court also stated that “[t]he small amount of skill required to play the games is clearly overshadowed by pure chance.” 233 Kan. at 449. This off-hand statement was in the context of the case, dicta. It is also die sole source for the proffered test in this case. The parties do not cite and we have not found any other Kansas cases that have directly considered the role of chance and skill in determining whether a game is an illegal lottery. Although the predominate factor test has never been expressly applied by a Kansas appellate court, it has been applied in other states. See Com. v. Dent, 992 A.2d 190, 196 (Pa. Super. 2010) (applying predominate factor test in finding that Texas Hold’Em is a game of chance); Joker Club, L.L.C. v. Hardin, 183 N.C. App. 92, 97, 643 S.E.2d 626 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Indoor Recreation Enterprises, Inc. v.
holding that the hgn test may be considered as a factor in determining probable cause holding that video game maker defendants have met both requirements of the rogers balancing test and are entitled as a matter of law to a first amendment defense to plaintiffs lanham act claims holding that a video game clearly qualifies as an artistic work entitled to first amendment protection holding that the level of detail in testimony is a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances test of credibility employed by immigration judges holding that poker is a game of chance under the predominate factor test