Ryan Hall on EBI

I would also add that, in regulation, the defender/losing fighter gets a strategic edge because if he can hold out to the bell then he will escape his near defeat and have a 50% chance of winning in OT. In overtime, however, just holding out will make you lose on riding time-- unlike in regulation, the defender must risk opening himself up to submissions in order to escape. From a game theory perspective, only fear of losing will make a close-to-evenly-skilled competitor truly risk safety in order to get a finish (think an MMA fighter down 2-0 going into the third round). I don't think the sub bonuses do much to affect aggressive defensive behavior in regulation compared to the strategic life preserver of holding out to the overtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine

I would also add that, in regulation, the defender/losing fighter gets a strategic edge because if he can hold out to the bell then he will escape his near defeat and have a 50% chance of winning in OT. In overtime, however, just holding out will make you lose on riding time-- unlike in regulation, the defender must risk opening himself up to submissions in order to escape. From a game theory perspective, only fear of losing will make a close-to-evenly-skilled competitor truly risk safety in order to get a finish (think an MMA fighter down 2-0 going into the third round). I don't think the sub bonuses do much to affect aggressive defensive behavior in regulation compared to the strategic life preserver of holding out to the overtime.

---

A competitor doesn't have a 50% chance of winning just because they make it to OT. Im not sure why you would would think that. There are no "sub bonuses". Competitors are only paid for submissions, not for winning the overall tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine

I think he means that it rewards the guy who might otherwise be unable to get the back, or that the process of getting to the back takes primacy over just being there. I think that's a valid point, but it's also worth noting that Ryan's long been against 10th Planet style. I recall on his triangles DVD where he made a long digression to call rubber guard "garbage" because it didn't pin the near shoulder or something like that. But then in one of his TUF fights he was playing Williams Guard, so it's hard to know what he really thinks.

---

That old triangle dvd is from 2008/2009 as well and he was not even a black belt back then. For what's with his reasoning at that time was that getting an angle from from the closed guard made for easier triangle or omoplata style attacks instead of staying flat on your back. He asserted that the rubber guard was great for controlling your opponent but had the downside of also pinning your own hips in place. And just like every position it had its pros and cons. Not sure what he thinks now but he's one of the more open minded grapplers I've ever trained with and he tends to think everything works given the context and depending on the situation.

He does have massive respect for Eddie Bravo even if a lot of it may have gone unnoticed or hasn't been said in a very public manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo

ryan might be the most insane guard puller in MMA history

---

I think so too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson

A competitor doesn't have a 50% chance of winning just because they make it to OT. Im not sure why you would would think that. There are no "sub bonuses". Competitors are only paid for submissions, not for winning the overall tournament.

---

Look at it from a game theory perspective: Each OT opponent has an equal chance to attack from back/spiderweb and win by sub or riding time, so without knowing anything about the opponents each has a 50% chance of winning. The odds, however, could change in one's favor with more background information about the combatants, such as weight difference, stylistic matchup, and competition history. However, the EBI OT eliminates many of these same factors that would cause a shift in the odds. If I were to face Eddie Cummings, then I would have close to a 0% chance of winning because his skill level is too high for me to be able to pass his guard, cut through his defenses, and somehow prevent myself from being choked or heel hooked in the process. But in OT I would have a much higher chance of winning, since I would only have to worry about two relatively narrow positions, and so many of Eddie's advantages (his unpassable guard, his leglocks, etc.) would be mitigated. So if I have to face Eddie Cummings in EBI, it would be an exponentially smarter strategy for me to work really hard on defending/stalling to the OT, and then taking my chances with winning by riding time or busting out some secret tricky submission I could surprise him with. The incentive that I wouldn't get paid if I don't submit Cummings in regulation (and I have to win the whole tournament to even get that, correct?) would be an afterthought compared to the much stronger incentive of risk-avoidance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine

