I asked because I realized I may have misunderstood your point. That's all. And I think I may have. I don't have enough information to verify this belief (hence I was asking) but it's not important enough for me to continue this discussion. So FYI.
For future reference, it would be helpful to lead your response with this information, because responding to detailed explanation with:
Okay. Please define and give an example of "conclusions" then in a hockey context. Use a trade example.
Are you saying that the outcome of a trade doesn't matter?
... has a pretty dismissive and accusational "Oh yeah? Well nevermind that, what about THIS, then!" tone, at least from my perspective. What specifically is it that you may have misunderstood, though?
In a hockey trade, the arguments that people make still need to have premises and conclusions that follow logically (where true premises would always result in that conclusion). If the nature of a trade (like a poker hand) creates uncertain outcomes, then it is impossible to rationally draw certain conclusions that promise a certain outcome and do not account for this uncertainty.
Therefore, the principle holds true either way.
If you have a conclusion that appropriately accounts for uncertainty and is a statement about
likelihood of an outcome based on known information, then that could be rational (and if so, would always be true/correct, like your "the player should always call with that poker hand" argument), and a contradictory outcome is irrelevant/would not change the correctness or rationality of this conclusion.
If you have a conclusion that doesn't account for uncertainty and is a statement about what the outcome will be given certain premises, of course the outcome of the trade would matter, but that could never be a rational/valid argument to begin with, regardless of how probable the conclusion is.
If you make an argument that logically needs to consider an uncertain outcome in order to be true, but doesn't include this in their premises, then, in theory, that would be an irrational argument as well (even if the outcome ends up agreeing with the argument).
However a person's argument happens to be framed, it's impossible for them to be rational while also drawing conclusions that can turn out to be incorrect.
Is there any confusion about what I mean?