If you'd like behind-the-scenes details on the production and game design here, there's now a behind-the-scenes chat with me and games producer David Bodycombe over on his TV Show and Tell podcast! shows.acast.com/tv-show-podcast/episodes/tom-scott-talks-about-money
@@bradleyisgladley to me it seemed like it was Mia, who started cheating round 2 unprompted with no apparent catalyst. Mike may have felt selfish because he insisted upon controlling the briefcase, but in the end that ended up being for the greater good.
@@bradleyisgladley I'd wager that Mike never cared much about any of the money (beyond using it for negotiation). He just wanted to win the game and his actions were strategic, not selfish. If he was selfish, he would have tried to convince 3 to accept the deal and shorted 1 person, allowing him to take home the most money.
You played that game like a pro. I could tell by the end of game 2 and into game 3 you figured out that someone needed leverage to incentiveize trust by the next round if everyone else was trying to play the other one. Hoped you would win but that outcome was even better!
The subtitles on all of Tom's videos are brilliant! My favourite has got to be that one on his second channel where he sings a scale. Every "ma" has the correct note he sang above it!
@@PeterLePresident eh, if you invest 2-3 hours of your time in it then coming out with $1 isn't really a win, it's just only a loss of whatever you would make in that time minus some very small value corresponding to how much you enjoyed your time all timesed by some coefficient for how much you enjoyed your time there relative to your regular job - how much disappointment you get from not winning timesed by some coefficient for transfering that into the monetary value that would effectively displace that negative emotion all minus 1$ for what you walked away with and before you say anything, yes this does account for things like hobbies and sleep providing value to you even if you're not actively making money. TLdR: not really because of the concept that "time is money".
I think this with 5 strangers, or atleast 5 people who won't see eachother ever again, would make the final dynamic way better because I feel like Mike is never walking away in that situation
Exactly. When I saw the video was 1 hour, hmmm. Once I started watching it, I was hooked. Interesting to think of what would be the best combination of players that should play together. I like this video idea!
@@tinyrodent2821 Not quite, Sophie would have known everyone was a liar. If just one other person had put in a dollar, the split would have been 0.6 and it is implied that everyone would have gotten a dollar. Instead nobody put anything in, the split was 0.3, and nobody -except Sophie knows who has information.
Thought someone might have caught that either Mia or Sophie had to be lying about G2R2 putting $1 in the box. If 2 people put $1 in, returns would have been rounded to $1 each.
@@CxOrillion No, it would have still rounded down to 0. $2/5 = 40 cents, it would have needed to be 3 people putting in $1. Edit: I forgot that it was a 50% increase. You're right. Someone should have called that out. Maybe because they were all to ashamed of putting in $0.
It would be interesting to do this with complete strangers rather than friends and colleagues. That way Mike would've had no repercussions by walking out the door on his fellow strangers...
Except perhaps the opinions of his fans. The only way to do this and keep it all in the game is to pit random strangers against each other who don't have significant reputations to lose by maximally defecting.
I would be fascinated to see a Behind The Scenes / Director's commentary on this. Questions I have include: how was playtesting done? What went differently between this and playtesting games? How were the games tuned during playtesting (rules, prize amounts, etc)? How were the scripts tuned during playtesting (explanation of rules, what information was given, etc)? Did you always have the "walk away; you don't have to face them" option, or did you discover you had to add that? Did you always tell them how much money they missed out on, or was that added later? What surprised you as you were developing it? Was there anything you had to enormously change from your original conception?
The thing is, I don't think this can be accurately play tested unless each set of testers is also playing for the same sort of money (which has to be unlikely). Just like playing poker without money, the game doesn't work without it. I mean without money, the medals are the only thing that has value, which would skew how people play.
I love that Tom gets to live out his dream of creating & hosting gameshows, yet as small one off productions between friends they remain fresh and entertaining.
An interesting other game could be layered on top of something like this: Another group are watching, receiving a little less info than we got as viewers, and their game is to spot the liars.
Even though Mike took arguably more selfish choices through most of the game and took the briefcase hostage, He's got my respect from round 2, he did exactly what he said he would and split it with everyone in the end even to his own detriment of having the least money out of everyone
I feel like Mike getting the two gold stars in round 2 was the best thing to happen to the group - he realised that he had control of the game for the foreseeable future, and told the rest of the players that he was under no circumstances going to give that up, which allowed the other players to start playing WITH each other instead of AGAINST each otrher. Once the 4 people were together (and since mike was truthful and is just a lovable guy) he was able to slide in to swap it from 4v1 to 5 v the house. this was fascinating!
absolutely, he was able to control it as they said the benevolent dictator. I'm not sure if either of the other 4 players would have been able to maintain that control (numbers and socially) and did it for the better of the group. awesome game
@@KiLLJoYRUclips They couldnt. Mike could keep choosing the medal card and 'destroying it' if someone else chose it. It wasnt until the final round that a second medal came into play, and if they had fought with Mike the previous 3 rounds, they wouldve lost more money than they wouldve gained by trying to tie and steal the briefcase away from him
@@__aceofspades but it doesn’t matter. for every round he gains a medal so you might as well void it. He could have burned the medals as much as he wanted but why would the game be made so that the person with 2 medals automatically wins the briefcase? it makes no sense. I’d have immediately voted medal each round and gotten everyone some money. it would have been my objective to just ruin each round and throw all strategy out the window. that’s when it stops being about promises and turns into lies, which you can manipulate and catch out.
@@KiLLJoYRUclips keep it mind that one of the rounds with medals tied and no one earned them. It was possible he could have lost the medals lead earlier but by the last game he had an advantage
While being honest and benevolent, and keeping the game almost perfectly fair... Mike actually walked away with the least amount of cash, though arguably, with the most respect.
@@baranxlr That wasn't the point. The point was that Mike was accused of being the villain the entire game, kept his honesty, had all the power and walked with with less than everyone. Sure, it wasn't by much but the point wasn't the value but the circumstances behind it.
Mike was brilliant. He figured out that he wasn't playing against the other players. He was playing against the game and he needed to get the players out of the way.
@@EvanBoyar let's be real, he made sure everyone won just under 2k in a day. And comes out looking like the smartest one of the group, well because he was. He beat the game
@@EvanBoyar, only out of kindness. He was in a position to walk away with the briefcase if he wanted to. His goal was to ensure he won a fair share of the briefcase and he accomplished that.
Mike & Sophie were so wholesome and honest. It's really a shame they ended up with the least, but I'm glad it was as close as it was. Really fun to watch!
Mike - Honest about his intentions, regardless of what they may be Sam - Secretive version of Mike Soph - Honest and has too much trust in others Rohin - A good balance between honest and sly Mia - sly.
You can actually tell who's been cheated because they will keep voicing their disappointment, while those that actually lied, despite voicing disappointment, will also be pushing for increasing "group wealth". After a round where trust is broken, those that advocate for a selfish defensive strategy are more likely to be the ones that were cheated on, while conversely, those that continue to advocate to maximize group benefit are more likely to be the ones that have lied.
@@aliagah502 I think that was because the players tried to predict the behaviour of others based on their own, so a cheater was also more likely to suspect everyone around them and thus continued to cheat (to protect themselves from a threat that they believed to exist).
@@olekj8665 the only thing we have to fear about each other is fear itself. Hold your breath and cooperate with honorable people even when they have more power. Build everyone up, even those already doing well, and you will increase the odds of getting them to cooperate back.
@@claiminglight Those are the best games though! The kind with ulterior motives and consequences that last for years after the game is over (like monopoly with your family!)
I loved mike by the end of the game. As Rohin said, he was like a benevolent dictator. He took control of the game and forced everyone to play as a team. What a chad. I will definitely check out his channel
@@TwinkleTutsies he wasn't the "winner" though, got the smallest amount of money. But since that doesn't matter for any future episodes or whatever, it was definitely beneficial to not "win" since that definitely resulted in more money
i love how mike played in this. very funny and genuine guy. kinda surprised they didn’t pick up that mia scammed the first game. she got so quiet after it.
This is anecdotal, but all psychologists I've known have been terrible at math, so I wonder if it'd just be a game of would-be clever strategies that turn into blunders.
