[UtzChips]

This is an argument that has been going on for as long as I've played poker, and I'm 53.

Some define a poker a game of chance (many lawmakers) because you can play your hand perfectly and still lose because of the luck of the draw.

Others say skill wins in the long run, as the "luck of the draw" evens out and the one who plays their cards better than their opponent wins over time.

The lawmakers agree, but state that is not how they define a game of chance. A game of chance is where the outcome cannot be controlled totally by the players actions.

It's become a pretty boring subject. I use to play a lot of chess and never met a serious student of the game of chess, who also a student of poker, that would even begin to consider poker a game of skill, despite the fact that the most skillful player wins in the long run.

When you match the two top Grandmasters of chess for the World Championship, they have to play 21 games to determine the winner. Each game lasts on avg about 3 hrs. That's 63 hrs.

A top poker player would laugh at the thought of playing 63 hrs against 9 other top rated players to determine who is the best in the world.

Lou Krieger says it takes 4000 hrs of live play before you can rightly say you're a winning player. A person who works 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, only works 2080 hours.

You can bet it's a game of chance, that is won in long run by those who minimize the luck and outplay their opponents.