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
@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?" 😁
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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!
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!
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
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).
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 is the best thing I have ever watched on TH-cam. 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...
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 😂
@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.
@@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
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
@@alen3351 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
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 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".
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..
+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.
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.
@@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.
What really makes this moment, is that he had no reason to pick Split afterwards. He could've stuck with Steal and kept his promise to split the money after the show, but he still went for Split anyway, to show the audience that he wasn't driven by greed and just intended to outplay the system
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
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
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
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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
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
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.
That was an incredibly intelligent move. He assured that his opponent wouldn’t steal, but then chose split himself so they’d both go home with something. Shows that intelligence paired with compassion always wins.
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.
That guy in brown is an absolute genius! He leaves the other guy with two options 1. Go home with nothing! 2. Go home with the chance of getting his half share!
What do you mean? What if the bald guy had chosen steal after all that, which is what I absolutely would've done. What's genius about going home with nothing?
Sure it was also psychology, but it was mostly game theory and mathematics. The usual probelm in this prisoner-dilemma type of game is that the steal option is the nash equilibrium. He used a somewhat known strategy to circumvent that. Doing something like this is kind of the only real way to make a split-split scenario possible, because the split-split scenario is very unstable. This can be easily seen when drawing a matrix.
@@RandomPerson-yq1qk Why not "steal" himself, though, then -- merely attempting to engineer a situation that removes risk from pursuing a greater good? If rationality now dictates that player B choose "split" as "steal" has become functionally worthless (and "split" offers some probability of a post-show split), and player A knows this, player A can exploit it to choose "steal" himself, renege on his unregulated offer, and keep all the money. And in turn, if player B understood player A to be playing rationally, surely he'd respond by choosing "steal" himself. It seems to me that this only works out if you assume the players to be working at relatively low levels of k-rationality.
@@otherwords1375 So Player A is the one with the first offer trick and player B is the other guy. Indeed there is absolutely no good reason for any player to choose "split" over "steal" unless you involve something outside of the actual game. Because only Player B got any such incentive, Player A has no reason from B to not choose "steal" so he has no reason at all at first look, but the game is not in a vaccum with perfectly rational players, it has viewers and Player B might still choose steal "out of spite". If Player B chooses steal "out of spite" then Player A could argue that he truly wanted to split and convince B to split afterward. If B chooses split then the viewers and society sees Player A as a good person and not a potential liar. However if we see the game in a vacuum then Player A has no reason at all to choose "split" which makes the split-steal option a nash equilibrium as long as Player B sees the risk/pain of being betrayed lower than the chance/reward of getting the money and even though I am no expert on this in this vacuum version this trick should work on any k-rationality. The split-split scenario is still not stable, but a stable split-steal scenario can be made.
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.
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
![Channel 5 adverts 2000 [148]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g_SjNXdO3Dw/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
100% Gary, he has serious smarts on this.
Genius is often mistaken as foolishness at first.
Amplify as a genius I can confirm this
RK 740 bruh lmao
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
"I'm honest, I'm going to choose steal" *Chooses Split*
Jack Sparrow: It's the honest ones you have to watch out for.
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin "and that was without even a single drop of rum" 😂
@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?" 😁
@@CrypticHowl looooool on the island with Elizabeth
@@ocaly I love Jack Sparrow...oops I mean CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow 😂
He also said "I promise you I'm gonna split it"
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
But the optimal choice would be to choose 'Steal'
A game like this can never be “solved” because it involves psychology and lying which you can never know
I always thought of the idea. What if you just give someone the money and split it afterwards?
@@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.
He only won that round though. That strategy doesn't work in the next round or am I missing something.
This guy literally single handedly ended a game show by just playing it once. Holy shit he's my hero.
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.
My dad once said that never trust a man who starts a sentence with "My dad once said..."
I see what you did there
Poor choice of words
@@itsgenti8910 did you just assume my gender?
@@srt-fw8nh im confused
Lol this guy dont understand English
This guy was playing chess while everyone else was playing 0 & X
Idk, why i was thinking of the same phrase, but different games, was thinking of poker, and solitaire.
@Shlomo Shekelstein Yes.
Noughts and Crosses is simply an alternate name
Every One was playing Tetris he was playing with 1s and 0s.(hacks)
Tiktoktoe?
Did u forget what it’s called? 😂
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 no. This is the prisoner's dilemma, search it up.
@@lindsaytang1017 learn to read.
Another idea is to swap the ball . What do yiu think ?
@@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
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.
@@andst4 You can't be sued for deceptive conduct under gameshow conditions.