Look at it from a game theory perspective: Each OT opponent has an equal chance to attack from back/spiderweb and win by sub or riding time, so without knowing anything about the opponents each has a 50% chance of winning. The odds, however, could change in one's favor with more background information about the combatants, such as weight difference, stylistic matchup, and competition history. However, the EBI OT eliminates many of these same factors that would cause a shift in the odds. If I were to face Eddie Cummings, then I would have close to a 0% chance of winning because his skill level is too high for me to be able to pass his guard, cut through his defenses, and somehow prevent myself from being choked or heel hooked in the process. But in OT I would have a much higher chance of winning, since I would only have to worry about two relatively narrow positions, and so many of Eddie's advantages (his unpassable guard, his leglocks, etc.) would be mitigated. So if I have to face Eddie Cummings in EBI, it would be an exponentially smarter strategy for me to work really hard on defending/stalling to the OT, and then taking my chances with winning by riding time or busting out some secret tricky submission I could surprise him with. The incentive that I wouldn't get paid if I don't submit Cummings in regulation (and I have to win the whole tournament to even get that, correct?) would be an afterthought compared to the much stronger incentive of risk-avoidance.

---

Two things:

One is addressing this for the ruleset in general. As far as that, yes much of what you say is correct. As a competitor strategizing for your upcoming EBI competition, you could choose to focus on taking certain dangerous opponents to OT and putting a lot of time into improving your OT game. That being said, there will be strategies and approaches for ALL rulesets. I don't think anyone would contend that EBI is above the same type of strategizing that goes on in other competitions. What EBI does attempt to be though is the most exciting ruleset to watch. That being said, Eddie and those behind EBI certainly do believe it's at least as good or better of a ruleset than we currently have as far as what types of strategies it forces competitors to play. This opens up a long conversation and argument of course, but to put it plainly EBI prefers competitors showcasing their ability to control and submit an opponent in two primary basic day 1 controlling positions from BJJ for matches where two practitioners are close enough in skill that the bout needs to be decided through other means. All competitions have something to help decide a match when two competitors are closely matched. ADCC has it's OT structure which is heavily favored towards wrestlers and IBJJF has its system which favors judges decisions and advantages to decide between two opponents. EBI and the submission only movement are not fans of the positional rewards based point systems in current rulesets and so this is the best approach we know of currently for both the competitor and the audience for sub only without going no time limit.

Second is specifically to the match between Geo and Eddie as you are talking about that specifically as much as you are talking about the ruleset as a whole. Geo's gameplan going in was 100% to look for the submission within regulation. As far as we have seen, trying to take Eddie to overtime would be a bad gameplan given that Eddie has exceptionally efficient back control and submissions. I am pretty sure that every single match where Eddie has managed to get back control, he has maintained that control and finished the opponent. So I don't think anyone would outright say that the best approach to beating Eddie is to take him to OT. That being said, Eddie hit a nice leg lock entry and Geo went to a previously unseen defense he's been working on. Both were stuck. Eddie did not decide until too late into the match to transition and Geo was forced to focus on maintaining his defense. When you are stuck deep in a high level practitioner's attack, any movements you make will open you up to a sub. You are forced to play a slow reaction game where you work your way out inch by inch. If your opponent wants to maintain that deep control position and not risk it by transitioning to a different sub when they are unsuccessful, you have no choice but to wait it out. As far as I'm concerned, both opponents made their decision that match. Eddie decided to wait it out and see if he could eventually finish in that position and Geo decided to wait until Eddie made a transition to find his window to escape. Eddie had his go to positions for much of the match and was still unable to find a finish. It's not like Geo stalled out and didn't give Eddie any opportunities for Eddie. Eddie had what he wanted, he just couldn't finish with it in the alloted time we can afford to give a competitor during a live event. That's just how it goes. You really can't make any judgments about who would have won if the time were to keep going and this would have been a no time limit match. I would look at this a lot differently if it were a Schaubing type event where one just focused on staying away from engaging.

