[meg88]

Sure, luck is a part of the game, but it is undoubtedly the skill of a player that is the difference maker. Have these UK judges never heard of a stone-cold bluff?

[Geostorm]

They should read the short story by Mark Twain called Science versus Luck. Boy would I like to be on that jury!

[Geostorm]

They should read the short story by Mark Twain called Science versus Luck. Boy would I like to be on that jury!

[Recovering_Democrat]

This shows us how completely stupid many of the judges are--I don't care if they have a law degree or not--poker is not a mere game of luck. People make a living playing poker.

[Beckwith]

The best description of skill vs. luck came from Chris Fergusen.

He said (paraphrasing here), when it comes to a single hand, the outcome is 99% dependent on luck. However, over the period of a year, the outcome is 99% dependent on skill.

As another poster observed, when you look at the final tables, you continually see the same faces.

[Reform4Bush]

The Act states that a licence is needed to host games of chance such as blackjack and roulette, but not games of skill, such as chess and quiz machines. The trial was seen as a test of whether poker should fall under the remit. I would say the judge made the right decision. Poker is much closer to blackjack or roulette than chess or a 'quiz machine'. There's a certain level of skill in most gambling endeavors. Betting on horses requires skill to be succesful. Same with most any card game. It's still a game of chance, though.