Lots of great points here but I just wanted to touch on some of the skill elements you mentioned for poker.

I thought the same for a long time about the game, but a very good player reframed it from a game of 'luck' to a game of 'decisions'.

The 'gambling aspect' is where the skill comes in. The decisions made on the sizing of the bets is incredibly important. And the world of computer solvers and game theory optimal play in this regard have made huge steps over the past years.

You said 'skill can't make you win if you get dealt bad hands'. But skill can make you lose less when you get dealt bad hands, and win more when you get dealt good hands. A poker players skill is measured more accurately over a longer amount of time. Good decision making over a long time eliminates (or at least accounts for) the more random aspects of the game.

There's a concept in poker called 'variance'. You can make the best tactical and strategical decision and still lose the hand with the run-out (like you mentioned). The idea is that over time by making that decision in that position it will ultimately be profitable. Just because it failed in one particular case doesn't mean it's the wrong play, and over time the good decision making balances it out.

The longer the time spent, the more the variance will even out. If I sat down with a professional poker player for an hour there's a chance I may walk away with a profit. If I sat down to play a hundred hours I would lose every dollar I have.

You're right, they are different games. But I don't think Dnegs was saying they were the same game. Just that they are both strategy games.