Then in OT Eddie had everything going in his favor. By going second he knew exactly how much time he had to find a sub (a lot of time, over 3 minutes) and knew he couldn't be complacent and simply win on control. He was given his chance and wasn't able to find the sub while Geo was.

For the sub only movement, this is what we have. And I think it's more balanced then some give it credit. These are basic day 1 control positions everyone knows and practices. One's skill in each position is very telling of how good they are overall at BJJ and ultimately that's all we are trying to show in a competition.

The specific example of Geo and Eddie also shows another important point which is that opponents who are dangerous and hard to deal with in regulation are also often times dangerous and hard to deal with in OT. Like I talked about before, looking at Eddie's ability to submit from the back, it would be a pretty poor gameplan for anyone to shoot for overtime with him. This is the power of using two very common controlling positions everyone has to be good at, a high level practitioner will always be efficient as well in these positions. And honestly, if over time some competitor emerges who has amazing back control or amazing arm bar attacks and starts dominating EBI by taking certain opponents to OT, I don't think we will mind it. I think that's the point. We will get to see what dangerous back control and armbar control looks like (or the opposite, efficient escapes) and we will all learn as these are very important positions in BJJ. This is versus learning who is the best wrestler in a format like ADCC.

To condense my wall of text down a bit, I would say EBI comes from three main assertions.

One is a position only has value if the practitioner can use it to submit their opponent. Just look to how side control, mount, takedowns and other positions are now being turned into offensive opportunities for the "defender" in sub only formats to see how we are coming to the conclusion that maybe these positions aren't as valuable as once thought as far as pure BJJ goes. Or are only as valuable as A: how efficient that specific practitioner is at finishing from that position and B: how efficient that specific "defending" practitioner is at either defending or attacking from that position. IE not trying to take into account the argument "well if it were a fight, competitor A would have won because they had secured one takedown or pass at some point during the match". We only care about who is best at the sport of BJJ and are looking to find out what that looks like and who that will be.

Two is that when deciding a draw we would rather look at abilities to control, submit or escape from two basic day 1 control positions vs a wrestling bout or a judges decision.

And three is that we want the most exciting format for BJJ in order to bring attention to it from a wider audience.

I think both of these assertions have some merit and are why the sub only movement is gaining in popularity.

I'd say that while playing to get to OT and win there is a viable, and likely already demonstrated, strategy, it's also a risky one- do you really want to bypass 10 whole minutes of potential sub time to chance that you can escape quicker than the other guy in OT? Sounds risky.
Every ruleset conceivable has ways to game it, that's unavoidable. This one is one of the riskiest ones to game. Getting 2 up on points and looking busy in guard is far far safer way to win in a points type tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Eddy

To condense my wall of text down a bit, I would say EBI comes from three main assertions.

One is a position only has value if the practitioner can use it to submit their opponent. Just look to how side control, mount, takedowns and other positions are now being turned into offensive opportunities for the "defender" in sub only formats to see how we are coming to the conclusion that maybe these positions aren't as valuable as once thought as far as pure BJJ goes. Or are only as valuable as A: how efficient that specific practitioner is at finishing from that position and B: how efficient that specific "defending" practitioner is at either defending or attacking from that position. IE not trying to take into account the argument "well if it were a fight, competitor A would have won because they had secured one takedown or pass at some point during the match". We only care about who is best at the sport of BJJ and are looking to find out what that looks like and who that will be.

Two is that when deciding a draw we would rather look at abilities to control, submit or escape from two basic day 1 control positions vs a wrestling bout or a judges decision.

And three is that we want the most exciting format for BJJ in order to bring attention to it from a wider audience.

I think both of these assertions have some merit and are why the sub only movement is gaining in popularity.

---

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.

But Geo did not choose a "stalling defense". He defended while trying to improve postion and escaped the inside sankaku. How you could be a purple belt and somehow see the match as Geo gaming or not fighting back is unbelievable.

What rule set do you propose?

For the record, you would have 0% chance against Eddie Cumming in regulation or OT.

Quote:

---

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.