[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anybody questions that poker involves some skill. The legal test (at least in the recent NC case) is whether or not skill is the "predominant" factor. Quantifying the skills involved has already been done in other posts:

1) Having good starting hand requirments
2) Reading other players
3) Determining correct bet sizes
4) Calculating pot odds
5) Observing weaknesses in the play of others and exploiting it
etc.

The question that I am trying to address is whether skill is the predominant factor in poker. If chance is the predominant factor, then a rational player wouldn't worry about playing more skillful opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not quantifying the skills thats at issue, its quantifying how often those skills make a difference and showing that its more than 1/2 the time.

I could say in response to your argument that it proves poker is only 10% skill because you know that chance will determine 90% of the hands, and skill 10% and therefore you would not want the more skilled player to win those extra 10% of the times.

Now, of course, the above numbers are pure fiction, but the logic applies. Even if I expect a more skilled person to beat me only a small percentage of the time as a result of his skill, I still would rather play the person who does not have that advantage.

Skallagrim