38:37 Mia was lying here, and Sophie could have noticed it. The ONLY way for the boxes to be empty was if only 1 dollar had been in the pot. 1$ plus 50% is 1.50$, devided by 5 is 0.30$ which was rounded down to 0. If Mia had also put in one dollar, then the pot would have been 2$, plus 50% that's 3$, which, devided by 5, comes to 0.60$ - and thus everybody should have gotten one dollar because of the rounding rule. So as soon as Mia said "I put in one dollar", it was evident - at least to Sophie - that this was a lie.
Well...evident to everyone, if the total of what everybody said they put in was $2 then anybody could have done the same arithmetic (but didn't appear to, judging by their poker faces - unless it was cut out for some reason, of course).
The one factor unaccounted for was their reputation after the game. It's likely worth more to them than taking the maximum payout and screwing everyone else. It would be interesting to see the experiment ran again with random people that nobody knows.
Im into the twitch gaming screen and can tell you some of those streamers, even while making millions of dollars, would for the fun and entertainment of it, take on the role of a villain and actually go through with it.
“No playtester ever split even.” Were the playtests done with real money? Because I could imagine that making a big difference - people are much happier to screw over their friends with Monopoly money than with actual cash.
@@awmperry But people being strangers also changes the stakes. You are more likely to screw over a stranger with real money than your friends, and are less likely to screw people over on high stakes in public. I suspect it was probably played with real money at least sometimes, but with a smaller quantity (ie 600 instead of 6000 dollars)
The issue with the game is that the contestants are all known personalities, who somewhat know each other. Which changes the dynamics for the large scale steal, vs the tv gameshow golden balls, where at the end of the day if someone steals they're never seen again by the person they've stolen from.
I wonder if they play tested this scenario. Cooperative play maximizes the reward and having most rounds face-to-face avoids the prisoners dilemma to disrupt that cooperation.
I mean, realistically humans would want to cooperate, because at the end of the day if you didnt, you would be cast out, ostracized, or killed. So them having some level of known to each other is more realistic to every day life.
That was entertaining. I think the reason that play-testers not splitting in the end but Mike did (and any of them probably would have) is because of the potential fallout from being RUclipsrs - 5 complete strangers would likely not split at the end.
If I was in the situation Mike was in (having all the power), and a similar deal was struck, I can confidently say I would have honored the deal because I couldn't stomach myself otherwise. However, I think tha heavily depends on the person in power and the sum of money to be divided. Some people will have a lower threshold to run with it, others will have a higher one, that also depends on their social situation.
Funny how Mike had the most control towards the end, kept his promise, but ended up with the least cash overall even if marginally haha. Great show, loved it!
and the thing is if he didn't get control of the game as he did in round 4 he could have walked away with a lot more than the others because they wouldn't have been able to cooperate in that round this really show us that you do need a leader ina group to get the most benefit from it, even if that leader is what would be called a "benevolent dictator"
I think splitting the money was the optimal result, the happiest result possible. Team against the house. I wouldn't mind ending up with 1800 instead of 1900 dollars here, if my actions resulted in everybody benefiting the most
game 5: i was partially expecting him to give one person nothing and have the rest split evenly he only needs 3 votes to confirm, and everyone else knows they'd get the most out of it
I actually think the winning strategy during the 1-5 paddle game was the following: 2 people pick 1. 2 people pick 2. 1 person picks 5. Reasoning: You can't screw eachother over. Nobody can get the pot for themselves. For example if one of the people who picked 1 went for 3 instead: that would mean only one person would remain with paddle 1, making him the winner instead. None of the players except the person picking 5 is able to change their paddle without guaranteeing a loss for themselves. At that point the only question is whether or not the person with 5 will split. The only remaining issue I can think of is the medals. They'd have to give them to someone in exchange for being able to execute this strategy. Which they eventually ended up doing anyway by just stacking them on one person so it wouldn't have mattered. Could even exchange that person's money for giving him the medals.
that could be accomplished by obscuring their identities if the game gets broadcasted. interesting concept, it would be fun to have someone look into that. edit: tom also said that none of the playtesters split the money evenly. that's most likely because of the reason you stated.
@@KarateLauren It could also be because they likely didn't actually give those playtesters the money, thus it became "Get big points and win game" instead of "Oh, this actually benefits us all"
@@bloxxor420 TBH, I doubt that. I have a nihilistic viewpoint, but even I have faith in the general public regarding that. People are selfish, but they prefer to not be complete and utter pricks.
I wonder how much being in the public eye effected the final choices here. These are all youtubers, presumably moving in similar circles, either friends directly or mutually through Tom. Usually these games are between total strangers who never have to talk again. Imagine we'd see a totally different dynamic. But very fun all the same!
If Sam had managed to get control of the briefcase, I imagine the outcome would have been rather different - he was the person at the table doing most to try to manipulate other people to let him "win" (while Mike was trying to manipulate the situation to beat the game, not the other players).
As an economist who specialised in game theory, I want to say thank you for bringing these classic behavioural games like the Public Goods Game and Ultimatum game to a wider audience and explaining & demonstrating them so clearly. The options to change the game up and find ways to collaborate were super interesting. And as a fan of gameshows and these sort of games, thanks, cause it was super fun & entertaining to watch!
@@sebd9690 Even ignoring that, empirical results of randomized controlled games show more socially-optimal results than game theory would predict, especially in multiple-turn games.
Super interesting that Mike basically forced them to co-operate in games 4 and 5. Would love to see how other groups handle these decisions in another season.
I am not surprised by the information that no playtester ever split equally. They were non-public individuals playing the game in private. Apart from the trust broken with the other contestants, there were no repercussions. But these were content creators, publicly known figures. Doing such a high profile backstab such as destroying a deal for 1200 dollars would ruin their reputation.
And the playtesters were maybe more likely to be strangers. Even if this wasn't broadcast, these people are friends (or if not friends, then they at least run in similar circles). It's very different to screw someone who you know you'll never see again, compared to someone you will.
Also, I would imagine that the playtesters weren't actually playing for real cash. I have no problems backstabbing my closest friends and family in a board game. I would not backstab them for fifty bucks.
Women are naturally more trusting then men. I found it more funny that mike got the least amount of money at the end when he was in lead all game long.
I think a major aspect of this game that hindered it was that every player was a fairly well-established public personality playing for personal benefit. The only ways to have a high likelihood of deception is to either have strangers as contestants to effectively negate any post-game consequences, or to have players as featured but playing for charity. The winner of this game would be dealing a huge blow to their personal brand by taking all the money and running, but they could have all had a good laugh if it was to ensure the entire prize was awarded to a good cause they championed.
It does not work if all players have to donate their funds for charity. There are psychological studies that show even thinking about money makes people more agressive and less cooperative in these games. When all winnings go to charity, the only incentive is to cooperate. Plus there was no rule against Mike just pocketing the briefcase to win the game and then donate everything to charity and even raise it, to save his public persona...
I feel like someone needs to point this one out: Imagine doing it with sums 100 times larger, same or bigger RUclipsrs. The whole game would switch from game theory to how much is your reputation worth.
I can't get over how genius it is in game 2 to say "I'm going to pick 1". Everyone else then knows you're going to win unless they stop you, and they can't stop you without giving up their own chance of winning, so they're better off hoping someone else takes that fall.
I think there is a specific dilemma for this, it's really interesting, because for this, there isn't a clear personal advantage like prisoners dilemma's for example, if you don't care that the other person wins, you should chose another number, but if you really don't want the other person to win you would choose 1 as well.
@@RGC_animation the more i think it over, if you only care about maximising your own chance of winning and someone else does that, you should tell them "i'm going to pick 1 too" and hope you scare them off. But if they play sensibly they'll hope you're bluffing and pick 1 anyway, so you cancel eachother out. You won't win with perfect play but i think it's still the best strategy.
I was actually getting a bit sad at Mike not wanting to cooperate and negotiate, but then he played the ultimate power move and forced everyone to work together and got the maximum prize for everyone. What a champion
Mike also walked away with the LEAST amount of money of anyone at the table, despite controlling the briefcase! Then again, he didn't know as he was making his final offers, but it's an interesting observation!
