That’s how it works out there in the real world. There’s a big cost to change and a bigger cost to reversing change. Plus, the idea is to give us less dead games. If they gave us that, then took it away, that seems quite bad.
If the whole thing is subtle, it won’t be undone.
If it’s obvious (e.g. dead games actually go up, not down) then it would perhaps be undone.
But the fact that they’ve already changed mulligan rules once (and would have twice in this scenario) seems to point clearly towards ‘they’re willing to change it again’.
They might not be incentivized to (if the new mulligan rule has some economic impact on them), but it seems like this would be adequately explained by “they’re not incentivized to” rather than status quo or sunk cost bias or whatever being a significant worry.
That’s how it works out there in the real world. There’s a big cost to change and a bigger cost to reversing change. Plus, the idea is to give us less dead games. If they gave us that, then took it away, that seems quite bad.
If the whole thing is subtle, it won’t be undone.
If it’s obvious (e.g. dead games actually go up, not down) then it would perhaps be undone.
Fair point about the subtlety thing.
But the fact that they’ve already changed mulligan rules once (and would have twice in this scenario) seems to point clearly towards ‘they’re willing to change it again’.
They might not be incentivized to (if the new mulligan rule has some economic impact on them), but it seems like this would be adequately explained by “they’re not incentivized to” rather than status quo or sunk cost bias or whatever being a significant worry.