@@krazed0451 Exactly, I understood that you had claimed otherwise, saying about the verbal contract on tv.
Guy broke the whole show, they gotta patch that.
It'll be gone in the next update
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.
@@jonneh8317 How do they stop that??
@@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."
@@jonneh8317 but how would they know if theyre making an arrangement?
He is smart he did that so he is 100% sure that he wont do steal
xLeez because not everyone can control greed.
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.
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!
It’s so bizarre to me that people like you comment detailing the plot we’ve all just watched. We’re all completely aware - we saw it too.
Thanks as a blind, dumb, and deaf person myself this explanation really helped!
@@nobody-wz7lw 😂😂 how did u type this?
@@bharadwajeddanapudi8507are you like him too?
@@hongfang7869 nah I'm just autistic. So it's like being dumb deaf and blind even if I'm not
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!
Sticking to a plan you made when everyone is against you is tough. Huge respect to him then.
I would love to listen to that podcast. Do you recall where I might find it?
This sounds made up
when you have heart of an angel and mind of criminal...
Perfect statement bro
Chaotic Good
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
@@indrektapalt3252 like this fucker might actually cost us he surprised me
That man had 400 iq, he basically made sure the guy didn’t choose steal, what a genius
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin are you stupid?
@@rickandmorty4058 are you blind?
@@rickandmorty4058 ah ok fair enough
i also would've done that
not exactly 400 iq buy really smart
yeah thanks because we didn't know that yet
He played this so well, that other guy was 100% looking to steal
no, he was confused because he wasn't sure if he would split it after he chose steal
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!
He was interviewed later and said he was definitely going to steal, and the story about his father was made up.
I didn't even realize!!
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).
Host: *says they have ½ a minute to discuss their plan*
Contestants: *talk for 2 minutes and 34 seconds*
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.
@@brandonmartin-moore5302 what? where's the source for this? i can't imagine it took 45 minutes
@@doggosuki someone on a gameshow forum I read mentioned it about a year ago.
Brandon Martin-Moore Sure, bro, sure.
It’s British minute
"With the money I've won, I think I'm gonna respray my yacht"
Other dude: *wait what*
post melon where does it say it
Man thata really funny. Cause you think the white guy is smart but no,,, the arab has a fucking yacht!!!!
fuck off
@@jdrmurphy4141 He is not Arab
Jajajajajajajjaaj
This is the best thing I have ever watched on TH-cam. 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...
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
Or not split it after the show, the guy looked like he wouldnt do that
Actually, by picking steal the opponent is chosing to leave with no money. Therefore, I don't think he should keep
@@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.
It's simple game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. There was nothing genius about this.
@@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
That’s honestly genius - convince him his only chance is to split, then split. What a good guy and a smart one too
he lied tho, he didn't pick steal.
zeu xlaught He lied but to be truthful
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
@@sactorno There would be a 100% of you getting all of the money because the man in the brown shirt DID split. You are talking utter nonsense.
Although everyone thought that he was an idiot The brown shirt guy was a pure genius he just made sure that other guy doesn't get the steal ball.
If you think about it its pretty simple. No one wants to waste a chance to get money.
He forced him to choose the split ball out of trust he would be paid half after the show
true. he actually try to convince him to work with him together and pick split
but he did it wisly, he actually forced him to pick split
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.
Haha, Ibrahim still got the last laugh. The final three seconds of this video are an even better twist than the winning strategy.
I couldn’t decipher what he said! Way did he say toward the end?
“With the money I’ve won, I’m going to respray my yacht” 🤣
my right ear loved this!
bro its unbearable but i want to watch the vid
@@SassyTHCfr
I haven’t laughed this hard in a month, thank you !🙏
To be honest, my headphones need to agree on a split.
Hahahahahaha
Werten a.k.a Hoshi even though it's been a year I've got to recognise this joke... thanks ayyy hahahhaha
Loooooool 😂😭
Greatest comment ever
Biddle Grip calm down, it's just a joke and he was probably in a quiet place or something
If the bald guy indeed chose steal, that other guy would have become a meme forever.
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.
@@dastran2731 Yes, but I doubt people will think about that though..
@@dastran2731 He actually did it because he wanted to make sure the other guy would choose split
But even in that case, the bald guy would probably feel very bad for choosing steal, so he would share it anyway.
He lost the opportunity
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.
I always show this to people as a quick example of game theory in action. Legendary stuff.
contestant: "I'll pick the steal ball and split the money with you"
host: "Wait, that's illegal"
@@aleqthunder1153 yes he could go to jail for the rest of his life
@@hoveringvan9961 whait why?
