[akoboldfrying]

>I don't think that's his intent here.

Well, rereading what he (was reported to have) said, I now think that probably was his intent, and he was just sloppy. At least, he can't have it both ways: Either he genuinely commits to a number at the outset, and uses the word "adversarial" to mean a very weak form of adversary (one that is defeated in expectation by TFA's mixed strategy), or he is using "adversarial" in the standard (strong) sense, in which case he must be lying about committing to a number, which is a shifty mind game as you say.