OK so how would you go about showing poker is a game of skill?

[CrayZee]

The problem with poker is that the game involves both skill and luck. A skill/luck duality, if you will. Assuming one plays well against his or her competition at a rate higher than rake+toke, then luck (or bad luck) is just noise in the short run whereas skill is the signal that shows up later. The larger the hand sample, not allowing for changes in competition skill, the closer the win rate a particular player will converge to asymptotically. At some point, the confidence interval will be close to 100%.

Players also vary in skill at particular time intervals (e.g. tilting, getting better, etc).

Skillful poker, in terms of positive monetary gains, is a game of taking advantage of inefficiencies of betting patterns against the competition during the present time.

What's odd to me is that people can perceive derivatives trading as a skill game whereas poker a game of luck. I guess something involving Fortune 500 companies or market indexes gets respect whereas a casino card game does not.

You see stock touts like Jim Cramer on TV ironically saying things like "gambling is the opiate of the masses" for his internet gambling company picks. Pretty funny.