This is an interesting question, because while Sun Tzu methods usually teach you to play safe, methods of "high risk high reward" and "some risk high reward" are actually much superior, and I will explain why.
So it comes down to this simple experiment.
Lets say that there is a sword.
Anyone who takes the sword has 99% chance of dying.
However, in case he doesnt die, he gets to rule the entire world and becomes invincible.
Now, Sun Tzu would say "Anyone who takes the sword will most likely die, and I will not take the sword, so I will play it safe and survive."
However, lets say there are 2000 people.
Now, the first 1000 decides to follow Sun Tzu and refuses to take sword.
However, the other 1000 plays a high risk high reward game.
They say "Each of us has only 1% chance of success. But if enough of us try, one will certainly succeed."
So the other 1000 each decide to take the sword. After 99 attemps, 99 people died. However, 100th one took the sword and didnt die. Now he rules the world and is invincible.
The point of this story is:
The group who followed Sun Tzu had no chance of becoming invincible, because they didnt want to take risk to take the sword.
However, the other group, who risked, had over 99% chance to become invincible, as each individial had 1% chance and there were 1000 of them.
So in the end, even high risk of failure carries certain rewards when enough attempts are made, so group which follows high risk high reward is going to be superior and rule over the group who follows Sun Tzu's safe way of playing.
