Chess and Poker

The fact that who plays white and who plays black in a single game of chess is randomly chosen proves that chess is not 100% skill.

Both are great games of skill but there is an element of chance in poker while
chess is 100% skill.

...

The main issues are the suitable long runs can be ridiculously large and the short-term variances can be incredibly large.  Particularly with $10,000 entry fee tournaments if you a world class player sufficiently skilled to get a 70-30 edge on the field, and the typical field is about 2000 players, you're still unlikely to win in any practical time frame.

For $10/$20 limit hold'em, 2 players using an identical strategy for 3 years of professional play can differ by $5/hour and have done so in tests!  If you're playing 40+ hrs/week that's over $10,000/year in differences in a situation specifically chosen for low variance.

In $10,000 entry tournaments it frequently happens that good players have 10 non-cashes in a row due to bad beats or the occasional blunder/mistake/inaccuracy (misread, etc) so $100,000 negative swings certainly do occur.

...

But I was most successful in cash games where the variance is lower.  Poker Tournaments are the epitome of high variation.  90% of the players lose the entry fee, 5% get roughly 150% of the entry fee and the remaining 5% show solid to massive wins.

Technically, I believe the difference is that Chess is a game of complete information, while Poker is a game played with incomplete information. So the skill sets required to play each game at a very high level are somewhat different. But there are overlaps as well. Planning, memory, concentration, these are required skills at both games.