The "social relationship" exclusion was enacted specifically for the country club and downtown social club games, which run to this day.
Here is the 1993 Jane Norton legal opinion where she briefly examines poker as a skill game, however, concludes that the legislature can prohibit it.
http://www.ago.state.co.us/agopinions/ago9305.cfm.html
Here is the relevant Poker analysis:
Poker.
The game of poker is more problematic. The Supreme Courts of Montana and Oregon have decided that poker is a game of skill "with one player pitting his skills and talents against those of other players." Gallatin County v. D & R Music Vending, 208 Mont. 138, 141, 676 P.2d 779, 781 (1984); State v. Coats, 158 Or. 122, 74 P.2d 1102, 1106 (1938). But the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that it is a game of chance. Mills Jennings of Ohio, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 70 Ohio St. 2d 95, 435 N.E. 2d 407, 409 (1982).
The tension inherent in those decisions is reflected in some of our own supreme court's pronouncements on the subjects of lotteries and poker. In Bills v. People, supra, 113 Colo. at 332, 157 P.2d at 142, the court found that the essential evil of lotteries is the cultivation and stimulation of the spirit of gambling. Later, in In re Interrogatories of Governor, supra, 196 Colo at 357, 585 P.2d at 598, the court explained the intent of the framers of the Colorado Constitution to rid this state of that evil:
The framers of our constitution prohibited lotteries in the broadest terms at the time Article XVIII Section 2 was enacted. In so doing, they were seeking to suppress and restrain the spirit of gambling which is cultivated and stimulated by schemes whereby one is induced to hazard his earnings with the hope of large winnings.
These statements suggest that our constitutional prohibition against lotteries must be broadly interpreted -- perhaps broadly enough to include poker.
However, our supreme court has also stated:
There is no prohibition in our Constitution which prevents the legislature, or the people from authorizing certain forms of gambling. It unquestionably is true that all lotteries and gift enterprises are forms of gambling, but it does not follow that all gambling is a "lottery" or "gift enterprise" as these terms are defined in law. No one would contend that a game of poker, in which money is bet upon the relative value of the cards held by the participants constitutes a lottery, but it most certainly is a form of gambling.
Ginsberg v. Centennial Turf Club, supra, 126 Colo. at 477, 251 P.2d at 929 (emphasis added). Although it is dicta in Ginsberg, the characterization that poker is not a lottery has recently been cited by the court in Charnes v. Central City Opera House, 773 P.2d 546, 551 (Colo. 1989).
While the call is a close one, I conclude that poker, as narrowly defined in Section 12-47.1-103(22), is a game in which skill, not chance, dominates, and that legislative authorization of certain forms of poker would not be prohibited by Article XVIII Section 2. That is not to say that on a case-by-case basis some forms of poker could be construed as more akin to games of chance, or a "lottery." Of course the fact that poker is not constitutionally prohibited in all cases does not mean that it is legal; the prohibitions of Article 10 of Title 18 still apply. See generally People v. Wheatridge Poker Club, 194 Colo. 15, 569 P.2d 324 (1977). Poker remains illegal unless and until the Legislature acts to change the criminal statutes.