Guy in the brown shirt had to face the audience laughing at him and the other guy calling him an idiot, when in fact he was a genius. Smart thinking of the highest order.
Leroy O Neill yea but it was stupid because he said he would take it all and then split it when you could just both split when doing that. he could have took it and ran with the money
Every time this video comes across my feed, I'm impressed at how overwhelmingly this man solved this game. Like, announcing that you will invariably steal while promising to split afterwards guarantees that out of self-preservation, your opponent needs to split in order to have any chance at all of walking away with anything. It's a checkmate, not to your opponent, but to the showrunners. Brilliance
@@Mikerulez101 In this case it wouldn't be for the most rational people involved. If the opponent swears up and down, no matter what, that he would Steal, but split the prize, the only chance that you ever get any money is to split.
I'm not convinced that this can only truly work once. If this strategy was used on you, and you know about this episode, then you know the ball (pun intended) is entirely in your court. You can choose to steal thinking they'll pick split. Alternatively they may propose the strategy as a bluff, and genuinely pick steal (assuming you'll play along and pick split) and win it all. There's definitely ways this show could have continued with players aware of this strategy. It actually adds a new dynamic.
@@catmoonkenobihere is the thing. He's still convincing the other person to pick split by saying he is gonna pick steal. He could have actually stolen and then split after. Even if you play the game normally one person tends to be the one saying "let's split" and they tend to lose because they go into the debate ready to split. Going into the debate ready to steal and then split after from the other person's perspective shows more options to actually win if they pick split. It's not guaranteed gonna work every time but if you make the agreement something beyond just some golden balls it makes it more likely people will split. Think about it like this if someone wants to split it with you so badly why not just steal it all. If someone wants to steal it from you so badly the only thing you can do is split it for a chance to then get some after the show.
I thought this was common sense, the person is almost always going to split because in their head it is the only thing that gives them the chance of winning money
its is very logical. He just said that he will steal and split the money afterward because he knew that mabye if he said hell split the other person might steal so that was really the safest way of doing that
This game is the prisoner dilemma and the guy cheated the system by using what the game show thought would make for decent television. Instead of making it a 1/4 chance he made it a 1/2 chance. Absolutely brilliant.
Except it's not. If the setting was that, both choosing steal will result in each winning a quatre of the jackpot, then it became a prisoner dilemma setup.
@@ruizheli1974 its still the prisoners dilemma? I dont think a requirement of the dilemma is that the worst outcome for both is a 4th of the best outcome for one? 1. If A and B stay silent (split) they get the best mutual outcome 2. If A and B betray (steal) its the worst mutual outcome for both 3. If one betrays and one stays silent, its the best outcome for one and the worst for the other Its just a principle to explain bias against cooperative behavior in humans, it doesn't have to follow specific rules like be an actual prison. Regardless if option 2 ends with slightly more prison time, double the prison time, or life in prison, it doesn't matter. Its still the prisoners dilemma, regardless of the severity of the punishments/rewards
Absolute genius. He knew his opponent wanted to steal so he gave him an ultimatum. He said he was going to steal and the only chance the older man had to get money was to choose split. Well done!
That doesn't mean he's smart 😅 if there would be someone who would be happier to loose all those money rather then giving it to other guy by going with split then this "smart guy" would be the dumbest. Even this guy picked steal ball at first.
Halnik 111 Smart people always play in safe. You wouldn’t see a smart guy who risks with the money and choose steal because humans aren’t brain readers anyway and smart people always avoid the greed, because if he chose steal he will either let the other guy take all the money or lose everything also smart people dont play in chances.
@@abdullahlaith2629 quick response 😅 Call me stupid then coz i would 100% go with steal ball. I would feel alot better if we both loose this money rather than trusting stranger who can easily ran out with my money.. I think that loosing everything is way better than being that stupid guy who agreed to "split money later" thats my opinion at least
Halnik 111 Now we are back to my first comment, I totally agree with you, I would choose steal rather than choosing split and let him get the money, but thats why I said he is smart. I said he is smart because he could effect the others decision and let him choose split instead of steal. And why the other chose split instead of steal? because he gave him a faith that he will split the money after the show. So the other guy was between two choices. One: is choosing steal and no one will get the money (which he would probably choose that if he didnt give him a faith) and Two: is choosing split with a little of faith that he could get money after the show. So simply he went with the faith because he knew that he wont get money anyway but he has a little faith that he might get money. At least this is my opinion/vision.
Allegedly the producers threw in a clause/rule forbidding contestants from talking about after-show arrangements because of this. Source being a comment up above.
@@edmund8954 The clause would say that they are not allowed to discuss after-show arrangements during the show. Can be perfectly enforceable to say "If you do have this discussion, nobody wins."
