Major Strongman Strategy and Tactics - Episode VII: Calculating Risk

In Strongman, risk is not simply the question of whether you can lift the weight. It is the decision of whether that attempt is worth taking, at that moment, for those points, when success and failure can have very different consequences for the rest of the contest. An athlete may be physically capable of an attempt and still be strategically wrong to take it.

Risk calculation is therefore a problem of decision-making under uncertainty. Probability of success, value of the gain, cost of failure, standings, direct opponents, available energy and remaining events must be considered together. Pacing research shows that athletes continuously regulate intensity in response to internal state and competitive environment, and opponent behavior can alter pacing and energy-investment decisions.

1. Risk is not the same as difficulty

A difficult attempt is not automatically a risky attempt. If the probability of success is high and failure has little consequence, competitive risk may be moderate. Conversely, an apparently manageable attempt can become highly risky if a miss costs several points or compromises the next event.

Two dimensions should therefore be separated: physical risk and competitive risk. Physical risk concerns injury or loss of capacity. Competitive risk concerns the effect of the decision on standings. They can overlap, but they are not identical. A smart contest plan accounts for both.

2. First variable: the real probability of success

No risk decision can be calculated without estimating probability. The problem is that athletes often overestimate capacity when adrenaline rises. A gym PR is not automatically competition-day capacity, and an attempt after several events is not equivalent to the same attempt when fresh.

A better estimate includes recent performance, implement specificity, judging standard, warm-up, fatigue, surface and experience with the event. Strongman-specific research shows athletes monitor competition intensity through RPE, perceived movement speed and percentage of 1RM, while warm-ups are used by most surveyed athletes.

3. Probability should be expressed as scenarios, not certainties

Instead of thinking “I can make the weight,” think in three zones: highly probable success, possible success and speculative success. A weight repeatedly completed in conditions close to competition may belong to the first category. A weight rarely completed in training may be the second. A weight never validated under comparable conditions belongs to the third.

This does not create an exact mathematical probability, but it forces the athlete to acknowledge uncertainty. Decision quality improves when desire is not confused with probability.

4. Second variable: what do you gain if you succeed?

An attempt should not be evaluated only by its weight. It should be evaluated by its competitive value. If success moves you from sixth to fifth and changes little in the overall standings, the gain may be small. If the same success passes a direct opponent and recovers three points, the value is much greater.

In a multi-event contest, points do not always have the same strategic value. A point gained at a critical moment can protect or open a gap that may expand in later events. Therefore, the calculation must be tied to the standings, not only the individual event result.

5. Third variable: what do you lose if you fail?

This is where the real calculation begins. A miss may mean one place lost. It may also mean zero points for the event, a drop in standings, additional energy expenditure, grip loss, technical deterioration or a poorer psychological state before the next event.

In some situations, the cost of failure is asymmetric. Success may gain one point while failure can cost four. In that scenario, it is not enough to ask whether you can succeed. You must ask whether the probability of success justifies the possible loss.

6. Simple model: probability × reward versus probability of failure × cost

A practical framework can be expressed as expected value: probability of success multiplied by the benefit of success, minus probability of failure multiplied by the cost of failure. This is not a perfect prediction formula. It is a thinking tool that forces both outcomes into the decision.

Example: if you estimate an 80% chance of success and the gain is 2 points, the weighted benefit is 1.6 points. If failure has a competitive cost of 3 points and the probability of failure is 20%, the weighted cost is 0.6. The indicative difference is +1 point. If the probability of success falls to 50%, the same attempt becomes much less attractive. The calculation does not decide alone, but it makes the structure of the decision visible.

7. Risk must be recalculated after every new piece of information

The plan written before competition is a hypothesis, not a sentence. After every attempt, new information appears: how you feel, how the implement moves, what opponents are doing, how long the breaks are, what the standings look like and how much energy you have spent.

Research on pacing shows that interaction with opponents is an important determinant of intensity regulation, while adjustment depends on the competitive situation and the athlete's internal state. Risk calculation therefore needs to remain dynamic.

8. Standings completely change the value of risk

The same risk can be good for one athlete and bad for another. A leader with a substantial advantage does not need the same exposure as an athlete in fourth trying to reach the podium. An athlete behind may sometimes need to accept a risk that the leader cannot justify.

This creates offensive risk and defensive risk. Offensive risk attempts to recover points and positions. Defensive risk protects an advantage. Confusing the two creates poor decisions. A leader who attacks unnecessarily can turn an excellent position into a vulnerable one, while a pursuer who always conserves may lose the only window available for recovery.

9. Calculate risk against direct opponents

Do not compare the attempt only with the maximum performance available in the contest. Compare it with what relevant opponents actually need to overtake you. If a direct opponent needs to beat you by two places in the event to close the overall gap, that is strategic information.

Opponent behavior can alter pacing and energy-investment decisions, as shown in research on direct competition. In Strongman, this can translate into load selection, pace and risk level based on what is happening around you.

10. Risk should not be greater than the information available

The less you know about the likely outcome, the more cautious you should be with speculative attempts. If you have not tested the implement, do not know the judging standard and do not know how your body responds after previous events, uncertainty is high.

If you have solid training data and early attempts confirm that your form is good, risk can be estimated more precisely. You are not necessarily becoming braver. You are becoming better informed.

11. Energy cost must be included

A classic mistake is to treat energy as an infinite resource. It is not. A heavy attempt can affect grip, back, breathing, the neuromuscular system or technical capacity for the next event.

