Correct. Since there is no legal definition of "games of skill" yet, the industry and its' collective counsel, along with some court cases, have established a

Correct. Since there is no legal definition of "games of skill" yet, the industry and its' collective counsel, along with some court cases, have established a set of parameters by which there is a de facto standard for it. If a state wants to define the term, they are free to do so. My personal definition of the term is that a player must perform better than random chance (i.e. you cannot do better at roulette than a randomizer can), and also be able to win consistently, long term (i.e. you cannot beat multi-deck blackjack). We have players that have impressive winning records over thousands of contests. It's possible poker fits this definition and there are people trying to demonstrate it. I certainly know that I am not very good at it!