This is actually genius. I've never been in this situation but I imagine it's easier to convince someone you're going to pick steal than split. Once convinced, it leaves the man with two options, in which he will win nothing no matter what he picks. His only hope at taking home any money is if he chooses split and the guy is loyal that he will split it after the show. Additionally, it defends yourself from your opponent attempting to steal from you because he knows it won't work.
They're on national television, there's a case to be made that he entered into a verbal contract and the split post win could be enforced in court accordingly ;-)
@krazed0451 Not really, the host clearly stated to the opponent that he will not be required to share. There's probably some clause in the show's policy/laws that would make a verbal contract null and void since the whole objective of the show is to verbally trick/persuade your opponent into a choice.
@@krazed0451 Following this logic, one can say that if both people say they're gonna split, it's a contract. And if one player steals the money it could be enforced in court. The whole point of this show is deception and I'm sure all players agree to these terms before the show.
Did anyone else notice how close Abraham was to choosing the steal ball? He had it in his right hand before having a change of heart and setting it down to pick up the ball on his left. The plot thickens!
yes what makes this even better in in a interview with radio lab podcast Abraham flat out admitted that he had already decided before the show started if he made it to the last round he was going to steal because he would rather "leave with nothing than risk being made a fool of on TV." When you think about it Nick's knowledge of game theory reset the decision making process for Abraham and since he already called Nick an idiot and everyone was laughing at Nick, then Abraham was no long in any danger of looking like a fool on TV so he made the only logical choice (split with the chance of getting something) instead of the emotional one (steal to make a point and get noting).
@@Magst3r1 pretty much, this was the peak of golden balls I think they thought it was better to go off on a high note rather than have a cycle of repetition through future episodes
Andrea S. it’s the prisoner’s dilemma, but in reverse. For the guy who said he was going to steal, if the other person chose steal, he would walk away with nothing either way, and if the other person chose split, if the right guy was honest, they would both walk away with half the money as well, so it would make the most sense for him to split.
@Castle Bravo No he wasn't because he thought the other guy was choosing steal so he either got nothing if he chose steal or had a chance at half if the guy was honest if he chose split. So in his mind the only chance he had of getting money knowing the other guy would choose steal was to pick split
I remember listening to a podcast on this years ago. They had both contestants on. The talked about how they went through this for at least 45 minutes and the host, the other contestant, the audience, the producers, everybody had turned on him. That must have been so uncomfortable being under the lights with literally everyone turning on you! He talked about how he came up with the strategy beforehand. Seems like this was the 15th game show he had been on and he gave all of his winnings to charity. The other guy talked about how frustrated he got, how the story about his dad and his word or whatever was totally BS which makes sense lol. I’m not doing it justice at all haha but it was super cool to listen to!
The smartest play ever seen. It cuts through the game and leaves it up to the other person. If he splits then they spilt. If he stole he would have realised that he was always honest and make you feel bad and spilt after the show lol Pure genius
@@ItatiaiaBR yup, bit what I think he means is that if blue shirt had chosen the steal ball, he might (unlikely but possible) have been able to be convinced to split after the show [assuming the reason he stole was out of anger at brown shirt not compromising on stealing]. This, however only works if brown shirt chooses the split ball, as if he picks steal, neither player gets the money, and so they can't split after the show. This means it is more favorable for brown shirt to pick split in this scenario. If we analyze the scenario from blue shirt perspective, he's always better to pick split as well, because if he picks steal, he guarantees getting nothing (as he believes that brown shirt will pick steal) but if he picks split, he has a chance to split after the show. (roughly equal chance as blue shirt would've had of picking split in the show, as the scenario is symmetric). This means he made the prisoners dilemma into a scenario where everyone should choose split. He pretty much solved the problem.
@@Alex_agamer The point of the game is that you can never 100% guarantee that you will get the money, but this was definitely the way to maximize the chances. The other person has to pick to be greedy twice, not just once
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin "1) because it is a vile drink that turns even the most respectable people into complete scoundrels. 2) that signal is over a thousand feet high...the entire royal navy is out looking for me, do you really think there is even the slightest chance that they won't see it?" 😁
The guy was not a genius at all, if I was the guy in the blue shirt I would have picked steal just to try and piss him off for fucking me about. THAT would have been genius
Christopher Tolley No it wouldn’t have because then there’s 0% chance of you getting money because the other guy DID say that he’ll give the money after the show and that’s a much better chance than NO ONE getting the money for sure
The best part is that his opponent actually picked the steal ball and then changed to split because he realized he has no choice. The strategy worked perfectly.
