Your analogy is incorrect because when it comes to social systems, how people bet actually changes the outcome, at least in the long run. So the dynamics are more like that the team that wins is the one that has the most people bet it would win.<p>In general, the problem is not the math but our interpretation of the result. All the result says is that <i>if we change nothing</i>, this is the likely outcome. By interpreting the results to mean merely &quot;this is the likely outcome&quot;, we are depriving people of the opportunity of getting out of local optima. Deciding to coordinate or deciding to have society maintain its Nash equilibria are both <i>political</i> choices -- not mathematical outcomes.