It’s actually more like choosing the strategy with the relatively best worst-case scenario, in general. In zero-sum games it turns into what you’re describing.
But it’s a specific best worst case : it’s not only about how best you can do for yourself, it’s for how far from you the opponent is. You prefer’d a -1 -100 option over a +2 +1 in minmaxing. While you’d take the second in a maximizing strategy, if there wasn’t a third option thatd be like +3 +20. All that being your reward, opponent reward.
That’s what I want to transmit to folks reading us.
It’s actually more like choosing the strategy with the relatively best worst-case scenario, in general. In zero-sum games it turns into what you’re describing.
But either way, yeah, that’s not what OP means.
But it’s a specific best worst case : it’s not only about how best you can do for yourself, it’s for how far from you the opponent is. You prefer’d a -1 -100 option over a +2 +1 in minmaxing. While you’d take the second in a maximizing strategy, if there wasn’t a third option thatd be like +3 +20. All that being your reward, opponent reward.
That’s what I want to transmit to folks reading us.