When describing a single hand in poker is it best to give all possible relevant information for that hand(your hand, table cards, opponents range/vpip/pfr/bluffs, etc) EXCEPT the outcome?
I say this because if you are asking a question where the answer must always be phrased in terms of probability, then would one instance of an outcome be statistically irrelevant?
Referring back to an answer I posted on Meta (https://poker.meta.stackexchange.com/a/174/88), specifically setting the scene for the situation and then what you observed or more likely did yourself, is crucial for a successful hand history discussion.
Often, a player may find themselves adding more info about the hand than they explicitly thought of at the table. This should give a player pause for thought, because why include it now and not whilst playing! It's possible a Hero should be thinking with the added info in the first place.
"...it's more important to accurately represent what you were thinking at the time, as changing those decisions will be the ultimate influence on your future success."
In terms of probability, yes, a single hand will not be significant. I agree, as I think you allude to, that shouldn't be our focus when discussing hand histories, as inevitably it is a players decisions that add up to their results. The long term statistics will take care of themselves.
Importantly, my reasoning for not including outcomes for a hand, is that they are irrelevant at the time a decision is made, and thus are unnecessary. They are more likely to bias an answer than they are to help it. I always leave them out.
Poker has variance. If they hit a 2 outer on the river that should not change the analysis of the hand. Pros that do channels always include the outcome.
Call or bet the river is just one decision. How you played the hand before is often more important than the final decision.
Knowing the river allows for analysis of how the villain played. They may have got there but still played poorly.
You can lose a hand a play it properly.
