[PJM1206]

I am a strong believer that poker is a game of luck. I also think that the way you deal with luck is where and how the skill comes to play. The arguement is never ending because by defintion the game is based on probabilities whcih equals chance which equals luck they all mean the same. Below is an extract from a web dictioanary. The argument of luck vs skill is a waste of time:

Luck can be defined as as a chance happening, or as that which happens beyond a person's control. Luck is often regarded as a superstition, but it can be interpreted in many ways.

Luck as lack of control
Luck is that which happens beyond a person's control. This means that luck stands in opposition to one's control, but not to causation. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person's place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:

Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
Circumstantial luck, that is, luck with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy, which argues that because something is sequentially connected, it is connected otherwise, as well:
A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.
In this particuhalar perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.

The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a six all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".

Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one -- not necessarily wholly undesirable.