Theory and Practice - the dilemma on Guides

 I hate it how its so Theoretical - having to write a guide - but in my experience PLAYING is the BEST WAY to learn - making mistakes is the best way to learn. There is so much context in a few mistakes - a mistake, when applying the limits of the internal logic - is like so many  Examples.
I know the best example is trying to predict Ideal behavior and counter-intuitive Context that changes the ideal behavior. 

Example: 

1. When is it BEST to divide your forces? When the adversary concentrates their force - leaving an area of vulnerability. 
2. When is this False/Wrong (falsifiability has been very helpful technique)- when you cannot coordinate - and dividing further diminishes one's resources that neither force can exploit a vulnerability or escape/delay a concentrated force. 
3. When is the Above Wrong - when the adversary will behave believing you have sufficient force to delay their concentrated force AND exploit their vulnerability. 
4. When is the Above wrong... etc 

There are many other ways one rule can have exceptions Depending on the Context, and we only know the context when we are immersed in the practice and fully loaded with all the data of a highly dynamic and changing set of conditions. 

How did I learn this - THEORY gives me the tools to discuss PRACTICE. But because humans have a finite bandwidth to discuss experiences we have no amount of THEORY can replace the information and context dense nature of Practice?

What is Practice? Actual Experience and GAMES are also practice - when it seeks to teach, learn, test, etc... I'm one of the few lucky people who had really Intense Games in a safe and constructive environment that allowed me to make mistakes and fail fast. 

Game in the Brain and Gaming Work is about struggling with this bottleneck - and trying to give the people the ability to create some unique experiences in their gaming that allows them to test theory and make mistakes. 

I'm frustrated when I talk Theory - because from experience I'm really bad at it. If I was a better writer I'd be a different person - but my strength is the precarious balance of Analysis, Practice, Experimentation, and Failing to Communicate - and sadly those who are lucky may glimpse sense in my writings.