Originally Posted by
Princess Guillotine
When that OT started, both competitors had about a 50% chance of winning. Eddie is very good from the back, but Geo is just as good from the spiderweb. You can argue whatever else, but if you factor in Eddie's tough weight cut then it's hard to suggest that Geo had anything less than a coin flip's chance, and obviously the round played out with Geo proving this to be so. Now, if you go back to when Eddie locked on that inside sankaku, Geo chose a defense which ensured that his chances of winning in regulation would grow closer to 0% with each passing second. However, each passing second also increased his chances of winning the match overall, since the OT would automatically bring him back to 50%. Eddie, of course, had the opposite problem since he was fighting both Geo and the clock. When he first locked on the inside sankaku, his chances of winning the match peaked, but from there until the start of OT his chances steadily shrunk to 50%, despite constantly being on the brink of victory and having a locked submission at the buzzer. However, it is not just that his chances of winning shrunk to 50%, which doesn't sound that bad; it's that his chances of LOSING skyrocketed from 0% to 50%.
So, Geo's decision to choose a stalling defense was a terrifically smart strategy: it raised his chances of winning from 0% to 50%, and raised his opponent's chances of losing from 0% to 50%. Also, on a day when Geo was overmatched positionally (as evidenced by twice being put into terrible positions without ever mounting offense or even escape of his own), the overtime took away two of Eddie's best weapons (the heel hook, and his unpassable guard) while forcing him to engage one of Geo's best weapons (the spiderweb).
My point here is to wonder whether this fits with the spirit of EBI. The sub-only movement was created in large part because we are sick of the rules-gaming that has come to dominate IBJJF. Theoretically, IBJJF is a sub-only contest too, just with points instead of an OT deciding the winner if no sub. But IBJJF matches often suck because competitors have recognized that pull-sweep-stall is a far easier path to victory than going all out for the sub (or going all out for a truly dominant position). I don't blame the IBJJF competitors for this, and I don't blame Geo either, as he chose what was by far the best strategy for him and worst strategy for Eddie Cummings. I just want a ruleset that discourages gaming as much as possible, and doesn't leave a huge strategic window open for the guy who's getting beat to refuse to fight back.
I know what you are saying, and get it. But what I'm trying to get across is a concept that is just apart of BJJ. Once you are caught deep in a sub, you have no choices left. You must be reactive. Your opponent has the superior angle and is closing in on the sub. ANY movement you make on your own while your opponent is just controlling is to your detriment. You must instead be reactive on your opponent's movements and find the holes they leave while they are trying to move closer to the submission. If instead you try to create the momentum to escape and get out on your own, against a high level opponent, your movement will be used against you to find the submission.
So when Geo was caught deep, he had to go in to reactive mode and wait for Eddie to leave a hole while transitioning to the sub. This forces the offensive player to stay offensive. Eddie needed to keep pushing the pace and pushing the transitions to find the submission. Eddie decided, for the most part, to also wait it out and look for Geo to make a mistake (at least until too late in the match when he finally transitioned).
This is the point. You are talking about game theory, and this is the deep underlying game theory that is helping EBI to work.
In an IBJJF format, the default approach for both competitors is to be defensive while looking for any small opportunity to switch to offense and secure points. Once points have been secured, the mode goes right back to defensive, even more so because now as long as their defense is tight, they will win on the points they have already secured. There is no incentive to finish or even to be offensive. The only incentive is to do just enough to win by whatever margin is offered by the opponent.
In an EBI or sub only format, the default approach for both competitors is to be offensive, switching to defense when forced to in order to survive and extend their chances of winning later on, but otherwise looking for the primary way of winning (a submission).
In IBJJF the way you lose is by the opponent securing ANYTHING on you, even almost securing something on you will lose you the match. Even almost, almost securing something can win you the match (refs decision). Since your opponent can win based off even the smallest margin of position they secure on you, the default for IBJJF must be extremely defensive. Only switching to offense when a window has been opened by the competitor.
In EBI however the only way you win is by sub and the only way you lose is by sub or being too slow in escaping. This encourages a default mode of attacking. It encourages competitors to take risks. Worst case scenario, they get their guard passed or some sort of hold secured on them and they have to switch to defensive mode. But defense is not the default mode, it's the last alternative.
Now this only explains a competitors default mode and mindset in each format. It's a win for EBI for entertainment value before a submission position is secured, but lets look however at what competitors are encouraged to do while caught in a deep submission or hold.
In IBJJF, if someone has your back, or has you in the honey hole for this particular example we are talking about, the defending competitor is forced to find a way out. If the defending competitor cannot find a way out, they will lose on either an advantage or points. This can be good for increasing submissions given what we've talked about before however the competitor who has the position secured has 0 incentive to find the submission. Instead their incentive is just to maintain the position. Any attempt they make to go for the submission instead of maintaining the control is going to risk losing the position and therefore be a bigger risk on them losing the match. You also have to take into account that if the position they have secured is a point scoring position (like the back), the defending competitor now has a practically insurmountable amount of points to come back on and will likely just go into defensive mode anyway in order to preserve their remaining dignity rather than offering the opportunity to get submitted. And if at any point this defending competitor does get free, their opponent will go into defensive mode and attempt to win the match based of the points / advantage they just secured.
In EBI, we will again take the honey hole position for example, the motivations are switched. As you have explained, the defending competitor is now encouraged to go into defensive mode and survive while only switching to offense if they see a way out. The attacking competitor however is now encouraged to be as offensive as they can. They need to find the submission in order for this hold they have found to have gained them any value. If they cannot submit their opponent, then it will not have mattered that they were able to secure the position, so all of their incentive is in keeping up the pace and constantly looking to find the sub. You should also take into account that there are factors that might make the defending competitor decide to try to escape even though the format typically calls for them to just defend as a best strategy. These factors would be that they A: believe their opponent is better than them in OT, B: believe they are better than their opponent in regulation, C: they really want the regulation money. etc.
You also have to take into account that EBI's OT format then flips this structure on its head. So if you have a competitor who managed to just stall and ball up in a defensive position during regulation once caught in a deep submission, the OT structure will force this competitor to change their strategy. Now they will again be put in a deep submission position, however they will not be able to use a defensive strategy. They will be forced to look for an escape and try to find it as quick as they can. So although they stopped their opponent from getting the chance to find a submission during regulation, they will not be able to use the same tactic in OT. The attacking competitor will get their chance to look for a sub on an opponent actively looking to escape and they will also get to use their skill at maintaining a submission position to their advantage.
EBI's OT structure completely flips the regulation time game theory and provides a really nice balance to the strategy each competitor might of used / be using.
So to wrap this up, there are three main pieces to a match. Open positions, dominant positions, and OT. Looking at the game theory each format encourages.. EBI is encouraging a better approach for open positions (offensive). For dominant positions we can either consider it a wash or consider EBI with a slight edge. And with OT / deciding a tie, EBI's format is important for both encouraging the type of approach it wants to see during regulation as well as balancing out the small disadvantage its format has towards a defending competitor.
Bookmarks