Part of me is surprised about yesterday's decision in relation to the commercial hosting of poker games without a licence.

Just because a game involves an element of chance does not make it one without skill.

An example given of 'pure skill' is quiz machines – yet the machine picks the questions to ask at random from a fixed selection of supposed difficulty. If you happen to be 'dealt' the 'right' questions, i.e. ones you already know the answers to, you win. If you're dealt the 'wrong' ones, then you lose.

The setters of the questions for Who Wants to be a Millionaire thought knowing the size of a google was worth £1m – I knew this at primary school! They also think questions about soap operas are easy, but I typically won't have a clue about the answer. Does this make me skillful or not?

So I'm sure this one will go to appeal, not least as I am sure I remember a decision relating to Backgammon going the other way in the late 70s/early 80s. Yet that turns out to be currently considered a game of luck by the Gaming Commission. To which I can only say 'Would they like to play for money?'

Another amazing discovery is that they think 'French Roulette' (single 0 on the wheel) has effectively died out in Britain and been almost totally replaced by 'American Roulette' (0 and 00 on the wheel = double the house's advantage). Instead of insisting that casinos offer both, or even banning the American version, they've acquiesced in this theft.