Lyon Pereira It was still a risk because if the other guy was smart he would easily see what he was doing and steal but still the guy in brown did exactly what I would
I agree that was a very very clever move. A chance of getting half is better than 0% chance of getting nothing, most intelligent people would split on the off chance of honesty, it makes complete game theoretical sense, both of them made the wisest choice and they both won.
it would be slightly more dumb 2 steal tho if the other guy chose steal (which the chance of was already drastically lowered) then there is still money on the table, and still a chance 2 get that money, and also a significantly magnified chance when compared 2 a normal split/steal situation its just a literal solution 2 the game, there is no better general move than this possible w/o playing 2 a very specific opponent/situation
So basically the dude with the brown shirt used game theory to predict his opponent's choice given the scenario that he would really steal. For the opponent the best choice, knowing that, is choosing split since there is still a remote chance the dude in brown would really choose to split after the show, whereas if he chooses steal they would both walk away with nothing. It's a brilliant plan since he kinda locks out the choise he wants without the opponent noticing.
This is the best thing I have ever watched on RU-vid. That man is an absolute genius - promises to take the steal ball knowing he's going to take the split; guaranteeing that regardless of what the other person does, someone gets the money. He also got the other guy to say he would split it after if it were the other way around - with a bonus speech on honesty. The logic is just outstanding.
The funny thing is blue was going to pick steal the entire time and literally changed his decision at the last second. Had he stuck with steal like he was going to, he would have walked with all the money because brown shirt was bluffing and wasn’t actually going to pick steal
@@CrazyPanda688 If you watch again, you see that the Brown Shirt Guy was really gonna pick Steal. He also changed the ball in the last moment as a respose to the other guy agreeing to pick Split. Giga Chad move.
@@CrazyPanda688 Its not a "bluff" if the outcome of your bluff is only ensuring that your opponent gets money. Its called being a good and smart person. Of course the other guy couldve been a shithead and take all the money after picking steal only out of spite and then seeing that his opponent only wanted him to get money, but its still a much better approach
It's clever but not genius imo. I came up with the strategy when I watched something similar (not with balls but the concept was the same) and it didn't even take me 5 mins. Only difference was that I would actually have stolen the money and given it afterwards, so in case my "opponent" was an idiot and pick steal, they still would not get anything... which is safer but not doesn't feel as good xD
@@Skyflame_So your strategy has a substantial risk of both players receiving no money, while this guys' strategy guarantees that both players, or at the very least one of them, receives the money. You should change your name to Dunning Kruger if you really can't see why his tactic is superior to yours...
Honestly, biggest "big brain, winner" moment on the show. Here's the facts we know and after the show. 1) Blue intended to steal from the start (confirmed via interview after show), 2) Brown knew from beginning he wasn't sure which way blue would, so he came up with alternative method which allowed least a 2/3rd chance of winning (either Blue winning all or keeping his word in splitting). Its obvious from the show that Blue, the host, and even the audience thought Brown was a weirdo or looney for his strategy; yet like others in the comments said, he truly chose the route which had the highest level probability in winning. When blue picked up the steal and realized he'd going home with 0$, he figured it was best to risk the possibility of split, least having some money going home since he thought the ability of a full payout (him stealing it all) was improbable.
@@Homer_Simpson248 someone that comes up with some bullshit story about his father saying a man not keeping his word bla bla, and still he intended to steal from the start is an utter douchebag and WOULD NOT SPLIT after the show
see, that wouldn't work on me since if I was blue, I would rather walk away with no money at all than risk letting him take all the money and not keep his word. I'm the type that would rather sink the life boat than give up my seat.
@@pear-zq1uj YES , Brown shirt must make sure that Blue is logical and really want the money. (and won't do anything for mutual annihilation/mutual destruction.
On a podcast later, the bald guy admitted that he was planning to steal. He actually grew up without a father so his whole speech about her father was completely made up.
He said he was going to steal the money because then if the other person chose steal they would both go away with nothing,so he told the guy you pick split because I'm telling you I'm stealing the money, so the other guy was backed into a corner believing if he chose steal too they would both lose, so he was obviously going to choose split and the big guy knew that. It was a very clever strategy.
The genius of this scene is demonstrated by what Nick says to Abraham before locking in his decision. Normally, by game theory, if you knew your opponent picked split, your best decision is to choose steal since getting the entire prize is better than getting half the prize. However if you opponent chose steal, you still aren't worse off choosing steal than split since you will end up with nothing either way. Thus, under ideal circumstances by game theory, both contestants would choose the steal, ultimately resulting in both contestants ending up with 0. By making it clear that he was going to pick steal ahead of time, Nick basically put an ultimatum on Abraham. If Abraham picks steal, then neither of them gets anything. But if Abraham agreed to pick split, then he can at least hope that maybe, just maybe Nick would keep his word. Thus, in this situation, Abraham's best decision is to pick split. However Nick couldn't agree to Abraham's counter offer of both picking split as Abraham could easily change his pick to steal at the last minute. Thus, this plan was a complete combination of reverse psychology and out thinking the opponent
The only hitch to that is Nick hoping he sold the act well enough so Abraham wouldn't try and call the bluff. If Abraham was even the slightest bit unconvinced, then he would've picked steal and ruined the whole thing by taking the whole lot.
