Why is the polish opening so good yet never played?

you have ignored literally everything i  have told on the matter like a good patzer. You literally using a database like a club. 

by that same database 

1.na3 scores 43% white win rate, far higher than the  big 4.
1.nc3 is worse than equal when it is well established that it is at worst dead even.

the best opening is 1.g3! among those with sufficiently large sample size (at least 3 digit number of games).

ALAS chimp with machine gun all over again

gain a good thousand points and then talk to me, or at least learn how to interpret the results of a freaking database first without making a fool of yourself.

1. f4 is worse than 1. b4 objectively. 1. b4 helps with development of your dark-squared bishop which will in turn help control the centre. 1. f4 does help control the centre, but it does not help with development; worse yet, it weakens your king.

The reason why the reversed Sokolsky is not playable is because it is too slow. You have to play a6 to support the b5 pawn. When played with White, our extra tempo is put to good use and we do not generally need to play a3 (in most lines White will react to attacks on the b-pawn by just pushing it!). An issue with playing the Dutch as White is that it is a very reactive opening: your best plan of attack is very often dependent on how your opponent has committed their pieces and you need as much information as possible. Thus, the extra tempo is often best spent on a waiting move like Kh1.

No you're the one who doesn't listen. I have explained all that stuff you talked about and investigated the lines. You haven't explained anything.

You're the one who's actually acting like a chimp. Instead of explaining anything through evidence you just get angry and insult and intimidate. You act like a bully. It's pathetic.

i woudnt go that far to be honest, what you are saying is correct, but 1.f4 has the advantage of being much more flexible than 1.b4. White can play it like a larsen, like  stonewall, like a reverssed leningrad and sometimes with 2.e4 . b4 doesnt have this flexibility.

to me, they are about equally respectable, both equalize faster than the big 4 but are not objectively worse than black (despite some initial inflated evals early on want to say, playing on shows the eval quickly reaching 0.00)

It doesn't even matter who's right. The way you talk and behave is so pathetic. Just because you don't like someone's opinion you go absolutely berserk and start insulting. Someone should have disciplined you properly as a child. I can't even imagine how much of a pain it must be to deal with you in real life.

Like I said. Sit down, shut your mouth and learn some humility.

dont talk to me again. pure waste of my time. When experts and masters talk class players listen. you ignore this sacred rule and you end up with a zoo here. im not paid to put up with your opinion. in fact, im not paid, sharing my knowledge here is practically volunteer work.

This may be a bit off topic, but in my research into a new opening, I ran into an interesting situation where the engine finds 0.00 (with several options for Black to maintain the balance), but White had massive plus scores at the GM-level. PHN mentioned the same on the Chicken Chess Podcast several weeks ago. Specifically, the engine will almost always reduce to 0.00 in a somewhat reasonable line, but, then the question becomes how easy is it for the other side to find an active plan.

While I have not run into that many lines of the Polish where White has that problem, it is worth noting that in general just saying "the engine says it is 0.00 so it must be okay" is a bit like looking up the answer to your calculus homework in the back of the book and just checking the answer (but not the process).

dang, powerful words, man - looks like the poor dude got muted!

not all 0.00 are created equal. this is 100% true. Some lines are just way harder to mantain said equality than others. They are some computer lines in the old exchange variation with 4.c4 where this may in fact apply ! this will likely reflect in opening stats. but this is also when one must focus more on the engine and see what exactly needs to be played.

evals hide worlds. 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d5 is known to be practically very dangerous for black but engines may slighlty prefer black at first. 1.d3 d5 2.e4 and queen swap is practically 0.00 but it bloodless for white. the vienna gambit is 0.00 but they are so many ways to play and be within striking distance of 0.00 to be desirable to know as a weapon.

this actually  applies more to black openings though, they are plenty of interesting defenses, where the engine may say 0.6-0.8 and look just about playable but much slower to equalize but black is in fact walking a fine line where 1 secondary move makes the eval go 1.3+ and you may already be busted.

This is true. Very often in the Sokolsky the position will be 0.0 because the opponent will have played in a way that is very symmetric (I personally found 1. b4 b6 to be quite annoying in the past) but there are some more imbalanced lines where White does very well.

For example:

Is a position where the engine gives a slight edge to Black and yet White wins more games than Black (winning 50% of games and drawing 27% of games at the master level). Here White's plan is to at some point play either c4 or d4 and break at Black's centre with support for their pieces and go on the offensive. Black's plan is... Oh dear! I don't know Black's plan!

funny you mention 1.b4 b6 (although similar idea is more commonly seen via 1.nf6 2.e6 first then qid play). i  play 1.b3 b5 as black quite often as white will struggle to prove even slight advantage if he plays normally  and 2.e4 welcomes unique complications.   It is psychologically very annoying when your opponent out -offbeats you with impunity xD

I liked that dude but it was bound to happen, he likes confrontation. Hope he comes back tho.

The biggest misunderstanding I hear commonly about engines is that they can evaluate positions.
"This position is +0.6" and "This position is -0.03" are not inherently true statements when consulting an engine.
If an engine at depth 50 says 0.00, what it means is that with best play from both players, 25 moves from the position, the position will still be perfectly even. The engine didn't actually evaluate that position, it evaluated a theoretical position much farther down the road.
A fantastic example of this is the King's Gambit, where engines will always tell you Black is much better on move 2. They aren't wrong, but their reasoning certainly is. White may have 5-6 great ways to attack in a position, each with their own many attacking ideas and chances, while Black is forced to play a series of only-moves where one slight misstep means forced mate.

The system automuted me because I said he was being a pain in the a word. That's a bad, bad word. Lol.

I have returned triumphantly against all odds.

Why would we worry about master statistics when none of us are masters. I've studied this opening quite alot and playing top engine lines was pretty easy. Attacking queen side with a pawn rush lead by the b-pawn can leave the average player literally stuck in the corner. This opening at low elo will have people blundering the g- pawn and the rook and even at high elo you can get a nice queenside initiative to push the enemy off the board. I've beaten 2000 elo players wtih this technique in over-the-board-tournaments countless times and I find the lack of hope for this opening disappointing.

Sure, a lot of openings which are bad are good at lower level as opponents don't know how to play against them or blunder pieces.

A truly good opening isn't one that works because the opponent blunders their pieces, it's one that works because the opponent plays well and still struggles.

At amateur level, the most played move isn't blundering Bxg7, the most played move is Nf6 and then the results are about equal until it reaches a turning point where if opponent knows the best move they are scoring much higher. Like so:

Black is better developed and has better central control.

It's better to put hope and interest into openings which are cooler and more exciting.

Thanks for your opinion but I need one from a professional.

By professional you mean someone who agrees with you and affirms your beliefs. You wouldn't want to listen to anyone who challenges what you think. That would be too difficult for you.