Actually, I think your argument rests on a poor understanding of the laws you are criticizing, as you presume incorrectly that they rely on definitions of "game of chance" and "game of skill" such that the former must have no element of skill and the latter no element of chance.

The definitions are different in each case, but none of them work that way. In New York, for instance, the outcome depending materially on chance, whether or not skill is also involved, makes it a game of chance.