In poker especially, being results-oriented is looked down upon as wrong or negative. Winning a big pot but making some -EV call pf will be frowned upon regardless of the outcome. But what if the outcome is more important than the path taken? People knowledgable in a game will always criticize something they see as fundamentally flawed, regardless if it works. But I truly believe this is a lot of times backwards thinking.

For example: Kevin Martin is a professional basketball player. However, put this guy in a gym with professional scouts, give him no identity to their knowledge, and let him shoot a jumpshot. I promise you, regardless if it goes in, every one of them will criticize it. "Bad form", "Bad technique", "Shoots from the left side", "Wrong". We could ask them if it was an okay shot since it went in, and they would give us that good old answer that, "You're being results-oriented". Then let him shoot 100 more times, and as he makes about 90-95 of them, let them keep telling them he's doing it wrong. How can a guy doing something so fundamentally wrong, being doing it so right? Be doing it so successfully? Isn't it entirely possible that fundamentally flawed is less important than results? If someone is playing fundamentally-flawed poker but has over a 10-year span a winrate of 5bb/100 and $100k winnings, isn't it possible that fundamental poker might just not be the best idea for them? Could their flawed strategy actually be optimal in every instance they are at their table?

Are the 2010 Super Bowl Champion New Orleans Saints a legitimate champion, or are we being results-oriented? A turning point in them winning the game came when they elected to go for an onside-kick after halftime, a play that has approximately 1 in 4 chance of working. Can we tell them that they're champs, but they don't really deserve it as they played the game "wrong?"

For games that are completely 100% math-based, being results-oriented is actually wrong, as you're mathematically making bad plays and it will even out over time. However, poker is not 100% math-based. There are endless variations and infinite ways to be creative vs whichever opponents you face.

In Nikachu's most recent video, he talks about a 6-max regular playing a nitty style, and not adapting to aggressive regulars by loosening up. His stats were given as 14/7. I promise you so many poker coaches will tell you he's "too tight", yet he has a winrate of 10bb/100 and $200k in winnings. Do we really believe that he'd be winning at a higher percentage if he played a proper TAG style?

I hope my thoughts on this inspire at least a few people to listen to what's working best for them, in any aspect of life, no matter how many people tell you it's wrong. And I leave you with this quick true story: in 1966, a man named Don Haskins was appointed head coach of a college basketball team Texas Western. Against the wisdom of others, he recruited african-america players who he was told "lacked fundmantals" among other things, yet they went on to use their "flawed" abilities to win the national championship. Maybe we're just being results-oriented, maybe they just got lucky and solid fundamentals will prevail. Maybe. Maybe.