The Buddhist have a saying, "One who sets out to win has already lost their ground." To "win" you must assume that: there is a state of play; the rules are the same for everyone; all advantages and disadvantages are shared equally, and the game - if existent at all - takes at least two apposing forces that share the same will to accept defeat without changing the state of play. In reality however, this is a clinical paradox, where equal forces will never find a higher ground.

Similarly in the book, "The Art of War" ... Master Sun: "So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose." Master Sun is mearly stating that one must in essence change the state of play if one fears a disadvantage.

In game theory: and, stated simply, Amy and James under the Nash equilibrium, where Amy is given $100 and told to share it as she wishes with James. James is told: if he disagrees with the split Amy has made - that it's unfair - he has the option to cancel any payoff either party might get (simply, changing the state of play).

In this instance the best outcome is a win-win split. "However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash Equilibrium (e.g., competing businesses, forming a cartel in order to increase their profits)." And where one sees large differences in payoff, one would assume that: the deeper corrupted the nature of the Nash Equilibrium.

Therefore, one who, under such a situation, continues to play after a shift in the state of equilibrium; when there has been a clear shift in the state of play, and quote: "Only the mad man and the fool continue to expect a different outcome, without changing their actions."

This type of thinking can be visualised in many ways. I like to see the process of "game-theory" visualised in the context of: s-curves and fitness landscapes. The s-cure being the exponential evolution of game play towards the point of it's ultimate climax, a non-zero-sum return or change state. And, the game-play fitness landscape, which represents all the possible outcomes each player is able to take in order to suit best advantage, in search of a win-win.

For a little example, lets look at the Australia Vs. Pakistan test series, and especially the remarkable Sydney test match spot-fixing scandal, in which Australia recovered from a seemingly impossible position. Due to a series of match fixing incidents: In this instance the game had been changed by the Pakistani players, into a state known as, 'the prisoners dilemma' a fundamental problem in Game Theory, one that demonstrates why two sides might not cooperate, even if it is in both their best interests to do so" -- Wikipedia.

To reflect: it is that, the idea of cooperation is fundamental. However, if only one cooperates, then the other, whom defects, will gain more. If both defect, both lose (or gain very little). Nevertheless, not as much as the "cheated" cooperator, whose cooperation is not returned.

As you might have gathered by now, it is that, in all areas of human nature we seek to find advantage. Although, it's most advantageous that we work to bring mutual advantages, whether through corruption or kindness ... and it is also fine to change the rules or state of play in any situation that seeks to disadvantage and exploit you, as one sees, this is a reflection of a clear state of mind.