@@solidmoon8266 its not a "bluff" if its only ensuring your opponent is absolutely guaranteed to get money out of it. More like a white-lie or something.
funny enough, brown shirt is also more likely to win money if he picks the split ball in his own scenario. If he picks the steal ball, and blue shirt picks the steal ball out of anger at losing all the money (no trust in splitting after), there is 0 chance that he can convince him to split after the show. However, if he picks the split ball, and the same scenario happens, he might be able to say, "look, I wasn't trying to take advantage of you, I was only giving us the highest chance of both of us winning", then potentially getting 1/4 of the money afterwards [because a quarter is better than nothing, and more likely to work than asking for a half, note I made up a quarter, it could be a different proportion]. brown shirt, solved the prisoner's dilemma so well, that he made it so both players were better off choosing the split ball!!!
Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin not necessarily, because the way they played it, they added another factor. assuming the white man would follow what he said, then splitting is no longer the dominant strategy, because the white man very well could have picked steal, so if he picked split, he would have gotten half the money, but if he picked split, he would have gotten nothing
The guy in the brown is a genius. He knew the only way of making sure they can both split is by saying he would steal. Then the other guy's only chance at winning any money at all would be to go along with it. It was the last episode as well before it got cancelled because the producers knew that the system was broken.
That is, if the other person is not proud. I know many people who'd rather lose all the money than be taken out of the negotiation all together. Put in the position of the guy in the blue shirt, they would've chosen "steal" out of spite, and anger (not everyone uses critical thinking only in these decisions).
@@analisantos3207 it is risky for man the man in brown shirt. But he cannot ensure the money the way around. Plus it is so hard to choose steal when you have a little light for the money. Either choose steal and walk away with nothing, or choose split and have a hope for share. Very few could omit that out of anger or any other feeling
@@analisantos3207 Except you don't. You know several people that would CLAIM they'd rather lose all the money. The fact is, when put in a situation like this, game theory shows us that most people would not go with the spiteful decision. See, if Nick had merely said: "I'm going to pick steal." Then yes, your viewpoint would have basis, but he didn't. He said: "I'm going to pick steal, and after the show I'll split the money with you." This gives the second person an out. The reason the guy in the blue shirt got angry was because he understood what was going on. Nick broke the system. He was going to STEAL from Nick, Nick knew this and essentially made this the worst possible option for him. You can also see him briefly picking up the STEAL ball, and then immediately putting it back down. He very, VERY briefly considered being spiteful but immediately put it down -- which is what most people would do.
" It was the last episode as well before it got cancelled because the producers knew that the system was broken." Really?! Surely that can't be true. This is the Prisoner's Dilemma, but with communication. Philosophers and logicians have debated it for centuries. All 'angles' were known well before there was a TV show lol
It's the one way you can initiate cooperation without losing the initiative under these game rules. For people who don't get it, he's convinced blue shirt that unless he chooses split he will absolutely get nothing. He's essentially removed the chance of him picking steal by using fear rather than trust.
Yeah it's very smart, he pushed them so they HAVE to go with Split or they will get nothing at all and he makes that very clear so the other person is very likely to go with Split. However if they pick Steal the other guy still walks away with the money. If you use this technique you might not always win the money yourself but you ALWAYS beat the game, that's what makes it genious, and that's why they would never do this is a casino, because with this strategy the game always loses. Props to this guy for figuring it out.
***** Yeah but maybe he would have split afterwards anyways then. The point is, it's very very likely the money will be split and even if the guy doesn't win, at least someone gets the money.
The point is that if hes telling you hes going to choose steal and split it with you.... the only choice you have at getting ANYTHING is to chose split. Maybe he will keep his word. If you choose steal you absolutely will get nothing.
@@rubbyducky8374 the big guy already knew the bald one look like a greedy guy and was gonna still so he intimidated him so he would walk out with Nothing.
Thotty DaGod yeh u can’t tell cos when they pick up the balls the bald guy goes for steal and then says I’ll go with u and picks up the other one which is the split. 5:02 Also imagine if the bald guy ended up going for steal then he would have it all 😂
This is honestly the smartest play you could do. The guy basically turned around and said the only way you're walking away with any money today is if you split it. He convinced him that if he picks steal he was guaranteed to go away with nothing. That meant the other guy literally only had one choice if either of them were going to get the money and that was to split.
If he chose Steal he would have gone down as the scummiest mastermind in history. Since he chose Split he’s going down as the nicest mastermind in the world.
