There's another issue here - it's a game show and as the saying goes, don't hate the player, hate the game.

She didn't actually steal £50,075. No crime was committed, no rules were broken. I'd feel guilty if I was her, but to be honest, I don't see why - it's a game, them's the rules. When I get bluffed in poker, I don't hate the opponent for lying, I respect them for playing the game well.

I'd still want a security guard standing just off camera

Your video, "Game Theory" in British Game Show is Tense!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 18 Badge!

>> ^longde:

One thing that I pointed out to a former professor, is that the threat of retaliation is never accounted for in the simple game theory model. For the prisoner's dilemna, I called it the "threat of being shanked" if one chooses to squeal.
As we see in the video, the emotional response to being played is a deep one that can lead to a Law and Order episode.
As mentioned above, repeating the game a few times would somewhat account for the consequences of uncooperative behavior.


The threat of being shanked is truly a part of more sophisticated game theory - "Reiterated Prisoner's Dilemma" is what you're referring to and it's much more biologically accurate, most notably for predicting whether organisms will cooperate or not in mutualistic or commensal associations whereby they have to interact over and over, so something like you saw here would NOT go unpunished.

>> ^blankfist:

[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.
There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.

Alternative vid title: Why Libertarianism won't work.

Game theory is just sociopathy codified. It takes extremely constructed conditions, like game shows and corporate governance, to actually make it not plainly stupid.

It shows how contrived this is that this game matrix is easily exploited.

One player can say that they are voting steal, and that they will split the winnings, so the the other player better pick share if they want anything.

Their only decision becomes weather they want to screw their opponent more than they trust them.

>> ^blankfist:

[edit] SPOILERS BELOW. WATCH VIDEO FIRST.
There are a couple truths in Game Theory. Number 1: your best chance is to always steal. In this case if both steal I think they get nothing, so this changes the strategy a bit. Number 2: never trust women.

You can shorten this to just Number 2.

Honestly, as much as it would suck I'd rather lose out on the money than be a person that takes it like that. I couldn't live with myself denying someone else $50,000+. I mean that guy is crying and all he wanted to do was something honest and make it so both people walk away with something.

I wouldn't talk or pander to my opponent I'd just be like "I'm going to split I hope you split too".

Also is there any news articles related to this? I'd be interested to see if anyone chooses to split later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Friend_or_Foe.3F

Friend or Foe? is a game show that aired from 2002 to 2005 on the Game Show Network in the United States. It is an example of the prisoner's dilemma game tested by real people, but in an artificial setting. On the game show, three pairs of people compete. As each pair is eliminated, it plays a game similar to the prisoner's dilemma to determine how the winnings are split. If they both cooperate (Friend), they share the winnings 50–50. If one cooperates and the other defects (Foe), the defector gets all the winnings and the cooperator gets nothing. If both defect, both leave with nothing. Notice that the payoff matrix is slightly different from the standard one given above, as the payouts for the "both defect" and the "cooperate while the opponent defects" cases are identical. This makes the "both defect" case a weak equilibrium, compared with being a strict equilibrium in the standard prisoner's dilemma. If you know your opponent is going to vote Foe, then your choice does not affect your winnings. In a certain sense, Friend or Foe has a payoff model between prisoner's dilemma and the game of Chicken.

The payoff matrix is
Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 1, 1 0, 2
Defect 2, 0 0, 0

This payoff matrix was later used on the British television programmes Shafted and Golden Balls. The latter show has been analyzed by a team of economists. See: Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes are Large.

It was also used earlier in the UK Channel 4 gameshow Trust Me, hosted by Nick Bateman, in 2000.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
tags kinda give away the ending, btw


Fixed.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Cheating FTW!
(nit-pick: pounds not dollars)
length=9:53

It's a play list.
Is there a cheat compilation of American version?

I saw that. So the length is for the whole play list then?


If you don't enter one and VS can detect its time for the first video part, then it will put 9:53.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Cheating FTW!
(nit-pick: pounds not dollars)
length=9:53

It's a play list.
Is there a cheat compilation of American version?


I saw that. So the length is for the whole play list then?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Cheating FTW!
(nit-pick: pounds not dollars)
length=9:53


It's a play list.

Is there a cheat compilation of American version?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Yoah, tha'll fuckn' whork.

Doesn't really bother me that it won't work or whatever...it bothers me that they're even trying this shit at all. I mean seriously what the Fuck is wrong with Australia these days...I thought you guys were cool.


It's not for real dude. It's a game show-esque challenge specifically for the TV show. Chillax bro

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.

It's the character in the show, they are meant to be mean...
eg. Aus version (which came out after the US version) has a woman that resembles Anne Robinson in both demeanour and attitude (not to mention red head + stern glasses).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlfQGWz1c8
(watch from 2.15)
I know that, but you see it was Anne Robinson's idea to present the show this way. She never used to be like this.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.


It's the character in the show, they are meant to be mean...

eg. Aus version (which came out after the US version) has a woman that resembles Anne Robinson in both demeanour and attitude (not to mention red head + stern glasses).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlfQGWz1c8
(watch from 2.15)

I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.