In an effort to prove poker is indeed a game of skill, the PPA recently filed a 20 page brief in a Colorado court. One eyebrow raising submission in the brief was the contention that poker and golf each contain an equal amount of skill. To prove their point the PPA included the following numbers in the attached image:

The case in question was brought against Kevin Raley, one of five people arrested in a low-stakes poker bust in Greeley. Raley was acquitted on illegal gambling charges, but Colorado has appealed his ability to argue that poker is a game of skill.

Raley also argued that he wasn’t guilty of illegal gambling because: "everyone at the tournament had a social relationship." The jury found Raley not guilty, but it's unclear whether te assetion that poker is a game of skill had any bearing on their decision.

Personally I find the comparison a bit of stretch: In the first place you cannot buy into the PGA Championship, and secondly the field size is constant in the PGA Championship. However it is an interesting comparison, and in my eyes the small number of repeat/multiple champions proves the exact opposite of what was intended: Among equally skilled players, luck will play a large role in who wins!

The best way to show poker as a game of skill is to prove you can make a living from it. So, why don't we just take 100 top tournament players results(cash games being impossible to accurately track) over the last 20 years and compare their winnings to buy-ins?