Considering how they set up the rules, I think chosing steal and annoucing it beforehand (and then plitting afterward) is actually the best strategy. Because you are not leaving the other any interest in taking steal. So they have to trust you, just like they do if they have to believe you'll chose split. But this time with no interest for treason, since they have nothing to win by it. To prevent that strategy, rules should be made so that players get MORE than half the total each if both chose split. Something like :"If yous teal and they split, you get 10 000 and they get nothing. But if both split, both get 6000".
@@andeolevain I think you misunderstood the rules. The pot was for 13,000 plus. So if both choose split they split that money and each get over 6500, but if one steals and the other splits the one who stole gets all 13,000. So if you betray you get double the money than if you work together.
Andéol Evain you mixed up the choices. If you choose split, you are intact leaving major incentive for the opponent to steal because if you actually choose split and he chose steal, you walk away with nothing, while he takes everything. It would be smarter to tell them straight up you will steal, therefore their only options would be either to let you have the money by choosing split(hoping that you will split it after the show) or causing both of you to leave empty handed by also choosing steal.
It went on much longer at the actual recording, something like 45 minutes. Several members of the crew started to indicate that it had to be hurried up, or they'd be late home.
This guy took some game theory classes. It is very obvious that what Nicks did is the best strategy to follow. In fact, with the proposition of Nick, Ibrahim knows that there is no hope to get any penny if he chooses Steal. So most likely he will choose Split. Now, you could wonder why Nick did not choose to steal, well this depends on his risk adverse level and it seems to me that Nick is not a risk taker, so he wants to make sure that he got something from this game. If he Ibrahim chooses Split (95%), Nick will get half of prize, but even if Ibrahim takes an irrational decision by choosing Steal, Nick still has some chance to get some money from Ibrahim as Ibrahim would clearly appreciate Nick for not being greedy.
@doug dimidome You dont fully understand what brown shirt did. Brown shirt flipped the options on blue shirt and made it seem like either he takes the money and gives it later or they both lose. This will likely make blue shirt split if he is smart at all. But in the eventuality that blue shirt is dumb or just vengful and will rather burn the game to the ground than trust that the guy will give him anything and Picks steal, the brown shirt picked split. This now shows that brown shirt was being truthful, he would have defo split the money with blue shirt. Now blue shirt has a chance to realise this, they can talk to each other after and blue shirt will realise that brown shirt did what he did to make sure 100% that the money wasnt lost, and now blue shirt has a chance to choose to give half the money to brown shirt anyway like brown shirt said he would do. You get it? brown shirt knew that if the guy was vengful that they would get nothing so he decided to show his good faith and leave the money on the table even if it is stolen because then he has a chance to talk blue shirt into giving him half of the money anyway.
No, completley the opposite, blue shirt was left with a lose lose option, he was led to believe brown shirt was going to pick steal, that leaves him with 2 options pick steal and now both players walk away with nothing or pick split and now he still walks away with nothing in the hopes that brown shirt will half the cash after the fact
@@Capta1n4mer1ca There's also the fact that he would reward someone that goes against a seemingly selfish player, ans even then the upper hand isn't absolute, as blue shirt guy may have felt compelled to later split his steal.
even then he is smart. He did the best he could do ,he chose split at the end not becoz he can't split the money later, but out of heart , he won't let that steal-steal combo to happen.
This values demonstrated here are truly inspiring. Decency, intelligence, empathy, kindness and mutual benefit … all in the face of a game format designed to encourage greed and betrayal. It’s like good doing a judo throw on evil
Honestly, genius. He made someone think 100% they would earn nothing if they steal, meaning their only chance they have to make any money at all is to split. Then making it safe for him to also split because who would choose “no money” over “maybe money” (if you believe him that is)
A cynical fool would have chosen steal and walked away with everything since brown was bluffing And blue very nearly did steal, he was going to the entire time and even admits it by saying “we’ve lost everything thanks to you”, and then changes his mind at the very last second
I'd have chosen steal out of spite. It wouldn't be about the money for me. It would be about getting one over on the guy who said he would steal the entire lot. If you steal and he splits, you get the entire pot. If you both steal, he didn't deserve the money anyway, he's a thief!
@@EnglishLadbro spite? What do u mean by spite? Even if he chose steal he prolly would’ve split it with him and only did the strategy he did because he didn’t trust the other guy (u in this case) would chose split.
@@iswiftyfox8997 And you can obviously see that he made the right choice looking at these comments. "I wouldve wanted nothing simply out of spite" "hes a thief" "lowlife scumbag" "would pick steal only for the satisfation of this asshole getting nothing" His tactic only ensured that his opponent has a 100% of getting money, and theyre talking like hes hitler incarnate. No good deed goes unpunished
That's brilliant. He forces the other man to create a bond of trust, then chooses split, so in case the other chose steal, he would be much more morally inclined to split after the game. He broke the system
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin listen, if you aren't able to understand it, it's okay. Some of you are a little dumber and we shouldn't expect you to get it :)
It's less the moral aspect, and more that Brown shirt dude has shifted the choice. No longer is the choice 'be greedy' or 'be good-hearted' the choice is now 'don't trust and make sure the other player can't get money' or 'hope that they will follow through with their word' (and yeah there's 'hope that they are tricking you and be greedy' too) This way any person who prefers to have a chance to get money over fucking over someone who fucks them over will split.
