As a history teacher, I find it fascinating how society defines gambling. Chess is considered a game of skill, but poker—arguably just as strategic—is lumped in with games of pure chance like roulette.
The UK courts even ruled that poker is gambling, despite countless studies showing that skilled players consistently win long-term. Yet, professional poker players are taxed differently from, say, chess grandmasters. It’s almost like people don’t want to admit that poker requires intelligence.
Should we start pushing to redefine poker as a game of skill? Or do we just accept that, because money is involved, it’ll always be considered "gambling"?
The UK courts even ruled that poker is gambling, despite countless studies showing that skilled players consistently win long-term. Yet, professional poker players are taxed differently from, say, chess grandmasters. It’s almost like people don’t want to admit that poker requires intelligence.
Should we start pushing to redefine poker as a game of skill? Or do we just accept that, because money is involved, it’ll always be considered "gambling"?