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.
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.