The structure of the tournament also precludes throwing matches. Thus, they were not being true to the (mathematically) ideal rational player - they were violating a constraint of the tournament in their attempt to maximize another advantage.
And I certainly don't disagree. I was simply clarifying how the players weren't being completely rational game theorists. If the tournament is viewed as immutable (as it should be by the players) then the players misjudged, misunderstood, or completely ignored the possibility of disqualification.
That's why there's conflict. The 'moral' rules of fair play were not consistently enforced (information withheld), or you could just say not even consistently prioritized (likelihood of getting caught varied).
Well clearly it didn't work out. What do you mean? I mean, this outcome was obvious so why would a perfect game theorist make such a bumbled performance?
