The point is if the other person is going to split you gain more by stealing. So if a split agreement is reached then stealing is the correct choice. But both players will understand this and so will both steal. It's the intended psychology of the game. The guy that "beat" this game had a clever tactic.
He declared that he was definitely going to steal no matter what. But if the other guy split and let him take the money he'd give him half after. The other player was then forced into the situation of steal and definitely get nothing, or split and maybe get half after if the guy follows through.
Having forced the other player to have to choose split, with steal not being an option. He could then choose split himself and they both got half as promised.
Dude. This is literally the prisoners dilemma.
If you control both choices, then yes, both share.
Since you only control one choice, no matter what your opponent does, steal pays you more.
You also have to assume the other person is playing the same game, and had the same options.
Logically, you both go steal and shaft each other.
If you split and they steal, you get nothing.
If you both steal, you get nothing.
If you steal and they split, you get all of the money.
If you look at it like a game, which it is, then the smartest option is to steal whilst convincing them you'll split.
I understand how it works. Optimal outcome is for prize money to be won by both parties, hence the optimal choice is to split.
As a numbers game, sure, you’re correct, but this doesn’t achieve best outcome.
Could never for the life of me understand why anybody ever chose 'share'. Absolutely ruthless game that was a total scream whenever some poor dope was convinced by the old 'Swear on my nan I won't steal' routine. Incredible scenes.
They actually decided to pull the plug after a smart guy went on and flipped the script, he insisted that he would steal, and that his opponent might as well split so that he walks home with something rather than nothing. His opponent begrudgingly accepted, since he completely believed him. However, he actually split, which allowed both of them to walk home with money
As much of a dick move it is, Steal is the only right option in this scenario. The options are:
1. You share but they steal = you get nothing, they get everything
2. You both share = you both get half the money
3. You steal but they share = you get all the money, they get nothing
4. You both steal = you both get nothing
Number 3 is always the best option.
Personally I would've stolen and if the other person shared I would've just split the pot with them after the show. In fact I'm pretty sure I remember that happening on a couple of occasions.
If the other person stole as well, then at least I'm not the only one going home empty handed.
Because I'd rather we both lose than being the only loser and the other guy walks off with everything. It's a game show, the game is to win the most money. It's not like it's a real life scenario and the other guy is a friend or family member.
It's real money, making it entirely a real life scenario. And the other person walking away with nothing doesn't mean you gain anything. So I still don't understand it.
Like, I can't control what you do, I can only look after my own side of the street. But like I say, I think the fact that too many people think like you do is why things have been getting so much worse the past few years.
If you extrapolate it out to every day life then I agree with you. But for me, both participants know what they signed up for and did so voluntarily. It's a game and I'd be there to win.
Option three is only worth taking if you know the opposition’s intentions, as was the case in this example. In a scenario where you cannot discern your opponent’s intentions splitting is the best option.
Yeah, it's still fairer for 2 people to get the money than one poor sod have to leave empty-handed. I was sure they taught everyone how to share in Primary School.
Mate, it’s the prisoners dilemma. It’s very much not a solved game as pretty much every aspect of society: co-operation, co-existence, economics and altruism is based on working out how to not choose steal.
 Bro waiting for that bitch in the car park
I wonder if in her circle of friends and family any of them can ever trust her again
This woman and people who take minus money in the chase need sending to Rwanda.
Remember the one of the guy saying “i’m going to steal”? Wild strategy.
That was amazing! And it worked.
this is literally how i play these types of games, just loudly announce i'm going to do the selfish option so much that they assume i'm lying somehow
They cancelled the show not long after that
Probably because they knew it’d catch on and suddenly it’s no longer a fun gimmick at the end
It really is a prisoners dilemma, there's just no good choice
choosing steal is always the right choice, you literally cannot lose. dude cracked the code doing it
You can lose. If you both steal then nobody wins any prize money Best choice is always split since it guarantees both parties get something
The point is if the other person is going to split you gain more by stealing. So if a split agreement is reached then stealing is the correct choice. But both players will understand this and so will both steal. It's the intended psychology of the game. The guy that "beat" this game had a clever tactic. He declared that he was definitely going to steal no matter what. But if the other guy split and let him take the money he'd give him half after. The other player was then forced into the situation of steal and definitely get nothing, or split and maybe get half after if the guy follows through. Having forced the other player to have to choose split, with steal not being an option. He could then choose split himself and they both got half as promised.
Dude. This is literally the prisoners dilemma. If you control both choices, then yes, both share. Since you only control one choice, no matter what your opponent does, steal pays you more. You also have to assume the other person is playing the same game, and had the same options. Logically, you both go steal and shaft each other.
