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:

http://www.cigital.com/resources/poker/100M-Hand-AnalysisReport.pdf

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 of the groups opposing all things legal-pokery in Texas is the Texas Eagle Forum, which recently spoke out against a bill for full-on casinos in Texas:

From Texas Weekly:

Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams, telling the Houston Chronicle what she thinks about the job growth projected if casinos are legalized: “Why in the world would we want our children to grow up to be card dealers and waitresses?”

So there you have it. OK, now we know where we stand. As much as I like to soapbox about the issues not being moral contentions so much as money and tax-chip-shifting and legally acceptable pocket-lining, Cathie lets us know it really is a cultural issue — one where our opponents see professional casino employees and service industry workers as lesser people who have chosen a life-path their parents couldn’t be proud of. The good side is that she makes our competition seem weak. The bad side is she represents the types of landmines that poker interests will have to maneuver through no matter how well we’re playing.