In class today we discussed the theoretical structure of the game: Rock, Paper, Scissor.  We came the conclusion that a random strategy is generally the outcome we would witness, even empirically.

The business insider posted an article awhile back describing this exact solution and how no Nash equilibria exist in this game and that the best strategy should be a random one.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-beat-anyone-at-rock-paper-scissors-2014-5

They go on to describe an interesting pattern which developed among winners and losers.  Winners tended to replicate their winning play over multiple games while losers tended to switch to the next strategy sequence, i.e. moving from rock to paper to scissors.

This begs the behavioral economics question as to why?  If random is the best we can do, what factors are influence the strategy set for winners and losers?