That's actually a strategy in Game Theory called "the First choose advantage" and "the dominant" strategy. He took a dominant position in saying he was going to steal, with the promise of splitting outside. At this point the other one had ti choose: trust him and play split (with a chance of him being honest) or steal too, with no chance of having that money. This way the First person made sure the other one was rationally going to choose split, to then split himself. Unbelivable to see this on practice, they actually show this video in economics classes.
yeah, for sure it is a smart move, but if the other guy is alien smart he could read your bluff and actually choose steal because he knows youre not actually going to steal
@@AlcatrazHR its essentially just the prisoners dilemma with money. In a theoretical case, it is always more beneficial to defect for the 25% chance that your opponent will cooperate. But with the communication channel open, you can present the case that mutual defection will result in a greater net loss, thus making cooperation the only real choice if maximum net gain is desired. You're now free to cooperate, and everyone wins
he is even beating that^^ because he logically gives weaknes no chance... I do not think that all people who picked steal are somewhat evil in their heart..
@Jared Kamel even if it didn't he forced the other to quote his father and his .orals on national television to increase his chances of splitting after the show
This man dominated the game from the start, and completely broke the show's format. There was simply no way to continue this program once this strategy was broadcast.
@freelupo8240 The other reason the show probably couldn’t go on is that the strat basically guaranteed that the show would almost constantly lose money, meaning it was basically a massive money fire.
People keep saying this, but literally all the show would have had to do was put it in the rules that you can't in an way promise or suggest you'll split the money after the show, or else they reserve the right to not pay you. That's the part that worked, not the "I promise I'm going to steal" part. If you just say you're going to steal with no promise to give them half, the other person will probably pick steal as well out of spite
@@blankoblanco The point of this game is for the parties to communicate, to test whether they can trust each other or convince the other to trust them. Every rule that arbitrarily limits what can be communicated simply because someone previously (and legitimately) found a compelling play undermines the game. It is disingenuous, and the audience wouldn't except it. What else would be the point of this rule except to stop a gambit that is fully within the spirit of the game? Sorry, but the rule you suggest is basically tantamount to someone losing a game of monopoly and flipping the table like a child in full tantrum.
I’m honestly surprised nobody thought of this when designing the show. You can tell the creators thought it would work one way only. They will always both say they’ll split and then there are only three options. They both are truthful and it splits, one is a liar and the truth teller loses all, or both are liars and they both lose for their greed. Brilliant, ship the show! Nobody considered that someone might try a different strategy besides convincing the person they’d split. What if they refuse to reveal what they’ll do entirely? What if they say they’ll steal? One makes the whole game boring because it removes the truth/lie element, and the second completely breaks the game but nobody ever considered it.
You're talking rubbish. This 'strategy' would only work a handful of times at most and then people would just simply exploit it by stealing instead of splitting and you're back to square one. There is no 'cracked code' here, the show failed because it simply ran it's course and wasn't getting enough viewers.
It's possible that the makers of the show wanted to bail-out and got two members of the production staff to appear as contestants so they could go out with a bang.
Was that a joke or being serious? I can't tell lol. But for the record, The show was cancelled because viewing figures dropped by half during the last series.
@@SumoCumLoudly I'm sorry that you never had a father to understand that this is a normal conversation between father and child. This is something that my father said to me and his father said to him. If in that moment highly charged a lot on the line, your only value are your words. Adding to your character that you were raised right is exactly what needs to happen in that moment for trust to build. Do you actually communicate with people or just talk at them? I'm going to guess you're just talking at them.
Actually, just heard both of these guys interviewed on RadioLab. The bald guy confessed he never even met his father. It's a line from a movie he remembered because he thought he might use it one day.
Steven Cohen thank you for the insight. It’s stay normal in our culture and our Fathers rise us this way. When you say the word then do it or don’t say anything.
its game theory reverse psycology would be telling him PICK STEAL so hed switch to pick he didnt do that he told him what he wanted to do and was banking on him listening
Love this vid, always gets me on a spree of watching split or steals, they are always extremely interesting to watch and a real asset for looking at psychology in my layperson opinion here. Its amazing to watch someone lie and manipulate their way into a steal, and always so heartbreaking aswell, but it is still something that everyone should watch, especially if they are naive like myself..
