UK Court Errs in Poker Ruling

I saw this item at FoxNews and had to comment:

In the end, good fortune had the stronger hand. A jury decided yesterday that luck, not skill, played the greater part in poker in a landmark ruling on the status of gambling in Britain.

Derek Kelly, the chairman of a private members’ club in London, lost his fight to make poker exempt from gambling legislation on the grounds that it was a game of skill.

He was found guilty of breaking the 1968 Gaming Act, after hosting two poker games at the Gutshot club, bar and restaurant in Clerkenwell, Central London. The jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court found him guilty of breaching the Act on December 7, 2004, when a levy was charged on the winnings, and on January 27, 2005, when a fee was charged to take part.

The Act states that a licence is needed to host games of chance such as blackjack and roulette, but not games of skill, such as chess and quiz machines. The trial was seen as a test of whether poker should fall under the remit.

I don't play poker, but I'm a fan of some of the televised poker shows like the World Poker Tour and the World Series of Poker. You don't have to watch for long to realize that there is a tremendous amount of skill involved in poker. If the best hand always won, I would agree that poker was more a game of luck, but I've seen players with great hands bluffed right out of their shorts by some guy who had absolutely nothing. It takes skill to read your opponent, know how to bet your hand, and know when to get out of a hand.

I think the court was wrong on this one.