IMO, a well designed game shouldn't settle into a stable meta / Nash equilibrium for long. Once one approach to the game becomes too dominant, some other approach should be able to counter it and begin to ascend.
He makes the point that chaos implies large differences from small changes, so even just roster changes will impact the equilibrium.
What I thought was interesting is that this is the first time in NBA history that the expected value of threes and twos has been roughly equal and it’s because they’ve found something like a mixed strategy equilibrium.
Wait until they discover 2<1
Technical fouls all day.
Shai already discovered that
Hahaha
IMO, a well designed game shouldn't settle into a stable meta / Nash equilibrium for long. Once one approach to the game becomes too dominant, some other approach should be able to counter it and begin to ascend.
That’s probably what we’ll see.
He makes the point that chaos implies large differences from small changes, so even just roster changes will impact the equilibrium.
What I thought was interesting is that this is the first time in NBA history that the expected value of threes and twos has been roughly equal and it’s because they’ve found something like a mixed strategy equilibrium.
It’s not that the 3 is worth less, it’s that defenders are finally tall and mobile enough to take it away. You have to go where the space is
The point of the video is that the twos that remain in the game are much higher quality ones, after swapping all the bad ones for threes.
Tell that to Steph Curry and see what happens. 😂
I suspect he heard a lot of that before he changed how the game is played
Efficiency is the new play. A guaranteed 2 is always better than a maybe 3
It's really about converging on the game's equilibrium. The adjustments to higher three-point volume led to higher two-point efficiency.