That's fair, after all, the last sentence was my subjective interpretation. I will try to expand upon my reasoning. I've already explained why his decision objectively made sense, but, certainly, you can raise the question of why he would still make that decision despite being confident he would win the duel. On that, I do think he wasn't 100% confident he would win the duel, only that he could. Therefore, given that he didn't need to take that risk, he chose to fall back. So, to clarify, he fell back because he couldn't guarantee he would win the duel, but I believe he was still confident he could. This stems from the situation: he could die in one shot, whereas Hobbit would require at least two bullets to kill, combined with the awkward position of the fight in the narrow passage into Kitchen (leaving Aleksi very little room to position himself in an angle that couldn't be easily pre-aimed by Hobbit). Had Aleksi taken the fight, I'd have slightly favoured Hobbit slightly to win the duel. But, just because you're taking a fight from a disadvantage, doesn't mean you can't be irrationally confident you'll win. The issue of debate here, clearly, is whether you can retreat from a fight despite being confident you'll win it. That comes down to whether you can be objective in the moment, or not; as I said, you can have irrational confidence. I've rambled a little, I fear, but hopefully, that makes sense.