He was on a game show once, but he was a contestant. I can’t remember what it was called but if you search ‘Tom Scott game show’ it will probably come up.
The problem with this is the fact that the competitors aren't just thinking about the money, but also the reputation that they have to uphold amongst their fan base and one another. If it were done with strangers then they wouldn't be thinking about that and instead solely have the financial benefit in mind, which I think would be a better way to manage the game. Still great video though!
Excellent point. I suspect that was the original intention. However, the game seems to be a new concept. So perhaps, relatively well-known RUclipsrs were invited to help it gain more popularity.
The second I started watching I was thinking "Darn, he's going to get them to solve multiple prisoner's dilemmas, isn't he?" and at the end I was actually getting out my lecture material from my international relations class to look up what sort of game theoretic concepts they were going through. And this game had everything, from preference falsification, reversion point movement and repeated game dynamics to absolute/relative wins, mutli-round negotiations and trust building. The team that designed this was truly genius. I applaud you, Tom Scott!
And the whole game essentially turns on IR's Hegemonic stability theory! Mike became the undisputed hegemon who would win the game, and therefore could use that leverage to get everyone else to cooperate.
I was hoping for someone to propose the use of a randomised strategy, as the equilibria with randomised strategies can be net positive for some of the games. Does demonstrate repeated game corporation including the breakdown at the time horizon. Really good watch actually
@@davidbod Yes, but they wrote dry academic papers that few people are likely to read. It is a service to dramatize it for the masses, and you did that very well!
"You said you put in a dollar!" This series is outstanding, every bit of it was gripping and i audibly gasped at several parts. would love another series, maybe with different games.
Just brilliant! Totally absorbed for the whole hour. Mike understood the entire game from the start and maintained his integrity throughout. Although he didn't earn as much cash he certainly earned trust and respect!
In the end the cooperation seemed less about trust and more about equal self-interested risk. Mike becoming the benevolent dictator who gained the least from the arrangement is a very interesting result too!
I think Mike trusted himself to be honest, but not the others. He was willing to walk away with slightly less, but know he would walk away with something. Sophie was honest, but the other 3 weren't. By saying he would take the medal, he forcedthem to be honest, because they absolutely could not bluff him.
@@juliaconnell at 8:43 in round 2 of game 1, Rohin writes a 1 when they all promised to write 0 - not as bad as Mia's 10, but still cheating on the others.
@@bmwiedemann Tbf, he already predicted beforehand that one person will screw them over. I believe he was only testing the waters as to what would happen if there was a tie (i.e., two people putting "1").
The way that Mike didn't even lie a single time is absolutely astounding to me. even when he decided to backstab the group by not putting any money in he never said he agreed to. It just shows you how smart this group of people actually is by playing on their wording.
There's a famous Golden Balls clip where the guy at the end of the rounds says he WILL steal the money but split it with the other person afterwards, thus meaning that the best option for getting money that the other person had was to trust them
Two things: 1. This is brilliant! 2. I would love to see this with 5 mathematicians (or even better, game theory specialists) to see them analyze the heck out of all of this.
This. He could have given 3 people 1200 dollars and 0 to the fourth one. It would have been a gamble but it also could have gone through and he wouldnt end up the game with the smallest total number of money despite being the winner :-D
@@paulsmyers203 True but no one else knew that so the moment one of them learnt any other player was being offered more than them, they could very easily say no and there are two people in that situation. It would have killed the vote.
@@MichalBrat I don't see this working. Sophie played by agreed terms and Rohin did until things got too screwy for his liking. I could genuinely see Sam and Mia taking this offer but I think the other two would push for fairness and end up screwing everyone; best everyone be screwed rather than singling one person out, especially with the profile of each of the players. I can't say for others, but I can say beyond any doubt, I wouldn't watch the channel of someone who could go along with that.
I think there was a stable cooperative strategy for the lowest unique bid game: One player bids 5, but the others bid 1, 1, 2, and 2. That way if one of the players who were supposed to bid 1 or 2 defect, they’re only handing the money to someone else (and simultaneously reducing it), so there’s no incentive to defect.
That's not really a stable cooperative strategy: The winner can just choose to keep the money once they receive it. It prevents anyone *else* from defecting, but the chosen winner always can.
@@OMGclueless Then its is known who the defector is and that can be played around for the rest of the game, also people are far more likely to cheat someone out of money if that person can't know for sure it was them.
Mike was the most logical player. He won the medals on "luck/strategy" and then had the upper hand on everybody else for the next games. His decisions were logical, he did not had to use deception
I feel like the RUclipsrs being genuine friends with one another changes everything. If it’s done with 5 strangers I reckon it would be pure chaos, but with five acquaintances/friends, it’s the money AND genuine friendships at risk, which somewhat wholesomely, people don’t put on the line as easy as cash.
This should not be as nerve wracking to watch as it is, having no stake in it. yet I was on the edge of my seat, adrenaline pumping at speed through me. Great game and concept, superb execution by the players.
It's not a theory, he is literally running 'experiments' (although without full experimental design) based on game theory (which is admittedly a lot more than just the Prisoner's Dilemma).
I think the key factor is that everyone knew each other. So the price was much higher then the money. Take out that connection and there's nothing on the line so people will take greater risks and give in to a greater deviance because they wouldn't be held accountable.
Actually, if we're to take away anything from this, the person who was most honest about his intentions (Mike) got the least money in the end, and the people who attempted the most deception (Mia and Sam) got the most money. And they get away with not being absolute bastards in the eyes of everyone else by being dishonest when the stakes are low but cooperating when the stakes are higher -- kinda like how big corporations are public and transparent with the big deals that have everyone's attention, but screw people over by a thousand little cuts under the table. But I'm sure Sam will put his winnings to good use making more videos about planes or bricks or both.
They still would have made more money had they been entirely honest and cooperative. Their slyness took away the earnings of others, but also from their own earnings.
It would have been smarter to sum up everyone's quantities and split that evenly for the final deal, so as to cancel out all the gains from the back-stabbing.
I haven't finished the video yet, but one thing I've quickly realized (atleast from round 3, maybe it changes) is: When you are honest and nice, the total amount of money given is increased. But when you are deceptive, the amount of money *you* get is about the same as one honest person would get, if *everybody* was honest. So, if you wanted to guarantee yourself the win, you could be deceptive **every single round** and never be honest. In this game, there is no form of "voting off" or "stopping a specific player" --- the best they can do is be even with you. There's nothing that all 4 others can do, to stop *you* from being as dishonest as possible, as long as you are one round/token ahead.
Awesome game, super fun to watch, though I wish Mike had given 3 of the 4 people their share to see what would've happened. Obviously picking out one individual would be a bit mean :P
I was expecting him to start off with $1000 each - exactly what he promised, because he never promised to increase based on the bonus in the last round. But in spite of being "selfish" in the game, he did end up being a benevolent dictator. It even hurt him in the end - he actually ended up with the *least* money in the group (by $5 over "lost the most in the main game" Sophie) in spite of being one of the two "big winners" in the split-each-other's-money game.
At 33:40, both Mia and Sam revealed themselves as liers by suggesting that it may have been everyone, this can only be suggested if you are aware that you have left cash back yourself.
The right way to do the second game is the following: Agree to split the votes 1,1,2,2,5. Then if everything goes well, the person with the 5 wins the largest possible amount and if anyone deviates from the strategy, they will not win the money themselves.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue No it's not: if the agreement is all 4 and one 5, then if someone picks 3 their share goes from 1 to 3. But with kettwiesel25's solution, the only way to deviate from the plan is for someone to pick 3 or 4, but in that case the person that kept their word and picked 1 gets the money, so the cheater gets 0.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue It ended up not being any different but if someone chose lower than 4 they would have won (slightly less) so they were still running that risk. This way there is no incentive to deviate because there would always be someone with lower.
The incentive to not do that is that it happens out in the open. It's an entirely different thing if nobody actually cares what the other people think. I'm just saying that as long as someone actually cooperates and wins on five they are going to get the maximum value regardless. What you said certainly works in cases where someone actually decides to screw them over. But if you actually propose your idea to a group it reflects your own lack of trust. Which actually increases the odds that every starts suspecting you as well. So the logical solution can cause a psychological backfire in that way. And since the result was still optimal second guessing is something of a moot point.
