One of the most extreme examples of dominance in holdem is KK vs. K2, where KK is a 19:1 favorite. But let's look at what happens when a good player and a poor player are HU with these two hands. Both the good and bad player will play the KK pretty much the same way, so neither has an edge. But while the good player will fold K2, let's say 93% of the time (except in big blind and when blind stealing), let's also say the bad player plays his K2 some 40% of the time (because, after all, a single King is a pretty high card). If the good player plays his K2 7% of the time and wins against KK on a 1:19 ratio, his win rate is 7% of 1/19 or 0.38% of the time. But if the bad player plays his K2 against KK 40% of the time and has the same win ratio, he wins 2.1% of the time. The bad player therefore has an edge over the good player to an ugly amount of 5.5:1 simply because of his bad play. So it looks like the nature of poker itself rewards bad play.
I keep trying to find something wrong with my reasoning and not succeeding. Anyone want to comment?
AMaA: The Good Life
But you gotta stop staying up so late on a weekday. 
