[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree, and poker is my primary source of income. The skill argument is terrible. The game is hugely dominated by chance, by variance in the short run -- and even in what most reasonable people would consider the long run. This is a game where 10,000 hand samples mean very little. That's not a huge concern to those of us playing thousands of hands per week - but the average player doesn't play thousands of hands per week.

When a player decides to go to a casino or poker parlor on the weekend, his results are going to be drastically influenced by chance and modestly weighted by skill. He's not going to reach the 'longrun' that weekend, and he probably never will in fact. And that is what this ruling says: that poker is ultimately a game of chance for the average player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Take a game like craps with "optimal" strategy (pass/don't pass line bets) and 100x times. 10000 rolls of the dice mean very little. The outcome is largely determined by chance.

Now, tell these judges and juries to think about it from the casino's side of the table. When a bettor steps up and proceeds to use this strategy, is the casino running a business or are they engaging in a game of chance?

The problem is getting them to understand EV

If they were able to explain WHY the casino wins, they would also understand why winning players win. It's pretty simple. You just need a judge who's a math geek.