being true at the very highest levels of the game and players. Joe Blow can suck in one set of circumstances and excel in another. Is he skilled? Obviously not if it is some absolute factor in his play.
Blackjack is a game of knowledge (given sufficiently frequent shuffles). Best play is governed by known odds. You know them or you don't. Bad basis for "skill" argument.
So, what is "skill" anyway? Can you measure it? Not by winnings, for most players. Perhaps the most that can be said for consistent winners is that they are better at picking their contest conditions, an option not available in most contests, which again is a knowledge exercise.
|