It's impossible to tell, but it sounds to me like the very first bit of laughter was more "Holy Cow, that's genius! All of my expectations are violated and it's absolutely proper that that happened, and now I'm in a better world for it" than "That guy is an idiot, and my expectations have been violated because of what a dumb thing he did, like the punchline to a joke".
Abraham was definitely going to betray him. There is really no other reason why he would be so mad but more importantly, he firstly took steal but then realised the risk for getting nothing was just too high. Since he was almost willing to risk lose a big chance of 50% in a honorable way for the slightest chance of 100% in the dirty way tells how greedy he was, so well played Nick.
This is an actual beast. Claiming an advantage ( be the one who dictates the money) by giving away an advantage ( giving away your 50% of the choice to the other person, conpletely putting it in his hands) while both gaining the overal advantage of clearly defined rules which is the most important uncerntainty of this game. An individual position trade which improves the overal position of both players. Well done sir.
+Fire Horse still a silly gamble, basically annoying the other player and telling them to lose will more likely make them do the opposite, would've been funny if that guy chose steal
It's not a prisoner's dilemma. It's only similar to it! 1. It doesn't make any difference wheter you steal or split if the other player steals. In the prisoner's dilemma, you might even get a higher penalty than normal depending on the other player's decision. 2. In the prisoner's dilemma, the sum of both the player's payoffs only reaches its maximum if none of them betrays, whereas here, the sum of the player's payoffs reaches its maximum value in 3 out of 4 possible cases.
Stupid game. You should always, always steal. There is no possible outcome where you gain more from splitting. The risk is the same for splitting and stealing, but the expected outcome of the risk is better for stealing.
@@Eagles2020 He's right though. Morals aside, you should always pick steal. If they pick split, then you get all of the money. If they picked steal then you were going to lose anyway.
@@John-bz3wr From a theoretical standpoint yes, but people aren't perfect liars. If you say you'll pick split (your only negotiation tool), but aren't actually going to pick split, the other person might pick up on that. Also, if you do steal like that, you'll be televised to a bunch of people that you are untrustworthy. You might come away from the game with more money, but you may face a more abstract cost socially after the game.
These two literally look like the archetypes of their characters. Blue shirt reportedly was planning on stealing and looks like an oily salesman or gas station owner, brown shirt said he was gonna steal to force a wholesome split and has a fresh faced innocent face you’d see in a choir or something
This is clever on so many levels. He believes his opponent will steal, which if he does means he wins nothing so there's a 50% chance he gets nothing (if his opponent steals which he believes he will) or he gets half if his opponent is good and picks split. So he convinces his opponent that he will pick steal and give him half the money, meaning if his opponent picks steal he 100% loses, meaning his only possible way of standing a chance of making money is by splitting. The honest guy is doing this partly because he's a good dude but partly to ensure he doesn't get robbed. He went from being pretty much guaranteed to get robbed to convincing the other guy that there is only one possible option which is for him to split, but if he could have predicted this was all some clever ploy he could have picked steal and would have won everything, similarly the good guy could have picked steal and this could have all been some genius plan to take all the money. But he ended up winning twice, one by getting half the money when he would have likely had it stolen and two by being a good man and splitting the money. Truly amazing.
James Campbell But there's such a thing as spite, though. If I felt was I was going to get conned, I might pick steal just to fuck him over. Better that he also has nothing, than the fact that he gets the money and then doesn't split it with me.
Atnas Ingetnamn The reason why you wouldn't do that out of spite is because he told you that he's going to split the money with you after the show. If you purposely chose to steal even after he tells you he's going to pick steal then you have 100% chance of getting nothing if he actually picks steal. If you choose split at least you'll have a chance that he'll actually split the money with you afterwards. He set it up so that the bald guy has nothing to gain if he choose steal, but has something to gain if he chooses to split.
HTCMichael Right. You either split, or steal. Steal - get all the money, opponent get's none, or split - Share the money half and half. The guy on the right states that he's going to steal, meaning that if the guy on the left wants any money at all, he would need to split. He was constantly telling the other contestant that he was going to steal, meaning that the other contestant had no choice but to spilt if he wanted some money
What? How? If he tried that on me I'd pick Steal to be vindictive and make it so he definitely got nothing. In this case I'd have gotten all the money and I would have said a big "fuck you" to him. If he wanted to be decent he should have said he'll pick split.
@@garethnicol52 that’s stupid. If you picked split and he didn’t share it after the show, you could make that £6000 back by selling the story most likely, why would you pick steal out of spite? He was honest in saying that he was going to steal
Your comments make absolutely no sense. In this case Steal would win £13,600. If the other guy picked Steal as he said he would, we'd both get no money, but I'd get the satisfaction of making sure that asshole didn't get anything because he was being a lowlife.
