This is largely how all complex competitive games work. At some point there is a shared valuation of which player is ahead and the behind player must take steps that are outside of optimal play to attempt to leapfrog ahead. The GWENT card game was particularly well designed for this. ie How many extra cards to play/sacrifice for round control if you drew badly, based on meta-matchups.

I have always asserted that some games (like Heroes of the Storm) suffer from not having catch up mechanics beyond player skill. This is problematic, when player skill can be quantized to an average value that has led to the losing state. This makes it much less likely to ever be a useful catchup mechanic, in comparison to some intrinsic gamble mechanics.

The lack of catch up mechanics also means the games are less interesting because risks are only worth taking after the known state, not casually during as a chaotic factor that might be capitalized on.

Sure, I think it makes intuitive sense to me that you should play riskier when you're behind. The surprising part to me is that when you're ahead, even if you know that your opponent will play "sub-optimally", that doesn't change your own optimal move.

Hockey fans will recognize this strategy as “pulling the goalie.”