If he has to prove poker is "purely skill" he has no chance, with any jury. Even a jury made up entirely of BTP folks (if we were honest).

He has to prive pure skill. The prosecution is arguing mixed skill and luck. The prosecution is right.

The guy was running MTT's in London without a gaming licence.

I sure as hell don't want the UK courts to start finding it isn't a game of chance as that is what the 'no tax on winnings' ruling is based on.

In the context of this case I sincerely hope the ultimate decision is that poker is predominantly a game of luck with some elements of skill.

We can all wave the flag for poker and yeah I like the Gutshot and the principle behind it but (without looking into this further, and thus leaving myself vulnerable to being a total fucking idiot like I usually am) it seems to me this is a case whereby a club owner decided to (?) evade tax, and DEFINITELY evade legality in making a good chunk of cash running a poker game.

I'm not convinced that "winning" this case is the best thing for poker anyways. Do you really want every opponent you play to understand that poker is legally a game which does not involve luck? That the law of the land in which you live is TELLING them that they're not gambling or playing a game of luck, but a game in which they are guaranteed to lose?

Maybe there's a balance to strike between publicity and too MUCH publicity, and between pushing poker and protecting the rights of people who actually do something constructive for a living. I'm all for people in power taking their pound of flesh from the world of poker because we contribute absolutely nothing useful to society or humanity. I love the game but it SHOULD be hammered by the powers that be, ahead of almost anything else - the mental skills you learn playing poker are a hugely positive influence in life but with that one exception it doesn't contribute much more to society than any other plaything. The defendant in this case is (presumably) making a few quid out of it whilst ignoring the (admittedly ignorant) law of the land so although I don't blame him, I'm not going to be jumping up in his defence either....