When older individuals get stuck on something, it is very hard to move them from their judgment and moreover, change their mind in any way.  Parents across the country are finding it hard to believe that poker is indeed a game of skill.  Sure poker implies gambling; therefore luck and chance are prevalent.  However, the debate of whether poker is a skills game or a chance game doesn't even exist in many older citizens mind.

Many poker players would argue that bluffing skills, mathematical calculations, and reading abilities all contribute to the "skill" aspect of poker.  Also, bankroll management skills and persistent final table appearances also bolster the idea that poker can indeed be coined as a game that involves skill.

When gambling swept the nation, many people loved it.  It was an instant hit, a thrill that was unlike any other.
This mass gambling era provided happiness to many families and players whom couldn't get enough of it.  But just like those who are for something, many parents, and citizens agreed that gambling is a sin, and deteriorates households.  These progressives believed that sportsbetting and gambling, like alcohol could break apart families, ruin the lives of youths, and poison young children.  Not saying it couldn't, I strongly disagree with progressives who preach poker is solely a game of luck and chance.

Every parent has the right to determine what their children do in their spare time.  If they don't want their children to play poker, or online casino games then fine, keep them away from it. However it is unjust to criticize a game that many people believe if leisurely and fun just because they disagree with the extras' that follow behind it.

Poker is a game of skill, luck, chance, and even a spice of attitude.  It is a form of gambling, and should be regulated nonetheless. 

My point is: many parents struggle to accept poker and skill can dissolve to form a solution and that is perfectly fine! However it is not okay to rant off about how poker is evil and how sinful the game is without experiencing it first hand and making a solid argument of why so.