Firstly great post man!

The simple answer to your question for me would be YES! I think if people outside of poker knew how much strategy, maths and controlling emotions etc was behind a good poker player they would have to respect that person.

I think you got it spot on with what people outside poker think of it "They laugh at you and scoff at you and say oh you are just saying that because you are in denial you have a gambling problem", this is the exact kind of reaction I get from some people when I tell them I play poker and to be honest sometimes it really p*sses me off! But then other times I'm like hey I don't have to explain myself to you as to why I play poker, if they can't seem to grasp the concept behind the game it's not worth trying to explain it to them. I sometimes tell people it's no different to buying company shares etc that too can be a form of so called "gambling" but they don't seem to look down at that atall!

Sorry maybe went on a bit of a rant there, but again good post man! ;-)

I don't have an advanced degree in mathematics but would I be at least close in saying poker is as complex as some of the most advanced mathematics concepts out right now?

Me neither... but I started one in a prestigious place and gave up to start playing full time. The level of complexity in mathematics is way higher since is a science that is out there for thousands of years and the variety of subjects is enormous. The poker game involves certain aspects that aren't tangible in most cases, so taking into comparison with math isn't the most precise way. 

Also, game theory has been developed (not mathematics of decision) about 70-80 years from now... which implies that the possibilities are huge for improvement in the area and consequently in poker. Nowadays, what is really out there (books/videos) doesn't go much further than the 10-20 first years of game theory development and a lot of ideas are been taken more seriously, like repeated games and bayesian games. 

I am not saying that poker isn't a complicated subject but it is a finite game, so solutions should appear sometime (especially with computers). 

I think it would help if people outside of poker understood the subtle difference between luck and variance. Everyone has an idea and impression of luck, but not of variance. One guy gets lucky...shit happens, he's just lucky...another guy understands variance, understands the probabilities and makes an informed +ev decision. But the thing with the more esoteric aspects of poker is it can get quite dry quite quickly. In TV poker there's been a kind of tug of war regarding how it is presented. A fun game of skill and luck...or a serious game of skill with an element of variance played by hard working highly intelligent professionals. The Norman Chad approach or the Haxton/Busqeut approach to commentary. Entertain the audience or educate the audience. Finding the balance is important.

If we are to educate the ignorant it must be palatable, digestible and interesting...so you can't just hand someone a copy of Mathematics of Poker, but one can very quickly explain simple equities in a standard hand like a pair versus a flush draw with overcards and explain a little about pot odds and why, in the long run, to call a bet of a certain size is a profitable enterprize with a positive expected value.

One can talk about reads and tendencies quite easily too, the difference between a TAG and a LAG, but without using the acronyms. I think it's a case of peeling the layers of the onion, but making it seem neat...opening the doors so to speak of the other person's perception. It doesn't actually take much. We've all done it with friends. Pulled out the cards dealt some hands and shown them stuff and explained stuff they'd never have thought of. Like why it's fine to get caught bluffing, that's always a good one.

So yea, course it would help if more people knew more about the intricacies of the game. I think 'Tony Dunst's Raw Deal' segments on the WPT shows and Stapes's commentary on The Big Game (helped by the Poker Police) were good examples of finding the right balance. Or someone could just develop an Ike Haxton App that could commentate on any given poker hand.

I think it might help more people appreciate the complexity of the game but as far as respecting it as a profession I think it takes us back to Colman's stance on the darkness of the game. By necessity for someone to win other people must lose and everyone seems to know people that may have been hurt by the game. It is a predatory activity and this will never sit well with most people.

Of course on the plus side, for some of us it provides an excellent and stimulating activity that we can continue to learn about and become proficient at and this improves the quality of our lives. But for every success there are multiple failures and some will get hurt because of the addictive nature of the game.

Other professions that provide service to others will always command higher respect. I know that as I get older I am more in awe of doctors and others that earn high income yes, but provide invaluable service to society. Even more so nurses, therapists and other care givers that don't necessarily earn big dollars but greatly improve the quality of life for others. Or those that provide basic services that are critical to everyone. Sometimes I wish that instead of a business career I had chosen something that would have added greater value to the world.

That being said though the more I learn about the game the more I respect and admire the pros that are active on sites like this and share their knowledge and help others develop skills so that we can compete and enjoy playing more. It must help grow the game.

a magic wand gets waved and tomorrow everyone on the planet understands how complex and skill-dominated a game poker is.  who exactly do you propose to continue winning money from? 

For me, before I began playing poker, I would follow my boyfriend to the casino to watch him play blackjack.

Bored, I would walk around and I would see a group of men huddled in the poker room with serious facial expressions and I would have to say that my first impression of poker players was of the stereotypical men who gambles a lot. I hate to say it but some of them looked like pimps ;).

But as I learned the game and began to play online, my perception of poker players began to change. I found out that many were different than my first impression. And as I began to become more obsessive about poker and watch poker online, I also started to watch past poker tv shows and short documentaries like the ones pokerstars make of their pros. Players like Ike Haxton, dawarsaw, and other well known pros like seiver, sulsky and our galfond, they all could be our friends or relatives and the thing that makes them unique is that they play poker for a living. 

They are smart, seem approachable, charismatic, and they represent their profession well.

Personally, I don't think the complexity of poker will cause the general public to respect poker players, but how the people at the top of their game represent themselves.

It's nice to see the pros dress up for the final table. It doesn't necessarily mean having to wear a suit but a nice shirt and a cool jacket to compliment the shirt would make it very appealing. Sunglasses seem fine but enveloping your whole head within a hoodie seem a bit weird (glad to see less of that lately on tv). 

I'm getting a bit too picky but my main point is that, we all love this game. It's complex. It's challenging. It becomes an obsession. And if any of us are lucky enough to represent our game, why can't some people understand that whether they like it or not, the public is watching and will either confirm their stereotypical image of the gambler, or hopefully, accept poker players as professionals. I hope for the latter and I do hope that poker becomes respected as a game of skill where players have devoted countless period of their lives to become good at the game. ;)

Are chess players respected?