@@garethnicol52 But he wasn’t being a lowlife. He was taking away the risk factor to ensure you BOTH get the money. You’re just clearly a very vindictive, spiteful person
By declaring his intention to pick steal no matter what he basically took the option for the other guy to steal everything off the table. He shifted Abraham’s choices from trust him and get half or steal and get it all to trust him and get half or steal and get nothing. That way it’s a no brainer choice. Because even if he doesn’t truly trust him it’s better than the certainty he’ll get nothing. Genius
@@FalconModeGaming agreeing split doesn't guarantee you much because the other person can stab you in the back. If you agree to split but then choose to stab them in the back, there is a very good chance that they can steal too - both walk away with nothing. If you very firmly say that you are going to steal, you have the other person in the palm of your hand. Why? Because they cannot win the whole pot! They can either choose to trust you and potentially get half, or cut their nose off to spite their face, and steal to stop you getting anything. They could steal with the hope you are saying steal to then split, but would never have been a probable play until after this one was witnessed. I hope that makes more sense but this was the best percentage play at getting some money.
Everyone is talking about how genius the guy is, but let's talk about how humble the other guy is. Many of us would be "if I'm not getting anything, so are you" and go for steal 😂 lovely interaction from both parts
Well, that's only if you're absolutely certain he won't split after the show. Truly 0 probability. Even if you think it's one in a million, then it costs nothing to at least try. If you choose steal, you guarantee that you're not getting anything no matter what.
Came here after watching veritasium's video, paused the moment he mentioned game show, and googled the game show he was referring to. And WOW the amount of emotions in this comment section. And I think this comment section itself shows a few things about human tendencies. The VAST majority of people and the masses only go surface level deep on the vast majority of topics and situations. So people are much more likely to take the statement of "I'm going to choose steal" at face value. Also, Logically and Mathematically they both made the correct choice. (EV and outcome for both parties but I won't go into the math). The game was designed so that mathematically there was no mathematical advantage to either choice, but by making the out of game offer, he changed the math. And thus on the receiving end, choosing split suddenly has a mathematical advantage. BUT People don't always make choices logically. An incorrect mathematical choice can be justified by the "emotional value" of the other option or the math might not even be considered at all. That allows this play (or a similar one) to be made at least one more time in the gameshow's life before it becomes "stale". Even when and if that happens, even based on this clip, it's obviously a final section in multiple rounds of the show. Shows change based on problems all the time. Not only gameshows but sitcoms and drama (actors leaving). There's nothing that stopped them from changing or replacing the segment like other game shows have done in the past. So no, he did not single handedly kill the show. If the show really only depended on this segment, it wasn't a good long term show to begin with.
I turned my headphones around because my right ear is more sensitive than my left. XD So I was wearing my headphones the wrong way around during the video. XD
Actually, that strategy guarantees the brown shirt guy either half or none of the money. He never intended to pick steal. It does guarantee that someone gets money every time though
@@LateNightChess the other person doesn't have a logical choice but they do have a choice. The brown shirt is picking split no matter what and signalling the exact opposite. Picking split no matter what guarantees half the money at most, and actually still couldn't work. The choice for the other guy (from his perspective) is "we both go home with nothing" or "only you go home with nothing". It's still quote possible he could resent the brown shirt guy and pick steal so nobody gets anything (and then obviously winning everything). So... You are wrong
Not necessarily true. If both contestants were following the same strategy, it becomes a battle of wills; who can scare the other into submitting. Ultimately if you believe that the other person will pick steal, your only choice at winning anything is to pick split and hope your opponent is generous. If you get two individuals, both of whom are greedy and using this tactic, neither of them gets scared off and as a result, nobody wins anything. This line of logic only works 100% of the time when the other isn't using it
In terms of game theory, STEAL is always the best option from a single player's perspective. Basically, when you go SPLIT, you have a 50% chance of getting half the prize, and 50% chance of getting nothing. But when you go STEAL, you have a 50/50 between getting *the whole prize* or nothing. Knowing this, the brown shirt guy figured out that blue shirt guy would pick STEAL no matter what. But by promising to STEAL and share the money after the game, he made SPLIT more appealing, as STEAL would result in a loss for the blue shirt guy. This allowed brown shirt guy to pick SPLIT and do what he intended the whole time: to share the money. If he figured all of this out on the spot, the man truly is a logical genius. Interestingly though, if blue shirt guy realized that brown shirt guy's final intention was to share, he would've figured out that SPLIT is about to be chosen. That would have let him walk away with all the money, although he'd lose a bit of his reputation
It only guarantees a split if the opponent is a rational player. As the comments have shown there are plenty of irrational players who would have happily cut off their noses to spite their faces
How..... the bald guy was going to be forced to choose steal so the Other guy won’t stay with everything even if he said he’ll split it after the game. What’s the difference of splitting during the game??? Same outcome just an idiot. Wait Nevermind..... he’s a genius
