[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
i would assume his 3% edge figure is some sort of mathematical extrapolation using the old axiom of a good player being able to win 1BB per hour - i think others could use different bases and come up with different figures, but a 3% edge per hand in the long run seems a reasonable sounding figure to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be, and I agree the figure one comes up with is highly dependent on what the assumptions are and what they even mean by "a 3% increase in the chance to have a successful outcome." While it was a polite and somewhat reasonable-sounding response, I rather doubt the gentleman understands the details of what he is talking about.

My best guess is the 3% in draw poker merely has to do with who ends up with the winning hand (i.e., the skill involved in this calculation is merely the skill in choosing which cards to discard). If so, the number is meaningless in hold em, Omaha, stud, or any other game where the player doesn't discard and draw. It also wouldn't take into account the skill associated with betting and raising decisions.

On the other hand, say the 3% is, as Mike suggests, something along the lines of the house advantage in a casino game. 3% in that case is rather significant. Again, as Mike says, with that kind of advantage, the better player will almost surely win after a large number of hands.

Be all this as it may, the upshot of this is really that they don't care if poker is a game of skill; they care that there is wagering involved, and they want to regulate it and/or prohibit it.