That was absolutely great! He just turned equilibrium in on itself, to be what he thought was fair I am sure! I am sure most people got what he was doing, but it is such a great tactic, it is worth explaining in long form.

So this game theory is based on 2 things:

If you choose steal you can either get everything, or nothing
If you choose split you can either get half , or nothing

In this, it is always the better proposition to steal, the risk is the same with a better pay off. It is of course, the more morally dubious because you (until this guy) need to lie in a believable fashion that you will choose split even though you plan to steal. This is the basis for may different game theory zero sum systems. The genius here is the double tactic. He is actually taking ALL of the risk (afforded him, as he is going to choose split) and only risking half of the reward, but on the reverse notion that he is going to steal when he is actually going to split. He is trying to get the fair outcome by convincing the other person the only fair outcome that could possibly happen is for him to act in the fair way ( split ), because he is planning on scorching the earth. This tactic is much like King Solomon's baby tactic, only the man who really wants the prize money will choose to go along with this plan. The person whom is here for spite will cause them to loose it all, so he placed all his chips that he was a good man, and since he was, the baby, in this case 6 large ones was his. This is an absolutely brilliant way to solve a zero sum gain where you take all the risk of the liars position with only half the reward. Thanks for the share, and sorry for the over share, this was just really exciting to the logic side of maaa brain!

It was an OK read of Ibraham. His eye avoidance, fidgeting, and other body language seemed to mark him as a guy who is uncomfortable with confrontation and buggery.

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.

>> ^RedSky:

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.



>> ^RedSky:

@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

I don't think I would go as far as saying to steal is morally the best choice, but rationally the stronger choice. If 2 gods incapable of lying were on staged, and promised to share, that is the most moral position. Well actually, IMO, 2 people that CAN choose to lie deciding not to is more morally pretty, so 2 humans choosing share because they want to do the right thing is the best moral outcome, and also the hardest to achieve. And to that end, your suggesting that stealing becomes more moral starts to gain a little traction in real world human transactions, but it only works if you can get people to act in a certain way...so it is morally dependent on the actions of other people, which is not a good place for your morality. All it takes is a type person Rorschach, a moral high grounder whom wants to punish injustice to ruin the plan, as in the movie version of watchmen. The conflict of justice with fairness makes a TRUE solution imposible to have. This is one of the moral problems that lead me away from my faith, Justice and Goodness being incompatible in the way they cary themselves out. For instace, a person whom wants to not do the "right" thing (share) but make sure a person that does the wrong thing get screwed (push for stealing by stealing ensuring that both get nothing) is incompatible with the Goodness version where share is the only option. The conflict between "Love" and "Justice" meant, to me, that there is no way to be loyal to both at the same time, and anyone who says they are is a lier. Anyway, didn't want to drag the conversation here per say, but this was a key kind of conversation I had with myself in a very similar chain of events as to this gameshow...a showdown of ideas, ideals, and morals.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

A perfect example of dishonesty being the honest thing to do.

@GeeSussFreeK

Agreed, went a bit overboard there.

Won't work if both people follow your logic.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

@MonkeySpank

It will, because both will feint choosing to steal when in reality they are planning to share.

If both let the other know that they intend to pursue this strategy (and both are able to convince the other), then the payoffs (for each of them) are:

Steal - Nothing.
Share - Split or All.

It's almost like as a result you're turning the prisoners dilemma on its head.

I guessed Nick was going to split, and that he was cleverly using this whole ruse about picking steal in order to get Ibrahim to pick split. I also thought that at the end Ibrahim had correctly read Nick, and so was going to choose to steal.

On Nick's part, I don't think choosing split was a smart move, because if Ibrahim had read him correctly, he could have chosen steal. And if Ibrahim picked split, Nick could still have split it with him afterwards as promised.

As for me, if I'd been in Ibrahim's shoes, I would have thought, "Lying or not, I'd rather this Nick guy walk away with L13,000 rather than the network keeping it, so I'll choose split and see what happens after."

I laughed at what Ibrahim was going to spend his cut on.

Inconceivable!

That was beautiful

I proposed this tactic last year:

I wonder if it would be legally binding to say, "If I win the full amount, I agree to split half of it with you." In which case, he could've said that, and added, "I'm going to choose steal, so best if you choose split."

Here, the host says, "There's no legal requirement for him to give you the money." Doesn't Britain have verbal contracts?

Had to upvote for the last line and reaction. =)