Pacing is essentially the distribution of work and energy across a task, and research shows that how effort is distributed can influence performance. In Strongman, the same logic should be extended from the duration of one event to the duration of the entire contest.

12. Event risk must be related to the next event

A decision can be excellent in isolation and poor in contest context. If you gain one additional point but spend enough energy to lose three points in the next event, you made a bad exchange.

Every important decision should therefore include a second question: what does this attempt do to the events that follow? In competition, resources are not reset after every event.

13. When high risk becomes necessary

Sometimes the calculation says that you must take the risk. If only two events remain, you are far behind and have no obvious advantage in the next events, conservative strategy may have almost no competitive value. You need a change in standings and must create a situation in which that change can happen.

This is necessary risk. It is not courage for spectacle. It is accepting that the safe strategy can no longer produce the desired result.

14. When high risk is completely unnecessary

At the other extreme, a secure result may already be enough. If fifth place protects your position and an attack for fourth carries a major failure cost, there may be no tactical reason to turn a good situation into an unstable one.

An experienced athlete does not only ask, “Can I do more?” He asks, “What does doing more give me, and what risk am I accepting for it?”

15. Psychological risk: when emotion distorts probability

Adrenaline can make a weight feel lighter than it is. Frustration after a poor event can create a need for revenge. A rival's huge performance can trigger panic. In all of these situations, perceived probability can shift.

A simple protocol helps: before attacking, separate what you know from what you feel. What data do I have? What result do I need? What happens if I succeed? What happens if I fail? If the answer is based only on emotion, reconsider the decision.

16. Practical model: Risk, Reward, Recovery

For each important decision, use three axes. Risk: how likely is failure and how severe is the consequence? Reward: how many points or positions can I gain? Recovery: what does the attempt cost for the rest of the contest?

A decision is attractive when the reward is meaningful, the probability of success is sufficiently high and the cost to later events remains controllable. When one of the three components deteriorates, the attempt should be reevaluated.

17. Three risk levels for every attempt

Green: highly probable result, relevant gain, low cost. Yellow: possible success, important gain, moderate consequence if it fails. Red: speculative success, large gain, but severe consequence or high energy cost.

The goal is not to eliminate the red zone. In some situations, it is exactly where you need to go. The goal is to know when you are entering it and why.

18. Example: the leader versus the pursuer

Imagine a contest with four events remaining. Athlete A leads by six points. Athlete B is second and has a clear advantage in one of the upcoming events. For A, a marginal attack in an unfavorable event may be unnecessary. For B, a well-chosen attack may be necessary to reduce the gap before reaching the strong event.

The same weight, the same event and the same probability of success can produce different decisions for the two athletes. The reason is simple: their objectives are different. Risk does not exist in a vacuum. Risk is the relationship between an action and an objective.

19. Do not confuse risk with heroism

In Strongman, the heavy attempt is visible. The calculation behind an intelligent attempt is much less spectacular. But competition does not award abstract courage. It awards results.

Sometimes the bravest decision is not to attack. At other times, the bravest decision is to accept a risk that you understand completely. The difference is strategic intent.

20. The Failure Point of risk

The tactical Failure Point appears when marginal reward no longer justifies marginal risk. It may be the moment when an additional weight gains one point but can destroy the result. It may be the moment when a low-probability attempt can no longer change the overall objective. It may be the moment when energy cost starts affecting the next event.

This point should be established before emotion takes over. If you define it only after you have already invested too much, you may fall into the “one more attempt” trap. In competition, one of the most important decisions is sometimes stopping exactly before risk becomes disproportionate.

21. Tactical risk calculation sheet

Before each important decision, note: current position, gap to the relevant opponent, minimum required result, desired result, estimated probability of success, points gained by success, points lost by failure, energy cost, time until the next event and the signal that would make you change the plan.

This mental table transforms risk from an emotional reaction into a structured decision. You do not need a calculator in your hand during competition. You need a model practiced enough in training that it can be applied quickly.

22. Conclusion: risk is not eliminated, it is spent for a reason

A Strongman athlete cannot eliminate risk. He can decide what the risk is buying. Good risk buys a real chance to gain important points. Bad risk buys only the satisfaction of having attempted something heavy.

Calculating risk means seeing probability, reward, consequence, standings, opponents and recovery at the same time. In a long contest, the winner is not necessarily the athlete who produces the most spectacular moments. It is the athlete who knows when to turn capacity into points and when to preserve capacity for the moment when those points are worth more.

Selected references

1. Winwood PW, Pritchard HJ, Wilson D, Dudson M, Keogh JWL. The Competition-Day Preparation Strategies of Strongman Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(9):2308-2320. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003267.
2. Konings MJ, Hettinga FJ. Pacing Decision Making in Sport and the Effects of Interpersonal Competition: A Critical Review. Sports Med. 2018;48(8):1829-1843. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0937-x.
3. Smits BLM, Pepping GJ, Hettinga FJ. Pacing and decision making in sport and exercise: the roles of perception and action in the regulation of exercise intensity. Sports Med. 2014;44(6):763-775. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0163-0.
4. Abbiss CR, Laursen PB. Describing and understanding pacing strategies during athletic competition. Sports Med. 2008;38(3):239-252. DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200838030-00004.
5. Hettinga FJ, Konings MJ, Pepping GJ. The Science of Racing against Opponents: Affordance Competition and the Regulation of Exercise Intensity in Head-to-Head Competition. Front Physiol. 2017;8:118. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00118.