@@charlesantoine3551 whell bhecause it's illegal
Julian VH Well i Think he is looking for the legal definition not just that it is illegal, anyone could say that 😊
Huh? The host said he had no legal obligation to split the money.
This was not weird. The guy in the brown shirt is simply just a genius!
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.
I mean even if the left guy still chose steal he would probably feel guilted into splitting it anyways
He could've manipulated the other guy and took all the money too, but he's just a good guy.
@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
@@trueneutral101 he trusted him enough that he would split, you are just a selfish person
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.
And if he did steal he probably would’ve felt obligated to split it with him after the show
@@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.
"With the money I've won, I think I'll respray my yacht." Lmfao
Mind games in order to guarantee that the other chooses split, genius!
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.
He WAS going to do that. Watch the video again, the bald guy picks the steal ball then changes it to split at the last second.
S'not mind games, it's simple logic. It's the only time, and probably the only way, anyone's applied actual logic or strategy to this show.
The bald guy was gonna steal if the other wasn't so ingenious tbh
I read the little ear tug at 2:29 that he was planning to deceive.
they both went on a radio show after this, they said the conversation went on for 55 minutes and that the bald guy was going to originally steal.
@@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.
Nahh the bald guy was definitely going to split from the beginning
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 😂
Wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove... remember seeing this air.. brilliant show golden balls ❤
Fun fact - The man who came up with the genius plan is also on Come Dine With Me Season 13 and WON that show too! A born winner🙌🏼
He stole the show by making a banana split
Fun fact im asleep
@@donjohn2695 Not that fun tbh
@@Dadaadad268 Deserves more likes..
Bald guy was gonna steal if he the other dude didn't do that genius method, he literally just broke the game with the tactic
doug dimidome well no because there’s 3 outcomes, he just picked 1 of them. either you both walk out with nothing, or you stay true to your word
@doug dimidome But both can be happy, isn't that the point except normally you can't trust?
@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.
this guy basically cancelled the show
Wait like really? Was this one of the last episodes or was this a joke? I live in Norway, and these things dont go here.
@@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
No, later they just created a rule that you can't split after the show. That's what I've heard.
Parabalani deadass?
@@parabalani how could they enforce that?
This comes up on my feed every so often and I watch it every time. It's such a great showing of sportsmanship.
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.
Not only is the guy smart, he's also kind. He could've stolen.
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
Even if he steal, I'm pretty sure he'll split the money with the other guy after the show.
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.
Also, it keeps the show's strategy integrity
@@-inputoutput if the other guy chose steal then there isn't money left on the table, the other guy wouldnt share
Actually a very clever man. Probably why the show ended.
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin Are you litterly replying to everyone who has a brain when you don't? Damn you must have a really good life
Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin steal is always the right option, and yet they won the money on a split
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
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin you clearly failed 5th grade
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininninyes but he didnt, and the other guy didnt steal either like he couldve
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.
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.
Exactly. He changed the odds.
@@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!!!
Ibrahim
This guy is basically the reason this show isn’t on telly anymore.
Iain Glen why? What does this mean
@@sinarobyn5252 He means,he broke the game.
The show is flawed, their is no incentive to pick split so everyone picks steal, this is the only way to guarantee you split the money
@@gaaratf2fanboy76 If everyone chose steal, no one would win any money. It also makes you appear nasty.
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.
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.
You can also see he changed from the right hand ball to the left hand one so he definitely was going to steal
@@harrisonharris6988 yeah,amd he also said he is gonna steal in the video aswell.
Tannu no they’re talking about the bald guy
@@armon9555 yes the bald guy also said, he will steal
@@_Kecks i dont think you understood what i said whatsoever
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
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.
No, it was dumb. He should have gone with steal
@@yourmum69_420 this play got the show cancelled but go off
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.
It would have been better if he chose to steal and then split it. No one has ever done that, he basically just played a prank.
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.
Yes, I understood that correctly. Which is exactly why by admitting you'll betray, you remove the incentive for your opponent to do the same.
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.
This is actually one of the most intelligent plans I've ever seen on television. The guy on the right is a genius
this is actually beating the "system"
not just that, but also honest with a heart
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..
Thats what im sayin
@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
5:32 that smirk at the Host is priceless. THAT is why he did it
I think that this was the only time in the show's history that a contestant in the final round said "I'm going to pick the steal ball" 😂
And he lied. :D
But definitely is better to tell "Steal" and lie about it, than swear to choose "Split" and then steal as an as*hole!
@@alen3351 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
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
He was honest to the point of insanity and the lie was the good thing in the end.
