>>725501536
>The only thing you can actually, actively elect to do in Balatro is lose.
Now think about this fact more critically. What does it mean to choose to lose? The obvious answer is to do something very stupid like play a single high card 4 times and lose on the first small blind. But looking at various choices in the shop and choosing the wrong thing is also choosing to lose, even if you were not 100% sure that choice would result in a loss. Again, this is similar to poker and blackjack where there is a combination of skill and randomness. The randomness in Balatro is simply more difficult to calculate making the optimal move significantly more difficult to solve for. Knowing the correct time to take something like Obelisk requires a lot of familiarity with the game, and this familiarity and knowledge is a form of skill.
>>725501838
>A "skill" game has a deliberate choice available to the player to win the game by playing well enough.
A game does not always need to be winnable. If that were the case then it would just be a puzzle to solve. The randomness is a test of your judgement and knowledge, and knowing that there is always a true correct choice that will win you game diminishes this.
If this is what you believe then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I will say again my original argument that grouping together games of pure chance and games that mix both chance and skill is incorrect. In doing so you're fail to make a proper point about how casino games are psychological harmful.