[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
You are making a strawman argument.
I never said that poker is not a game of skill. I never said a skilled player will not come out on top in the long run. I only said that it involves a certain amount of luck. Significantly more than the aforementioned chess or baseball. Anyway who tries to argue that away clearly does not understand the game of poker.
And the fact that you equate having a pet to beastiality says a lot about either yourself or your reasoning abilities. You will know which one it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Louis, you are clearly a sensitive soul who takes offence very easily. I know that chimp would not have married you - she is not blind.

If you read my post I implied that short term there was a huge luck factor involved in poker but long term it is skill. Your intial post IMHO was implying that poker was luck. You may not have meant it but that is the way it came across. Your posts afterwards seem to indicate that we both believe the same thing - luck short term and skill long term.

This can be said for any sport including baseball which is where you then waded into the argument. Yes, I agree that baseball is less luck short term than poker. And chess is less luck short term than baseball. And there will be many other examples with varying degrees of luck short term. However, the point surely is that if it is skillful long term that is the overidding factor in terms of luck v skill.

If you decide to play bingo, for example, it is luck short term, luck long term and -EV very long term.

Now, who decides how much luck v skill is needed in a single game to determine it as a game of skill. Is there a % set down. I don't think so. The only reason poker has been deemed luck is because the USA could not regulate the online games and get their share of the tax revenue.