The Ohio AG made the following
comment in a release about what is and isn't considered legal gambling for charity in Ohio:[ QUOTE ]
A game of chance includes poker, black jack or any other game in which a player gives up anything of value in the hope of gain, the outcome of which is determined largely by chance.
[/ QUOTE ]I made the following overly emotional statement in another forum in response to this:[ QUOTE ]
If poker is "determined largely by chance," how is it that the same players are always on my TV? There are many pro poker players who make livings off of poker alone and the same can be said for blackjack - why are there no pro slot machine players?
I challenge Jim Petro to sit down at a poker table with two of his Neocon cronies and three of the best poker players in the Rat Pack
[note: The Rat pack is a local group of poker players in central Ohio] in whatever games and stakes and formats they want. The money they win above their buy-in will go to the charity of their choice. The money we win above the buy-in will go to the Ohio Democratic Party. If it's "determined largely by chance," they have as good a chance as us, right?
[/ QUOTE ]Now, it occured to me that if I was going to want to initiate some kind of challenge that it should fit the following criteria:
a) Demonstrate that poker is not "determined largely by chance."
b) Do so in a relatively short period of time since politicians and the media are all about sound bites.
Is it possible that I can come up with some kind of challenge that would show that poker is a game of skill that still manages to hedge my bets against the luck factor which is admittedly more prominent with smaller sample sizes?