The fact Mia screwed everyone over in round one for 25 bucks and simultaneously sowed distrust throughout the entire rest of the game is some perfect content.
The best strategy for the second game may actually be for two people to pick 1, two people to pick 2, and one to pick 5. This way, any defector would lose money, assuming they are the only one that does not pick their respective number and that they'll split the money evenly.
That's true but I think the reason why this works for this group is that they all know each other so when the results are shown publicly, it would be a lot more awkward than if they were strangers to each others.
@@MutantMonke If I'm due to pick 1 and expect the other 1 to betray, then I can either stick with 1 and "win" (and get to keep a reputation for honesty) or I can switch to another number, but which? 2 won't win (unless both of them also betray), 3 only wins if the other 1 betrayed to 2, 4 or 5, but 4 only wins if the other 1 betrayed to 2 or 5, and 5 will only win if the 5 player also betrayed and collided with the other 1's betrayal pick. The only question is whether you trust the 5 player to honour the deal and divide the money. So long as you trust that, any lone defector loses money, and any pair of defectors are likely to lose money unless they secretly co-ordinate and only split between themselves. The key point here is that there's no obvious gain for anyone in betrayal (except in refusing to split the money afterwards), so, even without considering the benefit from preserving trust, it's in everyone's interest to co-operate unless they actively expect someone else to betray without a clear benefit.
Or just have the one person pick 1 and everyone else 5.. then if anyone would deviate he still wouldn't win anything. Best he can do is annihilate the prize but then he just loses money because he doesn't even get his share now
@@SophsNotes In Round 3, you should have always chosen the highest denomination to prevent you from being screwed over because of being screwed in Round 2.
Glad to be reminded not everyone believes in concrete pay walls. This is a great way to make some money and show such a great work to a larger community.
@@astrovan At this point, Tom Scott should be picked up by some Public Broadcaster for a show. Would give them enough budget and also wouldn't be behind paywalls.
I dont think it was an alone decision by Tom to make it available to the public, Nebula probably had a share in that discussion or any other producers of the show. Or Nebulas licence expired and the producers offered it to be open to the public, but as it is a Nebula original from the description of the video, it is probably mainly their decision.
If Sophie and Rohin switched seats everyone would've been arranged from most deceptive to least deceptive. Mia was quite obviously the most deceptive from the start and I'm not sure why no one tried to call her out on it.
If you'd like behind-the-scenes details on the production and game design here, there's now a behind-the-scenes chat with me and games producer David Bodycombe over on his TV Show and Tell podcast! shows.acast.com/tv-show-podcast/episodes/tom-scott-talks-about-money
Mike was absolutely the MVP. He was constantly accused, walked away with the least money at the end, and still held his end of the bargain.
Perhaps he won the money and the briefcase
@@fep_ptcp883 A briefcase and a story to go with it!
Most valuable for everyone besides himself surprisingly, when he definitely felt like the most selfish player
@@bradleyisgladley to me it seemed like it was Mia, who started cheating round 2 unprompted with no apparent catalyst.
Mike may have felt selfish because he insisted upon controlling the briefcase, but in the end that ended up being for the greater good.
@@bradleyisgladley I'd wager that Mike never cared much about any of the money (beyond using it for negotiation). He just wanted to win the game and his actions were strategic, not selfish. If he was selfish, he would have tried to convince 3 to accept the deal and shorted 1 person, allowing him to take home the most money.
I still think about how this game could have went VERY differently. Thanks for having me on Tom!
You played very well Mike!
I can’t believe you came away with the least amount of money! You deserved a little extra
You played that game like a pro. I could tell by the end of game 2 and into game 3 you figured out that someone needed leverage to incentiveize trust by the next round if everyone else was trying to play the other one. Hoped you would win but that outcome was even better!
It was so awesome how you were able to bring everyone together!! Congrats :)
Could've*
This absolutely needs to be adapted into a full RUclips series. I would watch the hell out of it.
nice seeing you here! :)
is it bad that i only know you from jacksfilms?
@Em West or rather was
agreed
@Em West This one video IS the series. I believe they meant doing this game over again, with new players.
rohin: “youre giving away 4/5 of your cash then!”
mike: “no I’m ensuring i win a thousand”
tom: O_O
The subtitles being color-coded to the player colors in-game is just stellar. Awesome video, super glad to see a game show on the channel again!
subtitle appreciation!
The subtitles on all of Tom's videos are brilliant! My favourite has got to be that one on his second channel where he sings a scale. Every "ma" has the correct note he sang above it!
All of Tom Scott has that! I really love it
I was super happy about that!
Colour coded subtitles are great, I have really appreaciated those from the BBC. They really improve the subtitles utility
"You'lre giving away 4/5 of your cash then"
"No, I'm ensuring I win $1000"
Damn Mike, that's actually really cool counter to the "loss aversion" effect.
Well said
Tom had a great reaction to that as well
mike is hella smart
That's my mindset in any sort of game show. I came here with 0$, so even 1$ is a win. I'm never losing money.
@@PeterLePresident eh, if you invest 2-3 hours of your time in it then coming out with $1 isn't really a win, it's just only a loss of whatever you would make in that time minus some very small value corresponding to how much you enjoyed your time all timesed by some coefficient for how much you enjoyed your time there relative to your regular job - how much disappointment you get from not winning timesed by some coefficient for transfering that into the monetary value that would effectively displace that negative emotion all minus 1$ for what you walked away with and before you say anything, yes this does account for things like hobbies and sleep providing value to you even if you're not actively making money.
TLdR: not really because of the concept that "time is money".
I think this with 5 strangers, or atleast 5 people who won't see eachother ever again, would make the final dynamic way better because I feel like Mike is never walking away in that situation
Exactly, it's not like they really need the money anyway. Cool game but predictable once Mike was in the lead. Well played on his part.
Agreed. However on the contrary, I'd submit the fact that they'l alll see each other again at various conferences made it all the more interesting
@@Weidan25 Mike was "in the lead" but walked away with the smallest prize.
@@Math.Bandit he wouldn’t walk away with it if he didn’t
I wasnt know who is Mike or they will see eachother, the final was unexpected for me.
Sophie's honesty in Game 3 whilst everyone else played each other is admirable!
watching sophie get screwed over time and time again was honestly heartbreaking
Robin putting $1 in the final round was honestly hilarious
True
It funny how the group really collectively destroyed money by beeing egoistic and the promise of a chance "to make it" ~ briefcase
And at the end it was Mike that was screwed over.
And Sam talking about how little $100 is, ruthlessly screwing her out of $100!
ok but "snakes can't hide if you cut the grass" is one hell of a line to come up with on the spot
Mia took it personally
Must have missed that part. Who said it, Mike?
@@liquidsnakex it was sophie, at the start of the second game i believe…?
@@user-bu5ps7cg1u cheers, awesome line I agree
Right?! I thought the same thing!
This was a perfectly solid use of an hour of my life. Well done! Enjoyed every second of it.
Agreed
Exactly. When I saw the video was 1 hour, hmmm. Once I started watching it, I was hooked. Interesting to think of what would be the best combination of players that should play together. I like this video idea!
It was a great use of about 34 minutes. X2 play speed is delightful
@@Buttonpusher42 same
And 3k likes!
mike put on a master class
My favorite part is when Sophie put $1 and nobody else did 😂 She's too good for this world.
She's too honest 😂
But in reality her aim was to stiff everyone else
@@tinyrodent2821 Not quite, Sophie would have known everyone was a liar. If just one other person had put in a dollar, the split would have been 0.6 and it is implied that everyone would have gotten a dollar. Instead nobody put anything in, the split was 0.3, and nobody -except Sophie knows who has information.
bless her
Mia really went "Im glad we could establish some trust by the end" while agressively abusing that trust in the whole entire game to her advantage
Thought someone might have caught that either Mia or Sophie had to be lying about G2R2 putting $1 in the box. If 2 people put $1 in, returns would have been rounded to $1 each.
