And yet Lions catch faster prey all the time. Just because something occurs randomly doesn't mean it always results in a net loss for the pursuer. All the time

And yet Lions catch faster prey all the time. Just because something occurs randomly doesn't mean it always results in a net loss for the pursuer. All the time spent in pursuit on an optimized (leading) path results in closed distance. Within the constraints of the cage the pursued can only choose to zig or to zag, so if the lion uses a leading path, and is correct in anticipating directional changes only half the time, he's still going to have lunch sooner rather than later. There are visual "tells" that allow the lion to anticipate directional shifts on the part of their prey, so I'd argue that his percentages will be significantly better. I guess I'm struggling with understanding the value of the exercise. If we're talking inanimate bodies, I get it. This kind of physics is valuable. However, choosing arbitrary constraints in order to make interesting maths out of natural scenarios is low hanging fruit. I just don't see it as all that interesting.