When I first saw that case coming to court a few weeks back I could see he was on a definite hiding to nothing as the court case was specifically about the about "Texas-hold 'em" version of poker which is, by definition, pure luck and not skill. In other versions of poker, where the player can change the cards in their hand, there is clearly an element of skill in deciding which, if any, cards to hand in for replacement. In "hold-'em" though the player has no choice in the cards whatsoever as they are dealt out and can't be changed. The only "skill", if one could even try to call it that, is in deciding not to play (and given you'd have to ante up to get dealt cards in the first place even that is debatable)

The concept that Backgammon is 'luck' whilst Chess continues to be 'skill' is, indeed, wrong though ...