Consider this report about a ruling by the Swiss Supreme Court:
Texas hold 'em is a game of luck.
That's the opinion at least of Switzerland's highest court, which banned tournaments of the high-stakes poker game outside of casinos.
Had the Swiss Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Texas hold 'em was a game of skill, it would have permitted private competitions to continue. But it said simple math, tactics and psychology played smaller roles than luck in determining the winner.
.....
The Supreme Court ruling came after Swiss casinos appealed a lower court decision that Texas hold 'em was a game of skill and could therefore be played anywhere. It said smaller poker matches could continue among friends, even if money is involved.The Texas hold 'em debate has also divided opinion in other countries. A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled 2-1 in March that it was illegal because it met the definition of gambling because the outcome is more dependent upon chance than skill. Many aficionados and self-styled "professionals" disagree, however.
In Switzerland, games of luck such as roulette and slot machines are restricted to licensed casinos, which pay a hefty 50 percent tax on profits.
I think this is a philosophically dodgy ruling. It misconstrues the relationship between luck and skill in poker-based and many other games. There are games that depend wholly or almost wholly on chance, like roulette. But where, as in poker (or bridge for that matter), the luck of the cards you're dealt combines with your skill in playing them, the game is one of skill, irrespective of the role of luck. How can we tell? We can tell by giving the same cards to two players of different skill levels over an extended run of games. The more skilful player will do better pretty well over every such run. This doesn't mean no luck is involved; but it does prove that poker is a game of skill. It's a game of skill, all differential luck notwithstanding. It's a bit like this: if you're a carnivore, you're a carnivore however many vegetables you eat. But I don't think the thing can be turned round, so that we'd say a game of luck remains a game of luck however much skill is involved. That would only be true of cases where as often as not differences of luck produced outcomes running against the better players and in favour of the less good ones. It tends only to happen where the skill factor ranges from minuscule to zero.