Guy in the brown shirt:
They called me a madman
666 likes
I read madam xD
Nick
Luke Taylor wtf
Its the name of the brown shirt guy
This guy was so genius he killed the format.
Quarantine has bought me strange places
You're an NPC
KIRSHNE PLAYZ 😂😂😂
Welcome to the club normie
AGenericAccount Felt
Me 2 and Im addicted to this fucking shit 😂
The audience laugh at him, and his opponent labels him an 'idiot' on national TV - which is followed by a round of applause. A true man of honour.
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".
Best comment!
That’s what I feel like regarding covid. Everyone laughed at me and called me a dangerous idiot at the beginning. Well guess who’s laughing now
@@dwaynethewokjohnson7773
pssst...
Not everything is about Covid.
@@dwaynethewokjohnson7773 And you're are still an idiot, it's just the crowd of morons that has gotten bigger.
After 10 years
*still eating popcorn and reading the comments*
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..
Jigsaw before he got cancer, already making people play them games
Bruh
Best comment i've seen in a while
I was thinking that
Ikr he looks like him or is he actually him
Nah Just looks like him, Tobin Bell played Jigsaw
The fear of losing is greater than the greed of winning, and the mastermind of this video knew it
Great comment
One in hand is worth two in the bush
Perfect way to put it. You just said what everyone else was trying to articulate and couldn't.
Preach
Shut up, it is called game theory with applied economics. Search it up.
Wish they'd brought this show back ❤
It makes perfect sense. By telling him you are going to steal, he either has to take you at your word or risk losing everything.
"You're an idiot"
My friend you have no idea
+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
+D3ATHGOOSE It's game theory. Read up Prisoner's Dilemma. That was a very clever move.
+Bilal Ayaz Butt a GAAAAAAAAAAAAME THEORY
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.
Dude is a legend
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
@@dave3138 Gotta give him credit for "moronass". 😂😂
Darren, LMFAO , for real though .
@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 :)
Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin
You don’t even know what happened, do you lady?
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.
My right ear is blessed!
I’m in love with this man. I keep coming back to watch this video.
He is so intelligent.
“No mans a good man if he’s a liar”
This man: well yes but actually no
🤣🤣🤣🤣
:/ I just commented something similar.
I died when the bald guy made up that story about his dad.
Why would it be made up
@@aftersexhighfives it was like a line from a movie
@@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.
What really makes this moment, is that he had no reason to pick Split afterwards. He could've stuck with Steal and kept his promise to split the money after the show, but he still went for Split anyway, to show the audience that he wasn't driven by greed and just intended to outplay the system
My right ear enjoyed this
This guy actually made a 9000000IQ play while remaining a decent human being.
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
@@garethnicol52 it’s a game show designed to make people cheat and lie to each other. Why would you trust his word that he would split?
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
Next level reverse psychology.
it's not reverse psychology
How is it not?
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
He told a genius lie. Reverse psychology is when you tell the truth with the intention that your opponent thinks you're lying.
Next next level if bald dude picks steal
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
This guy figured out a way to make sure he wasn't leaving with nothing, pure genius!
That guy’s actually a genius, with his strategy he was basically forcing the other guy to pick split
@youtube account [everyone liked that]
No shit
Bullshit he could have called his bluff
Other guy could have easily seen what he was doing and just stolen though, would be scummy but not too hard of a read.
@@camdenwyeth316 bro you’re just saying that because you saw the whole outcome happen if you were in the situation you wouldn’t really know
My right ear really enjoyed this.
enjoyed the static as well?
had to take my headphones out
And my left ear 😂
uh ohh, your headphones are broken
YOU STOLE MY COMMENT I COMMENTED THIS 8 MONTHS AGO
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.
My left ear was lonely during this video.
At least you still HAVE your left ear... All I have is this pineapple.
I've only had one side working for a while. Got a new pair today that works, and I get this video! lol
ReflexEight I blame Mike Tyson for your injury.
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
You’re left ear must have stole!
This is probably the episode that killed Golden Balls. It was only a matter of time before someone used the game theory that is the optimal line
BarryFrench what do u mean
@@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.
@Benjamin Zephaniah if it was half the money he was seeking to get then surely the best way to get half is to do what he did?
BarryFrench they needed a third option
Agreed
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.
Lmao, that was coherent
My right ear really enjoyed this
Honestly that’s the most genius tactic I’ve ever seen to guarantee they split
Why wouldn t u use that tactic to take all the money instead?
Adrian Iul because that’s an asshole move, you are literally giving no chance for the other player to win money
Yes exactly, really smart lol
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
He's smart. He forces the other guy to pick the split ball by saying he's going to pick steal, so he has no choice but to split if he wants the money.
