Was it my little story that influenced your stats rant? 
Anyways, I think that you are spot on with the idea that knowing stats is an edge, and nothing more. When I brought up my little rant to the guy I was playing against online, I was really just trying to piss the guy off. I had been moving in quite a bit, and yes, I was "statistically" not the favorite to win each time I doubled up. Then, once I had some chips to work with, I was calling all-ins with great hands (statistical favorite), and I was losing. After another one of my double-ups, this guy starts complaining about how "lucky" I had been, that I was moving in with the statistically worse hand and winning. I pretty much told the guy that statistics are nice on paper, but when all is said and done, they don't mean too much on each individual hand.
Think of a hand where a player is a 60-40 underdog. Statistically, they should win 4 out of every 10 times that hand is played, or 40 our of every 100 times the hand is played, or even 400 out of 1000 times the hand is played, etc...and on that particular hand, it only has to happen once for them to win. Where does that particular hand fall on the 10 hand timeline, or the 100 hand timeline, or the 1000 hand timeline, etc.? It is impossible to know until the hand is over with, and by that point, the statistic influence gone, as the hand has become part of the statistic itself.
I hope all of that at least makes sense to somebody. It is pretty much an early morning idea I just came up with, and it filled some time up at work to write all of that up. I am not saying that statistics are irrelevant. It is only in the long run, though, that stats really come into play. Also, the decisions that the player makes are the only things affected by statistics, as statistics have no direct influence on the way the cards fall. On the bright side of all of this, it has made me think about Mike Caro and his idea that the significance between starting hands is not nearly as great as many people like to believe it is, and how much more rational it sounds. On paper, it looks nice, but in reality, you still have to put together a 5 card hand.
true enough. as long as you arent dominated, even 27o still does well enough against non pairs. but you gotta choose one side, might as well be a favorite as much as possible.
and no, you didnt entirely get me onto that talk about playing by statistics, this is actually a weekly thing I hear online. people think playing by statistics means being a boring passive player who only plays good hands and never gets out of line. and that "playing by statistics" is not the only way to win.
but all i mean is having an edge, through whatever means a player chooses. you can be a player like ryan and bluff so much that you win so many uncontested pots as to amount to an edge over some competition. i actually think he has an edge over many players who cant seem to adjust to his style. or you can play mostly straightforward solid poker, and certainly have an edge over most players. either way, you're winning because of that +EV edge, that statistical edge. or else you'd be losing (long term.)
youre defintely right about making a 5 card hand though. a common trap amongst weaker players is waiting for that premium hand but then being unable to let it go after a bad flop. anyways, good thoughts man.
Commenting by HaloScan
