Perhaps! But at least it's something we can attempt to discuss. As opposed to whether or not "luck" is a component in something, which is just a message-board dork argument.
You seemed to be the one who made the grand statement about it being a game of skills.
How is me saying that it's both skills and luck a message-board dork argument? Pray tell.
The point is that there are games that are not luck. Such as chess or go then there are games that are pure luck such as drinking games with highest card drink.
Since everybody already knows that games exist on a continuum from solvability to coin-flip randomness, you haven't contributed any insight to the discussion, but you're very intent on demonstrating to us all that you know that the continuum exists, and that at least 2 games you can name exist on the far end of that spectrum.
Hey, message board geek? (And, I'm calling you that because it takes one to know one.)
We know there are things that have little to no luck involved in them, and things that have a lot of luck in them. Yes: there is more "skill" (let's not have the message board geek argument about what that word means) in chess.
I'm sorry. I've mishandled this. What I should have said to begin with is, "Yes, ThomPete, you are right, and I was wrong. Poker is a game of both skill and luck. Thank you for clarifying that for all of us; it would have been terrible indeed to let stand the incorrect notion that luck was not a factor in poker."