No idea if this is the right forum, but here is a youtube link to the gameshow featuring this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0

What would you do?

It appears as there is little or no reason to take split, as that gives you 50% when your oppoent also splits, while you could get 100%. If your opponent Steals its irrelevant what you do as you will get zero.

However, if sitting in that chair facing an opponent you know knows its smartest to Steal, is the value of sitting in the gameshow really NOTHING? Those 50k looks so easy to get a hold of.

steal always. game solved.

What do you do if you are sitting in that chair, and i tell you i will take steal, but i will send you 50% afterwards?

Your option looks like 0% steal and 50% with split... Wow reversed

If the amount was 1 million instead of 100k, it gets even more cruicial and important to think beyond the gametheory.

if we can sign a contract forcing you to split with me afterward, then splitting would be okay there. kinda defeats the purpose of the game though.

without a contract, nothing has changed.

look at outcomes

steal steal = nothing
steal split = 100%
split split = 50%
split steal = nothing

lets say that each is likely of happening
with a steal you avg 50% of the money
with a split you avg 25% of the money

steal seems to make the bread in this game

it seems to me you guys arent understanding this situation very well...... Stealing is not gonna give you "50% of the money" if i always steal, its gonna guarantee you exactly 0% of the money

wahoo3 so you are saying its a 100% chance i wont send you as little as 1 single dollar, and 100% of the time break my promise? your choise depends on the likelyhood of me ever splitting and me ever sending you something afterwards. If i always pick steal, but im likely to send you even as little as 1000$ afterwards, this is the better ev.

rart dirt those percentages is wrong since we have no evidence that 50% of people choses steal, even if there is 2 options.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1592456

36 pages analyse of this egame from the golden balls show, by economists. havent read yet

it isn't 100% chance, but it's low enough that i don't care.

if someone offered me that deal, i'd probably offer back that I steal, they split, and i send them 55%, buying the safety of it being me instead of them for an extra 5%. i'd probably only do this if i was going to stiff them. or, i perhaps would offer that i would steal, they'd split, and then i'd give them 40% afterwards, just because **** em, that's why.

its player dependant

if you see them as as softy and pretty sure they are going to split then steal everytime

wahoo3 its pretty close to 100% that i will steal when i actually SAY i will steal. (everybody is obv claiming they will split)

and if you know im stealing, but you also know there is a >0% chance i will send something, your best option is to split

doesnt seem you two understand that vs an opponent that Steals vs you, you cannot "counter" it by beeing hard and Stealing back. that leaves both with zero.

so, there's two types of players. softy's, who i should steal vs. and hard players, who i should split vs.?


i actually might need to think about this a little bit more.

after i counter it by being hard and saying i will steal back and ship half, the other player has just as much incentive to split as i do. why should i split instead of him?

this rart dirt fella is crackin me up again and again

i said vs the thinkin players who will most likely steal you are in a dilema with cuz you will both likely end up with nothing.

but like i showed in post #5

you should always steal as there is more money to be made.

if game was made up where u didnt know ur opponent prior to the game and you each walked out of a back room then sat down and had 30 seconds to make ur decesion then i think steal is more profitable in long run

if you know ur opponent is going to steal and you cant speak to them. well then you are both pretty much F'd
unless you just donate him the money and mug hiim in the parking lot.

i just want someone to explain why they ever think splitting is correct strategy?

If I somehow ended up on this show against a family member I would split, but against anyone else I would steal.

but if your going to split the money anyway why not just steal

if you get a mis Q and you both steal then you are going to lose

if you just tell them to split and you steal well then you can split the actual money later.


to me it just seems like split makes you vunerable. steal its a win/lose game
split its a win half/lose game

seems steal has more equity

It seems only beatable if you played the other person like the chick did. I'd be interested in looking at them as they squeezed. Soulread them, IMO. Convince them you're splitting. Steal. Profit.

As already stated, with the amount of life-changing money involved, game theory can go out the window. Example of such being in the original WWTBAM facing the million dollar question with your 50/50 left and no clue whatsoever as to the answer.

rart dirt all this is correct, you gain nothing gametheory vice by splitting

but if the money at stake is high enough, and you and your opponent know how each other is thinking wich means both are extremely likely to steal, there should be a point where you need to think beyond this

claiming you are gonna steal yourself and appear even more sure might be a good strategy yeh

lets say there was 1 BILLION in the pot and im facing some 2+2 member and he promises to ship me half or atleast a good amount to be set for life, i dont know why i should insist on beeing hard, not taking the chance of beeing tricked, and steal vs his steal and go home with zero.

however this game should be played with "wait" option and a doubling of the amount for each wait, 1k-2k-5k-10k-20k-40k-100k-200k, possibility to steal at any time. are you still gonna steal the 1k? gametheory vice im pretty sure its the only stable outcome

No, game theory doesn't go out the window based on "life-changing money." That's a misconception of game theory by people who don't really understand how it works.

Please explain in more detail then for this ignorant sap.

i get what your are saying. but you both have to be on the same page for this to work. and its always better to just be one step ahead and steal

cuz splitting only works if you BOTH split.

so if you are both going to split then you will benefit more by stealing and taking it all. more money makes your chances of winning greater since they will most likely be afraid to steal and win nothing.

steal ftw

Game theory does not require you to value outcomes in dollars. You calculate the "utility" of each outcome. U(x), where U is the utility of a dollar outcome, and x is the number of dollars received, is not a linear function. This is a long-known fact in economic and game theory.

The utility difference between life changing money and n * life changing money is relatively small, and that changes the EV calculations.

betting a buck is superior to zero all day

espeically if i know thats what you are going to bid

OK, I can accept this. To me, the difficult part is quantifying the utility as it pertains to life changing money. From experience, I can tell you this must be done before you get thrown under the lights. Otherwise you make illogical decisions.

but in this instance the utility is expressed in dollars so your logic is incorrect.

risking a dollar and losing is it to win $100 is far more value than risking 0 and winning 0

as i have stated serveral times your best bet is to make minimum risk while maximising return. and since 0 has no return value its incorrect in this instance.

i mean just think if the contestants were the last 3 posters including me

how much are each of you going to bid? honestly?

Bzzt. Nobody* gets utility out of dollars. People get utility out of the things they can buy with dollars. And dollars have diminishing returns.