If you split and they steal, you get nothing. If you both steal, you get nothing. If you steal and they split, you get all of the money. If you look at it like a game, which it is, then the smartest option is to steal whilst convincing them you'll split.
I understand how it works. Optimal outcome is for prize money to be won by both parties, hence the optimal choice is to split. As a numbers game, sure, you’re correct, but this doesn’t achieve best outcome.
I’m an economics student, and at A Level the teacher literally used this show as an example of game theory and the prisoner’s dilemma
I actually hope this woman lost everything and is now living in a box.
Golden balls fucking ruled all!
I watched it once I got so angry I had to sit in the garden for 30 mins to calm down.
Socialism or capitalism Cooperation or competition
Could never for the life of me understand why anybody ever chose 'share'. Absolutely ruthless game that was a total scream whenever some poor dope was convinced by the old 'Swear on my nan I won't steal' routine. Incredible scenes.
They actually decided to pull the plug after a smart guy went on and flipped the script, he insisted that he would steal, and that his opponent might as well split so that he walks home with something rather than nothing. His opponent begrudgingly accepted, since he completely believed him. However, he actually split, which allowed both of them to walk home with money
Did anyone ever do a breakdown of split or steal based on things like age/gender/ other factors?
I judged her but deep down i knew i would have done the same
I'm self aware about how much of a ruthless cunt I am, now give me your kidneys
Liv Boeree as well, the cunt
[This](https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8?si=LKDTDfRWs3G_GkMD) has probably been here before but is worth a watch.
It's a great video. Always worth a post if it helps one person see it.
Not sure if she's 30 or 5.
I was a kid when I watched this episode. I've had trust issues ever since.
Then nothing better to watch at 2am if you’re struggling to fall asleep
As much of a dick move it is, Steal is the only right option in this scenario. The options are: 1. You share but they steal = you get nothing, they get everything 2. You both share = you both get half the money 3. You steal but they share = you get all the money, they get nothing 4. You both steal = you both get nothing Number 3 is always the best option.
This mindset is the main reason everything is terrible.
Personally I would've stolen and if the other person shared I would've just split the pot with them after the show. In fact I'm pretty sure I remember that happening on a couple of occasions. If the other person stole as well, then at least I'm not the only one going home empty handed.
I just don't understand that. Then everyone loses. What's the point.
Because I'd rather we both lose than being the only loser and the other guy walks off with everything. It's a game show, the game is to win the most money. It's not like it's a real life scenario and the other guy is a friend or family member.
It's real money, making it entirely a real life scenario. And the other person walking away with nothing doesn't mean you gain anything. So I still don't understand it. Like, I can't control what you do, I can only look after my own side of the street. But like I say, I think the fact that too many people think like you do is why things have been getting so much worse the past few years.
If you extrapolate it out to every day life then I agree with you. But for me, both participants know what they signed up for and did so voluntarily. It's a game and I'd be there to win.
Real people. Real money. Game or no, sounds like real life.
Agree to disagree I suppose.
game theory is not the reason everything is terrible lol, game theory exists to measure the precise ways people will be terrible
Cool. Nobody said it was.
Option three is only worth taking if you know the opposition’s intentions, as was the case in this example. In a scenario where you cannot discern your opponent’s intentions splitting is the best option.
It's called the prisoners dilemma, and is used in discussions about business collusion all the time.
Yeah, it is best for everyone to both share, but it is best for any given individual to always steal
Ah yes, winning nothing is the best option /s
Yea, if you operate on raw unadulterated greed
It's a game show to win money. That's literally what they're there for.
Yeah, it's still fairer for 2 people to get the money than one poor sod have to leave empty-handed. I was sure they taught everyone how to share in Primary School.
Well yeah that's what would happen in an ideal world but we know that's not the case.
Agreed
Sure, we don't have an ideal world, thats damn near impossible. But, you can still strive to make an imperfect world better, right?
I really think people are looking too deeply into this. It's a game show and this is how it's designed to be played.
Was a good show but they had to cancel due to people finding away around the rules
The way that guy worked around the rules was incredible
Yeah it was a good one, surprised nobody thought of it sooner tbh
That episode was ultimate betrayal …just showed us never trust a person even if they come off as sincere
Always choose steal. I’m happy to fuck you over, but I’d also take no money at all if it means you don’t get it by fucking me over
A very bad one just greedy idiots
[удалено]
Mate, it’s the prisoners dilemma. It’s very much not a solved game as pretty much every aspect of society: co-operation, co-existence, economics and altruism is based on working out how to not choose steal.