@@CxOrillion No, it would have still rounded down to 0. $2/5 = 40 cents, it would have needed to be 3 people putting in $1.
Edit: I forgot that it was a 50% increase. You're right. Someone should have called that out. Maybe because they were all to ashamed of putting in $0.
It's part of the game to lie.
It would be interesting to do this with complete strangers rather than friends and colleagues. That way Mike would've had no repercussions by walking out the door on his fellow strangers...
Except perhaps the opinions of his fans. The only way to do this and keep it all in the game is to pit random strangers against each other who don't have significant reputations to lose by maximally defecting.
@@41-Haiku absolutely, I think the game would definitely work better with complete strangers. The toxicity would be through the roof.
Mike: genius
Sam: reasonable
Sophie: victim
Rohin: frontstabber
Mia: backstabber
I would be fascinated to see a Behind The Scenes / Director's commentary on this. Questions I have include: how was playtesting done? What went differently between this and playtesting games? How were the games tuned during playtesting (rules, prize amounts, etc)? How were the scripts tuned during playtesting (explanation of rules, what information was given, etc)? Did you always have the "walk away; you don't have to face them" option, or did you discover you had to add that? Did you always tell them how much money they missed out on, or was that added later? What surprised you as you were developing it? Was there anything you had to enormously change from your original conception?
I second that motion!
The thing is, I don't think this can be accurately play tested unless each set of testers is also playing for the same sort of money (which has to be unlikely). Just like playing poker without money, the game doesn't work without it.
I mean without money, the medals are the only thing that has value, which would skew how people play.
Playtesting was an absolute blast and we have never talked so much post-playtest about what happened!
Great questions
I'd very much like to see a statistically significant number of real games, which is (sadly) prohibitively expensive
I love that Tom gets to live out his dream of creating & hosting gameshows, yet as small one off productions between friends they remain fresh and entertaining.
This was a intense game to watch, I feel like I need to go for a walk to just to calm down. Great work Tom, crew and contestants
My thoughts exactly
An interesting other game could be layered on top of something like this: Another group are watching, receiving a little less info than we got as viewers, and their game is to spot the liars.
@@peppigue I love this idea!
Even though Mike took arguably more selfish choices through most of the game and took the briefcase hostage, He's got my respect from round 2, he did exactly what he said he would and split it with everyone in the end even to his own detriment of having the least money out of everyone
I feel like Mike getting the two gold stars in round 2 was the best thing to happen to the group - he realised that he had control of the game for the foreseeable future, and told the rest of the players that he was under no circumstances going to give that up, which allowed the other players to start playing WITH each other instead of AGAINST each otrher. Once the 4 people were together (and since mike was truthful and is just a lovable guy) he was able to slide in to swap it from 4v1 to 5 v the house. this was fascinating!
absolutely, he was able to control it as they said the benevolent dictator. I'm not sure if either of the other 4 players would have been able to maintain that control (numbers and socially) and did it for the better of the group. awesome game
One member should have just voided his advantage. Unfortunately the other member with the medals was a known liar so they couldn't.
@@KiLLJoYRUclips They couldnt. Mike could keep choosing the medal card and 'destroying it' if someone else chose it. It wasnt until the final round that a second medal came into play, and if they had fought with Mike the previous 3 rounds, they wouldve lost more money than they wouldve gained by trying to tie and steal the briefcase away from him
@@__aceofspades but it doesn’t matter. for every round he gains a medal so you might as well void it. He could have burned the medals as much as he wanted but why would the game be made so that the person with 2 medals automatically wins the briefcase? it makes no sense.
I’d have immediately voted medal each round and gotten everyone some money. it would have been my objective to just ruin each round and throw all strategy out the window. that’s when it stops being about promises and turns into lies, which you can manipulate and catch out.
@@KiLLJoYRUclips keep it mind that one of the rounds with medals tied and no one earned them. It was possible he could have lost the medals lead earlier but by the last game he had an advantage
While being honest and benevolent, and keeping the game almost perfectly fair... Mike actually walked away with the least amount of cash, though arguably, with the most respect.
Well it wasn't by much, Sophie only earned 5 dollars more
@@baranxlr That wasn't the point. The point was that Mike was accused of being the villain the entire game, kept his honesty, had all the power and walked with with less than everyone. Sure, it wasn't by much but the point wasn't the value but the circumstances behind it.
Mike was brilliant. He figured out that he wasn't playing against the other players. He was playing against the game and he needed to get the players out of the way.
And yet he lost (i.e. received the lowest payout).
@@EvanBoyar let's be real, he made sure everyone won just under 2k in a day. And comes out looking like the smartest one of the group, well because he was.
He beat the game
@@EvanBoyar The lowest by like 5$. Out of almost 2000$. He wasn't a loser, everyone was a winner.
@@EvanBoyar He got the least money, but if he didn't do what he did, I don't think anybody would even come close to the amount they received.
@@EvanBoyar, only out of kindness. He was in a position to walk away with the briefcase if he wanted to. His goal was to ensure he won a fair share of the briefcase and he accomplished that.
Mike & Sophie were so wholesome and honest. It's really a shame they ended up with the least, but I'm glad it was as close as it was.
Really fun to watch!
Mike - Honest about his intentions, regardless of what they may be
Sam - Secretive version of Mike
Soph - Honest and has too much trust in others
Rohin - A good balance between honest and sly
Mia - sly.
Rohin wasn't really sly. He just got burned and reacted accordingly.
Mia was evil
@@zodiahk yes, immediately screwed everyone over
@@zodiahk yes and i love her for it
@@zodiahk Mia can be a little evil... As a Treat.
This is SUCH a good concept! Makes me want to see more
I'm quite sure the inspiration came from the Korean show "The Genius". (some say the series Squid game was inspired based on the show The Genius)
@@blackkissi they mention the inspirations in the credits
@@vedaryan334 thanks. Good notice
I guess that's the point right, get that nebula subscription
This also remind me of the alice in borderland
Tom is freakishly good at being a gameshow host!
If this isn’t already a Board game it needs making into one. It would ruin more christmases than monopoly
I wish I had $10,000 lying around
You can actually tell who's been cheated because they will keep voicing their disappointment, while those that actually lied, despite voicing disappointment, will also be pushing for increasing "group wealth". After a round where trust is broken, those that advocate for a selfish defensive strategy are more likely to be the ones that were cheated on, while conversely, those that continue to advocate to maximize group benefit are more likely to be the ones that have lied.
I also find it most interesting that the least trusting players were the least trustworthy while the most trusting were honest(ish).
@@aliagah502 I think that was because the players tried to predict the behaviour of others based on their own, so a cheater was also more likely to suspect everyone around them and thus continued to cheat (to protect themselves from a threat that they believed to exist).
@@olekj8665 the only thing we have to fear about each other is fear itself. Hold your breath and cooperate with honorable people even when they have more power. Build everyone up, even those already doing well, and you will increase the odds of getting them to cooperate back.
Even without that analysis, 37:58 Mia gave away that they definitely lied and put in £0.
@@lsedge7280 huh, that sentence totally doesn't make sense, just the semantics perspective not why you did it
I wish I was available for this! My goal wouldn't have been to win, my goal would have been to make Sam lose.
5 am Brian go to bed
I wonder how long this rivalry is gonna continue. I can't wait to see what happens next!
This would be amazing! haha
>( I'm always in games with somebody who does that.
@@claiminglight Those are the best games though! The kind with ulterior motives and consequences that last for years after the game is over (like monopoly with your family!)
I honestly did not expect to get sucked into this video but it was an incredible hour. I'm amazed at how well designed the rules for the games were.
Wait what this was an hour? I honestly didn't realize
POV: You're Tom, trying to figure out who of your friends is trustworthy
I loved mike by the end of the game. As Rohin said, he was like a benevolent dictator. He took control of the game and forced everyone to play as a team. What a chad. I will definitely check out his channel
Mike has an amazing channel! You'll soon see why he was the winner and by skill, not luck
He is the most skilled youtuber, Out of all youtuber's, By a Huge Margin !!
