New Study Released Backing up “Game of Skill” Argument

by , Mar 27, 2009 | 9:18 am

Our opposition to HB 222 in Texas said pretty clearly that their whole argument relies on the skill vs. luck debate. That, I think, is “good for poker”. Because while Christian Life Coalitions and Texas Eagle Forums continue to bring out the same old “but you could get dealt a 2-3” argument — actually, I guess they changed it a little bit, because in 2007 they were saying 2-2 — they have yet to show one piece of hard evidence backing up this claim that it as chance-based as the lottery or bingo (which, incidentally, are both legal in Texas).

Meanwhile, anyone who looks at the game (courts included) and talks to people who have played it for a mere 20 minutes understand the luck factor in poker is no different than in stocks, real estate, Scrabble, or life. But because there are some people who insist on pressing their moral agenda on the basis of a provably unintelligent argument, a software security company called Cigital just released a study of 103 million poker hands to counter the luck claims of the people who insist on using just two:

A synopsis of their findings:

Cigital will release a report outlining a study of 103 million hands of Texas Hold ‘Em, which includes compelling statistics showing the outcomes of the games are largely determined by the players’ decisions rather than chance. The results of this study are of great importance to the legal community, where many cases involving poker come down to the question of whether the game is one of predominant skill or chance. As a game of skill, poker should not be categorized as “gambling” under the law.

One Comment to “New Study Released Backing up “Game of Skill” Argument”

  1. G-Squared

    I certainly hope that HB 222 gets it’s fair hearing in the TX House. Driving to OK to play gets old fast. Though the Cigital data shows an overwhelmingly large margin of support for the “Skill” argument, 103 million hands may still not be enough. Categorizing it in the legal community as not being a form of gambling is the easy part, but convincing the non poker-playing public (repeat 5 times fast) that poker is not gambling and therefore “bad” will be much more difficult.