I know you know but, http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...y-john-nash-matters/
And, of course, the same principles apply in much more complicated scenarios, like run/pass balance in football. If teams pass too often, defenses will exploit it by keying against the pass. If defenses key against the pass too much, offenses will exploit it by running more. Indeed, a key insight of Game Theory is that how you balance the different options in an “optimal” (meaning equilibrium) strategy isn’t just a matter of how good each option seems in a vacuum, it matters how your opponent will adapt to your strategy overall. For example, it doesn’t matter if you’re theoretically “better” at passing than running: If your opponent is defending optimally you should be indifferent between the two. Thus your “optimal” balance between the two should actually be a matter of ensuring the defense has nothing to exploit. (Of course, if the defense isn’t defending optimally, you should do more of whichever gives you the best results).
Let’s use a concrete example: Should the Seattle Seahawks have run or passed at the end or their ill-fated Super Bowl drive? The game theory-savvy answer is basically “neither”: They should use whatever strategy gives the Patriots the maximum headache on defense—likely a mix of passes and runs.
Original Post