@@TwinkleTutsies he wasn't the "winner" though, got the smallest amount of money. But since that doesn't matter for any future episodes or whatever, it was definitely beneficial to not "win" since that definitely resulted in more money
Gives me Napoleon vibes.
i love how mike played in this. very funny and genuine guy. kinda surprised they didn’t pick up that mia scammed the first game. she got so quiet after it.
you should definitely do this again but this time it's five psychologists
That would be so much fun to watch
This is anecdotal, but all psychologists I've known have been terrible at math, so I wonder if it'd just be a game of would-be clever strategies that turn into blunders.
thats just competitive fraiser
Or five game theory experts
Or five economists
or maybe not
Holy shit Mia broke it all, Mike, who's been attacked the most, was really just the big brain here
38:37 Mia was lying here, and Sophie could have noticed it. The ONLY way for the boxes to be empty was if only 1 dollar had been in the pot. 1$ plus 50% is 1.50$, devided by 5 is 0.30$ which was rounded down to 0. If Mia had also put in one dollar, then the pot would have been 2$, plus 50% that's 3$, which, devided by 5, comes to 0.60$ - and thus everybody should have gotten one dollar because of the rounding rule. So as soon as Mia said "I put in one dollar", it was evident - at least to Sophie - that this was a lie.
Well...evident to everyone, if the total of what everybody said they put in was $2 then anybody could have done the same arithmetic (but didn't appear to, judging by their poker faces - unless it was cut out for some reason, of course).
exactly, i was surprised noone caught that.
Honestly I was too emotionally thrown by the initial betrayal to notice at the time, but I realised this in hindsight too!!
But then later on Sophie said 58 and that at least threw mike off for a second, so maybe they weren't sure.
agreed dude. 100% right!
It goes to show how honest Mike was for "winning" the game, yet walking away with the least amount of money.
The one factor unaccounted for was their reputation after the game. It's likely worth more to them than taking the maximum payout and screwing everyone else. It would be interesting to see the experiment ran again with random people that nobody knows.
Im into the twitch gaming screen and can tell you some of those streamers, even while making millions of dollars, would for the fun and entertainment of it, take on the role of a villain and actually go through with it.
Rohn mentioned that element briefly.
@@Glendragon GOBLIN xqcM
@@RedzeeTV I would love to see El goblino play this
Tom notes that at the end actually, the playtesters never split the money evenly. So yes, content creators were to an advantage in this game.
“No playtester ever split even.” Were the playtests done with real money? Because I could imagine that making a big difference - people are much happier to screw over their friends with Monopoly money than with actual cash.
The play testers were likely complete strangers.
Indeed. Doesn’t really affect the point, though; people will make different moral choices when the stakes are fictional.
@@awmperry But people being strangers also changes the stakes. You are more likely to screw over a stranger with real money than your friends, and are less likely to screw people over on high stakes in public.
I suspect it was probably played with real money at least sometimes, but with a smaller quantity (ie 600 instead of 6000 dollars)
@@lsedge7280 That’s exactly my point. It’s impossible to fully playtest it without replicating the full game with at least comparable sums.
@@awmperry Not true, actually. We playtested it with people fighting over 1% of the money, and you would be surprised how similar the patterns were.
The issue with the game is that the contestants are all known personalities, who somewhat know each other. Which changes the dynamics for the large scale steal, vs the tv gameshow golden balls, where at the end of the day if someone steals they're never seen again by the person they've stolen from.
Which is probably the reason it worked for them but not for the beta testers.
@@bravomike4734 Beta testers probably aren't playing with real money either.
are they?
I wonder if they play tested this scenario. Cooperative play maximizes the reward and having most rounds face-to-face avoids the prisoners dilemma to disrupt that cooperation.
I mean, realistically humans would want to cooperate, because at the end of the day if you didnt, you would be cast out, ostracized, or killed. So them having some level of known to each other is more realistic to every day life.
That was entertaining. I think the reason that play-testers not splitting in the end but Mike did (and any of them probably would have) is because of the potential fallout from being RUclipsrs - 5 complete strangers would likely not split at the end.
If I was in the situation Mike was in (having all the power), and a similar deal was struck, I can confidently say I would have honored the deal because I couldn't stomach myself otherwise. However, I think tha heavily depends on the person in power and the sum of money to be divided. Some people will have a lower threshold to run with it, others will have a higher one, that also depends on their social situation.
and surely they didnt have a budget of over 6k for playtesters, and all these youtubers said they could be cheeky and steal a small amount
@@Glendragon That's what I was thinking.
No, there wouldn't have been any fallout.
Exactly this
Funny how Mike had the most control towards the end, kept his promise, but ended up with the least cash overall even if marginally haha. Great show, loved it!
and the thing is if he didn't get control of the game as he did in round 4 he could have walked away with a lot more than the others because they wouldn't have been able to cooperate in that round
this really show us that you do need a leader ina group to get the most benefit from it, even if that leader is what would be called a "benevolent dictator"
I think splitting the money was the optimal result, the happiest result possible. Team against the house. I wouldn't mind ending up with 1800 instead of 1900 dollars here, if my actions resulted in everybody benefiting the most
game 5: i was partially expecting him to give one person nothing and have the rest split evenly
he only needs 3 votes to confirm, and everyone else knows they'd get the most out of it
yes. totally, totally spot on.
@@ovencake523 if he wanted to screw then he could have left with all the money
I actually think the winning strategy during the 1-5 paddle game was the following:
2 people pick 1.
2 people pick 2.
1 person picks 5.
Reasoning:
You can't screw eachother over. Nobody can get the pot for themselves. For example if one of the people who picked 1 went for 3 instead: that would mean only one person would remain with paddle 1, making him the winner instead. None of the players except the person picking 5 is able to change their paddle without guaranteeing a loss for themselves. At that point the only question is whether or not the person with 5 will split.
The only remaining issue I can think of is the medals. They'd have to give them to someone in exchange for being able to execute this strategy. Which they eventually ended up doing anyway by just stacking them on one person so it wouldn't have mattered. Could even exchange that person's money for giving him the medals.
I'd be interested to see how this game plays out with 5 complete strangers who don't have public images to maintain...
that could be accomplished by obscuring their identities if the game gets broadcasted. interesting concept, it would be fun to have someone look into that.
edit: tom also said that none of the playtesters split the money evenly. that's most likely because of the reason you stated.
Last person would absolutely always run with the briefcase then.
@@KarateLauren It could also be because they likely didn't actually give those playtesters the money, thus it became "Get big points and win game" instead of "Oh, this actually benefits us all"
@@DoesNotComphoot I bet they did, but there is a chance that the amount might have been smaller
@@bloxxor420 TBH, I doubt that. I have a nihilistic viewpoint, but even I have faith in the general public regarding that. People are selfish, but they prefer to not be complete and utter pricks.
I wonder how much being in the public eye effected the final choices here. These are all youtubers, presumably moving in similar circles, either friends directly or mutually through Tom. Usually these games are between total strangers who never have to talk again. Imagine we'd see a totally different dynamic. But very fun all the same!
I guess that's the reason why Tom said that in play-tests, it was never split evenly.
If Sam had managed to get control of the briefcase, I imagine the outcome would have been rather different - he was the person at the table doing most to try to manipulate other people to let him "win" (while Mike was trying to manipulate the situation to beat the game, not the other players).
but also, in playtests the money would not have been as large, and so stealing everything would not be so heavy on one's conscience
@@riddixdan5572 also they probably didn't playtest it with 10,000 dollars
The deal at the end would need reworking a bit if the participants were complete strangers.
As an economist who specialised in game theory, I want to say thank you for bringing these classic behavioural games like the Public Goods Game and Ultimatum game to a wider audience and explaining & demonstrating them so clearly. The options to change the game up and find ways to collaborate were super interesting.
And as a fan of gameshows and these sort of games, thanks, cause it was super fun & entertaining to watch!
Can you recommend any similar videos like this one? It's super interesting and I'd love to see more
Since they're all youtubers, they had an incentive to not be asses on the show else their viewers/fans would be disgruntled. It's a fun video still.
@@sebd9690 I think that makes it interesting as well because we see how much of a sneak they are willing to be.
