So what you're saying is that anyone who posts on 2+2 is by definition a very solid player who would never ever be swayed or mislead by results, unconsciously or otherwise, due to their infallible conceptual understanding of the mathematical foundations of the game built up over hundreds of thousands of hands, research, and analysis.

Wait, that does sound like your average NL2 player imo.

We then get to see the exciting results of yet another hand, on which people can comment instead of contributing to the strategy question.

Nice. Who needs analysis anyway because we should all know already what to do.

Ok, you turned me round on this one.

The implicit strategy question is almost always "did I play my hand and/or range correctly versus villains range given the available knowledge we have (from pop to specifically listed reads)? Yes, I think that's the question most people are usually answering even when the vast majority of the time they don't say it that way. And if people are specifically answering that implicit question I think it rarely matters if they know the results or not.

Again, I think most people somewhat assume hero lost the hand anyway since they are posting it=> implying a range of hands that beats hero's. But we all ignore that assumption and try to answer as if we never made.

My point is that assumption, which is usually true, is essentially the same thing as seeing a spoiled result. No, I don't think the better posters will be influenced much, if any, by seeing it.

People, in general, know when to pick and choose between who's advice to follow or not. The noobiest of the noobs that you are highlighting might and probably will not but literally nothing but more experience and study will help them anyway.

The part that you said facetiously about why do we need analysis because we know what to do is actually truer than you are making it out. Most of what should be done is pretty obvious, but sometimes bad choices are made in the moment or for emotional reasons, and it's good to see whether there's agreement or not on what you think you should have done instead.

Again, even if people aren't affected it prevents the accusation of "You're only saying that because you can see villain's hand". Nobody ever says "You're only saying fold because OP's are usually losses" and so that's a non-issue.

The rule didn't materialise out of the ether, it was made because having it prevents a lot of squabbling. Although you've found a way to nullify that, so well done.

4 bet size is fine, we're deep.

size your bet on the flop to leave yourself around a 2/3 pot size shove on the turn. The problem here is that you've got to the river with really awkward stack sizes.