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.
James Campbell Hold on can you break this down for me again, I don't quite get it. He forces him to pick split? I don't have some maths degree bro.
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
James Campbell Oh man, I thought I made the sarcasm pretty clear, sorry dude lol
What I love most is in the end he splits. It's like he breaks the system twice
I tried this strategy with my ex. Unfortunately she chose steal.
I got 1 word for ya - MGTOW
hahahahaha
But can I split the torpedoes?
it's good that she's you're ex know
doesn't work with brainless people,
fun fact this was so well done that the owners of the show decided to stop filming more shows because they "cracked the code."
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.
Sources: trust me
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.
That was an incredibly intelligent move. He assured that his opponent wouldn’t steal, but then chose split himself so they’d both go home with something. Shows that intelligence paired with compassion always wins.
Brilliant , great from both of them .Nerves of steel .
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.
yeah but then everyone would know this strategy and would not be sure if the other guy (that says that he is gonna steal) is gonna split at the end
@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.
If that was true, they'd simply never broadcast the episode...
No one watched right until the end, the bald guy said "i'm gonna re-spray my yacht" LOL what a twist
That was a joke as was the "mock" surprised reaction from Nick who played along with it..
Bit presumptuous.
my right ear loved this. left ear feels left out
This guy is a fricken genius!!! He knew how this game works and it worked out well for the both of them
no, he's an idiot
That guy in brown is an absolute genius! He leaves the other guy with two options
1. Go home with nothing!
2. Go home with the chance of getting his half share!
More like
1. Go home with nothing
2. Trust me
What do you mean? What if the bald guy had chosen steal after all that, which is what I absolutely would've done. What's genius about going home with nothing?
@@julius..... Why would you steal? By stealing you have a 0% chance of winning anything. Assuming you do not know he will pick split
@@quin2910 Because I wouldn't want him to win any money either.
@Tobi Ologbenla Don't really care as I wasn't expecting getting any money anyways.
Holy crap that was brilliant, he really thought this through. Psychology at its best.... really enjoyed that, good result for all in the end.
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin Like your name.
Sure it was also psychology, but it was mostly game theory and mathematics. The usual probelm in this prisoner-dilemma type of game is that the steal option is the nash equilibrium. He used a somewhat known strategy to circumvent that. Doing something like this is kind of the only real way to make a split-split scenario possible, because the split-split scenario is very unstable.
This can be easily seen when drawing a matrix.
@Hgyvtfygyhuh Ygihvutctvnininnin do you have anger issues, do you believe you're always right, or are you just really dumb?
@@RandomPerson-yq1qk Why not "steal" himself, though, then -- merely attempting to engineer a situation that removes risk from pursuing a greater good? If rationality now dictates that player B choose "split" as "steal" has become functionally worthless (and "split" offers some probability of a post-show split), and player A knows this, player A can exploit it to choose "steal" himself, renege on his unregulated offer, and keep all the money. And in turn, if player B understood player A to be playing rationally, surely he'd respond by choosing "steal" himself. It seems to me that this only works out if you assume the players to be working at relatively low levels of k-rationality.
@@otherwords1375 So Player A is the one with the first offer trick and player B is the other guy. Indeed there is absolutely no good reason for any player to choose "split" over "steal" unless you involve something outside of the actual game. Because only Player B got any such incentive, Player A has no reason from B to not choose "steal" so he has no reason at all at first look, but the game is not in a vaccum with perfectly rational players, it has viewers and Player B might still choose steal "out of spite". If Player B chooses steal "out of spite" then Player A could argue that he truly wanted to split and convince B to split afterward. If B chooses split then the viewers and society sees Player A as a good person and not a potential liar. However if we see the game in a vacuum then Player A has no reason at all to choose "split" which makes the split-steal option a nash equilibrium as long as Player B sees the risk/pain of being betrayed lower than the chance/reward of getting the money and even though I am no expert on this in this vacuum version this trick should work on any k-rationality. The split-split scenario is still not stable, but a stable split-steal scenario can be made.
This guy is honeslty a genius. Guaranteed the other guy wouldnt want to pick steal meaning he could safely split the cash
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.
Look at his face, he is an absolute genius and he knows it
Who?
@@RIFLQ apparently you aren't
jeremy fr
The face of America
Genius is a bit of a stretch
This guy destroyed this tv show. That’s the only negotiation you need in order to secure all or half of the money.
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
@@ranchan1111 it actually does dummy. The other person doesn’t have a choice.
@@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
@@anonymousn5292 its really about who verbalize it first