@@sebd9690 Even ignoring that, empirical results of randomized controlled games show more socially-optimal results than game theory would predict, especially in multiple-turn games.
Super interesting that Mike basically forced them to co-operate in games 4 and 5. Would love to see how other groups handle these decisions in another season.
Bless Sophie, she's too pure for this game 😂
I am not surprised by the information that no playtester ever split equally. They were non-public individuals playing the game in private. Apart from the trust broken with the other contestants, there were no repercussions. But these were content creators, publicly known figures. Doing such a high profile backstab such as destroying a deal for 1200 dollars would ruin their reputation.
was thinking the same thing
And the playtesters were maybe more likely to be strangers. Even if this wasn't broadcast, these people are friends (or if not friends, then they at least run in similar circles). It's very different to screw someone who you know you'll never see again, compared to someone you will.
Would love to see a version where their identities were concealed from each other.
idk if one of them ended up backstabbing everyone in the end I wouldn't hold it against them, that's the game
Also, I would imagine that the playtesters weren't actually playing for real cash.
I have no problems backstabbing my closest friends and family in a board game.
I would not backstab them for fifty bucks.
Well, Sophie's integrity might have lost her some money but it gained her at least one new sub.
2 :)
Women are naturally more trusting then men. I found it more funny that mike got the least amount of money at the end when he was in lead all game long.
I agree. It made me trust her more than anybody else in the group and actually made me check her channel out.
+1
Which was the real prize of the game: getting some free advertising and PR on Tom Scott's channel.
Nothing but respect for Sophie's play (mid round 3 here). You might leave with less cash but you leave with more dignity.
I think a major aspect of this game that hindered it was that every player was a fairly well-established public personality playing for personal benefit. The only ways to have a high likelihood of deception is to either have strangers as contestants to effectively negate any post-game consequences, or to have players as featured but playing for charity. The winner of this game would be dealing a huge blow to their personal brand by taking all the money and running, but they could have all had a good laugh if it was to ensure the entire prize was awarded to a good cause they championed.
I'll bet some of them donated their earnings to charity as a token of goodwill.
If it was for charity then there would only be max cooperation, no need for deceit.
@@prcr364 I thought so too
@@astrovan I'd bet they didn't. Or even think about it.
It does not work if all players have to donate their funds for charity. There are psychological studies that show even thinking about money makes people more agressive and less cooperative in these games. When all winnings go to charity, the only incentive is to cooperate.
Plus there was no rule against Mike just pocketing the briefcase to win the game and then donate everything to charity and even raise it, to save his public persona...
I love how at the end Tom just says “We have a car outside, if you want to you can get your things and go” I love the phrasing
@Alex C or his reputation
I’m not even halfway through. This is so well done and I need like 100 episodes of this. Fantastic work Tom and team!
i concur. 10000% perfect
You just need $10000 plus all the other expenses each time
I feel like someone needs to point this one out: Imagine doing it with sums 100 times larger, same or bigger RUclipsrs.
The whole game would switch from game theory to how much is your reputation worth.
I can't get over how genius it is in game 2 to say "I'm going to pick 1". Everyone else then knows you're going to win unless they stop you, and they can't stop you without giving up their own chance of winning, so they're better off hoping someone else takes that fall.
I always play Rock in Rock Paper Scissors. I always tell my adversary this. I still sometimes win. Mysterious.
@@JeffRAllenCH the universe works in strange ways
I think there is a specific dilemma for this, it's really interesting, because for this, there isn't a clear personal advantage like prisoners dilemma's for example, if you don't care that the other person wins, you should chose another number, but if you really don't want the other person to win you would choose 1 as well.
Huge power move
@@RGC_animation the more i think it over, if you only care about maximising your own chance of winning and someone else does that, you should tell them "i'm going to pick 1 too" and hope you scare them off. But if they play sensibly they'll hope you're bluffing and pick 1 anyway, so you cancel eachother out. You won't win with perfect play but i think it's still the best strategy.
I was actually getting a bit sad at Mike not wanting to cooperate and negotiate, but then he played the ultimate power move and forced everyone to work together and got the maximum prize for everyone. What a champion
He did say that if he won that he would split the money with everyone but no one trusted him
straight up Lelouch
Mike also walked away with the LEAST amount of money of anyone at the table, despite controlling the briefcase! Then again, he didn't know as he was making his final offers, but it's an interesting observation!
Mike and Sophie were the MVPs
the benevolent dictator, the objective best form of leadership when done correctly
I want to see Tom become a host for a full TV game show.
So Two of these people are lying but it's aired on the BBC
YES
He was on a game show once, but he was a contestant. I can’t remember what it was called but if you search ‘Tom Scott game show’ it will probably come up.
What is the difference? You can also have 3x10min ad break and it will be the lenght of a TV show.
literally no point in this, only difference is less flexibility in production and more ads.
The problem with this is the fact that the competitors aren't just thinking about the money, but also the reputation that they have to uphold amongst their fan base and one another. If it were done with strangers then they wouldn't be thinking about that and instead solely have the financial benefit in mind, which I think would be a better way to manage the game. Still great video though!
Excellent point. I suspect that was the original intention. However, the game seems to be a new concept. So perhaps, relatively well-known RUclipsrs were invited to help it gain more popularity.
@@StanleyKubick1 that probably is a good thing, in the circumstances of the game of course
This was immensely entertaining, i'm envisioning this with 5 complete strangers and a much larger prize purse, it would be mayhem
So..... Every day political negociations?
Except the prize purse is the rest of the peoples earnings.....
You mean with 5 complete strangers. The prize pool won't matter.
That'd be more interesting!
Mr Beast where you at?
I volunteer to participate, the cash would be very helpful 💸
The second I started watching I was thinking "Darn, he's going to get them to solve multiple prisoner's dilemmas, isn't he?" and at the end I was actually getting out my lecture material from my international relations class to look up what sort of game theoretic concepts they were going through. And this game had everything, from preference falsification, reversion point movement and repeated game dynamics to absolute/relative wins, mutli-round negotiations and trust building. The team that designed this was truly genius. I applaud you, Tom Scott!
I look forward to the five part video series dissecting this in detail
And the whole game essentially turns on IR's Hegemonic stability theory! Mike became the undisputed hegemon who would win the game, and therefore could use that leverage to get everyone else to cooperate.
I was hoping for someone to propose the use of a randomised strategy, as the equilibria with randomised strategies can be net positive for some of the games. Does demonstrate repeated game corporation including the breakdown at the time horizon. Really good watch actually
We were building on the shoulders of giants who originally came up with versions of some of these games, but thanks for the complements anyway.
@@davidbod Yes, but they wrote dry academic papers that few people are likely to read. It is a service to dramatize it for the masses, and you did that very well!
"You said you put in a dollar!" This series is outstanding, every bit of it was gripping and i audibly gasped at several parts. would love another series, maybe with different games.
Just brilliant! Totally absorbed for the whole hour. Mike understood the entire game from the start and maintained his integrity throughout. Although he didn't earn as much cash he certainly earned trust and respect!
Wow this was filmed so long ago. I look like a child
joe
whos joe
congrats innit
I mean… are you not?
@@qqqalo joe mama
Being in a gameshow hosted by Tom Scott would immediately make me think I'm part of some sort of experiment.
I mean this felt like a prisoner's dilemma experiment so
ngl, Mike was super smart and Sophie was super honest
I felt really bad for Sophie after the second round.
Mike ended up being a Benevolent monarch which was heartwarming to see.
In the end the cooperation seemed less about trust and more about equal self-interested risk. Mike becoming the benevolent dictator who gained the least from the arrangement is a very interesting result too!
I think Mike trusted himself to be honest, but not the others. He was willing to walk away with slightly less, but know he would walk away with something.
Sophie was honest, but the other 3 weren't. By saying he would take the medal, he forcedthem to be honest, because they absolutely could not bluff him.
Yes, was awesome seeing Mike take control of this whole thing, and kinda sad to see that Mia and the other 2 screwed everyone over so fast.
I think Rohin WAS honest - and prepared to play fairly - until the other 3 screwed both him and Sophie over
@@juliaconnell at 8:43 in round 2 of game 1, Rohin writes a 1 when they all promised to write 0 - not as bad as Mia's 10, but still cheating on the others.
