Looking for a GQ answer but I will understand if a mod moves it if it turns into GD replies.
I know that it is not poker per se that is illegal, just banking transactions but as I pointed out during the Kentucky Derby, online gambling on the race was apparently allowed. Now with DraftKings we can gamble on fantasy football and some people are talking about the possibility of online sportbooks. So why is poker still the odd one out?
Actually, poker itself, even social poker, is illegal in many jurisdictions. Not sure how it varies by state, but California used to have an old, old law against “stud horse poker” - and since no one could say for sure what that was, all forms of poker were tightly controlled and illegal outside of licensed card rooms. (I think that’s changed in recent years.)
So at least one reason is that people in a town, county or state where poker is illegal could participate. It’s rarely just poker, BTW, but all forms of online gambling that are barred. The usual argument is that poker is somehow exceptional and “a game of skill,” not gambling.
As an online activity, I’d think that Interstate Commerce provisions would apply, and regulation of online gaming would be a federal matter.
Not the way I play it. 
Maybe this
Actually its only illegal to play poker for real money.
Anyone who thinks poker is not a game of skill, I would love to get into a game with you. I think, and this is just my opinion, it was banned early on, partly because it was a game of skill and poor players would lose their shirts to the detriment of their families. Prohibition was based on similar considerations.
True story: when I was in grad school, the physics department was located on the floor below the math department. There were two physics grad students who played head-to-head poker incessantly. It turned out that one of them was financing the other one’s grad school education. This couldn’t happen in a game of luck, say tossing coins fairly.
There is a long running dispute about backgammon. Whether it is a game of skill or luck. Many States have ruled that it is gambling not skill.
That’s because if there’s not valuta on the table, it’s not poker.
But I’ve memorized the odds, dude. You’d be toast. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: 
That’s because money is wagered on it, and it’s almost trivially easy to hustle and cheat. Even many hardcore money players are oblivious to the idea of cheating.
People lose their shirts in all manner of types of gambling. They lose their shirts to slot machines, bingo, blackjack and craps. I know a guy who lost $70,000 on scratch tickets. Those are NOT games of skill; you cannot win in the long run.
Online poker’s banned because it was to the benefit of moneyed interests to do so, and so they paid legislators to ban it.
I assume you mean brick and mortar casinos.
While I wouldn’t argue, there are a LOT of things online that more traditional business and market segments hate, and I don’t see widespread bans based on, say, Target out to get Amazon.
Maybe because it’s a “vice” - but I think the reasons are deeper than Indian Casino money.
They’re games of luck with expectation less than 1 since the house takes a cut. A true game of luck is just a 50-50 proposition. I’ll take the house on any of those games. In poker, you do have to overcome the rake, but it is game of skill.
Also, note that all of the other forms of gambling you name are not, AFAIK, legal to play online in the US, either. Legality of gambling in the US varies by state, and the banning of online poker just brings it in line with those other forms of gambling.
(Note: I’m not commenting on whether or not that entire policy is a good idea or not.)
But isn’t betting on horse-racing or fantasy football luck and not skill? What makes these distinctive from poker?
And my understanding is that online poker is not illegal (at least with offshore casinos) but what is illegal are banking transaction to those casinos.
Which moneyed interests benefited?
I think they are still illegal in those jurisdictions that do not allow them to take place locally. The banking transactions are merely the method of enforcement.
Casinos.
Nearly all games of all sorts have some element of chance.
Some games are entirely games of chance (like betting on the toss of a coin), while many games involve elements of both skill and chance.
I was under the impression that “gambling” was typically defined to include only games that are entirely chance; but if there is any element of skill involved, however little, then anti-gambling laws don’t apply to such games. Does anyone know if this is correct?
So it seems that everyone agrees that poker entails some degree of skill. Why is it illegal anywhere, then?
This is not true, at least in Illinois.
So professional sports like tennis and golf (i.e. playing for a purse) are gambling in Illinois?
Nope, it come under one of the exceptions in subsection b
There are lots more exceptions., but the point of the originally quoted section is to define gambling as including games of skill.