@@bmwiedemann Tbf, he already predicted beforehand that one person will screw them over. I believe he was only testing the waters as to what would happen if there was a tie (i.e., two people putting "1").
I can't believe six straight mins of watching a group of people trying to establish trust amongst themselves would make for such absorbing viewing.
dude ikr an entire six minutes
AMOGUS
The way that Mike didn't even lie a single time is absolutely astounding to me. even when he decided to backstab the group by not putting any money in he never said he agreed to. It just shows you how smart this group of people actually is by playing on their wording.
They were all such bad liars, Mike was the only one smart enough to not even try
Didn't Rohin stick to his commitments as well?
@@samrusoff in game 3 round 2 he put in 0$ while he said he'd put in 1$
There's a famous Golden Balls clip where the guy at the end of the rounds says he WILL steal the money but split it with the other person afterwards, thus meaning that the best option for getting money that the other person had was to trust them
If this became a full youtube series with comedians coming on and stuff, that'd be it right there. Like Taskmaster but mixed with deceit.
Yes this!!
Mike is the villain that actually has a good argument
Two things:
1. This is brilliant!
2. I would love to see this with 5 mathematicians (or even better, game theory specialists) to see them analyze the heck out of all of this.
Me too! Omg
theres more than money, preserving their reputation breaks it
This was fun. If you had let the briefcase winner see who had cheated, he might have more incentive to distribute the money less evenly.
I was thinking the same. If Mike had been informed of everyone's totals, he could have distributed such that everyone walked away with equal money.
This. He could have given 3 people 1200 dollars and 0 to the fourth one. It would have been a gamble but it also could have gone through and he wouldnt end up the game with the smallest total number of money despite being the winner :-D
@@paulsmyers203 True but no one else knew that so the moment one of them learnt any other player was being offered more than them, they could very easily say no and there are two people in that situation. It would have killed the vote.
@@MichalBrat I don't see this working. Sophie played by agreed terms and Rohin did until things got too screwy for his liking. I could genuinely see Sam and Mia taking this offer but I think the other two would push for fairness and end up screwing everyone; best everyone be screwed rather than singling one person out, especially with the profile of each of the players. I can't say for others, but I can say beyond any doubt, I wouldn't watch the channel of someone who could go along with that.
@@daggern15 Yes, this option was more hypothetical. In fact, I was quite happy with the results.
Sam, who became the scapegoat for Mia in the beginning, won the most money in the end. In a way, that's somewhat poetic.
I think there was a stable cooperative strategy for the lowest unique bid game: One player bids 5, but the others bid 1, 1, 2, and 2. That way if one of the players who were supposed to bid 1 or 2 defect, they’re only handing the money to someone else (and simultaneously reducing it), so there’s no incentive to defect.
An optimal Nash-Equilibrium
That's not really a stable cooperative strategy: The winner can just choose to keep the money once they receive it. It prevents anyone *else* from defecting, but the chosen winner always can.
@@OMGclueless Then its is known who the defector is and that can be played around for the rest of the game, also people are far more likely to cheat someone out of money if that person can't know for sure it was them.
@@falconJB That's true of every strategy in this game though.
@@OMGclueless Only every good strategy, and they were a bit slow at figuring out the good strategies.
Tom scanning the table with a silent grin while watching everyone go insane makes me happy
Mike was the most logical player. He won the medals on "luck/strategy" and then had the upper hand on everybody else for the next games. His decisions were logical, he did not had to use deception
That was awesome to see. Mike beautifully conjured a simple, logical plan for most games. He was so straightforward and mathematical.
And yet he walked out with the worst prize.
i mean, the lowest unique *was* luck
@@Math.Bandit but he didn't have to. He had a choice.
@@Weidan25 No. He always had to make a deal. The "car is waiting" was just if he didn't want to face the people after the deal.
I feel like the RUclipsrs being genuine friends with one another changes everything. If it’s done with 5 strangers I reckon it would be pure chaos, but with five acquaintances/friends, it’s the money AND genuine friendships at risk, which somewhat wholesomely, people don’t put on the line as easy as cash.
This should not be as nerve wracking to watch as it is, having no stake in it. yet I was on the edge of my seat, adrenaline pumping at speed through me. Great game and concept, superb execution by the players.
I was like "1 hour long? That's a bit long. Let's just watch a bit and see what it is about." Ended up watching and enjoying the whole show!
I was quite the opposite. I've been looking forward to this game going public and surprised it was over that quickly.
Theory: Tom is really running a series of psychological experiments based on different variations of the prisoner's dilemma.
A lot of these games are unique games in game theory, there isn't just the prisoner's dilemma.
totally. totally, totally right
Details about the games are in the credits at 1:08:05
It's not a theory, he is literally running 'experiments' (although without full experimental design) based on game theory (which is admittedly a lot more than just the Prisoner's Dilemma).
Once Mia got that trust with the first round. I suspected she would use the trust to turn the tables. Truly mischievous behavior lol.
I think the key factor is that everyone knew each other. So the price was much higher then the money. Take out that connection and there's nothing on the line so people will take greater risks and give in to a greater deviance because they wouldn't be held accountable.
I love how Mike acted like he was in control the entire time, but that control resulted in him taking home the least cash out of all 5
It was the ultimate form of control... self control.
*levitates away*
Actually, if we're to take away anything from this, the person who was most honest about his intentions (Mike) got the least money in the end, and the people who attempted the most deception (Mia and Sam) got the most money. And they get away with not being absolute bastards in the eyes of everyone else by being dishonest when the stakes are low but cooperating when the stakes are higher -- kinda like how big corporations are public and transparent with the big deals that have everyone's attention, but screw people over by a thousand little cuts under the table. But I'm sure Sam will put his winnings to good use making more videos about planes or bricks or both.
They still would have made more money had they been entirely honest and cooperative.
Their slyness took away the earnings of others, but also from their own earnings.
It would have been smarter to sum up everyone's quantities and split that evenly for the final deal, so as to cancel out all the gains from the back-stabbing.
bricks LMAOAOA
Good point
I haven't finished the video yet, but one thing I've quickly realized (atleast from round 3, maybe it changes) is:
When you are honest and nice, the total amount of money given is increased. But when you are deceptive, the amount of money *you* get is about the same as one honest person would get, if *everybody* was honest.
So, if you wanted to guarantee yourself the win, you could be deceptive **every single round** and never be honest. In this game, there is no form of "voting off" or "stopping a specific player" --- the best they can do is be even with you. There's nothing that all 4 others can do, to stop *you* from being as dishonest as possible, as long as you are one round/token ahead.
This was the most fantastic gameshow ive ever seen hands down. Totally glued to the screen. Just genius.
I'm impressed with the colored closed captioning!
so much more professional than most yt captioning (including corporate channels) and waaay more clear and understandable
Awesome game, super fun to watch, though I wish Mike had given 3 of the 4 people their share to see what would've happened. Obviously picking out one individual would be a bit mean :P
I was expecting him to start off with $1000 each - exactly what he promised, because he never promised to increase based on the bonus in the last round. But in spite of being "selfish" in the game, he did end up being a benevolent dictator.
It even hurt him in the end - he actually ended up with the *least* money in the group (by $5 over "lost the most in the main game" Sophie) in spite of being one of the two "big winners" in the split-each-other's-money game.
Imagine Sophie getting 0 dollars in her box 🤣
@@mana24 Don't I would never have recovered hahaha
@@mana24 that would have been so mean.
Lgv ghjl my a qbaaq. Q. Hui -aA
At 33:40, both Mia and Sam revealed themselves as liers by suggesting that it may have been everyone, this can only be suggested if you are aware that you have left cash back yourself.
"when the grass is mowed, and the snakes can't hide." really good quote
The right way to do the second game is the following: Agree to split the votes 1,1,2,2,5. Then if everything goes well, the person with the 5 wins the largest possible amount and if anyone deviates from the strategy, they will not win the money themselves.
Functionally not different from the all 4 and one 5 strategy they did use. I don't see what point you're trying to make.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue No it's not: if the agreement is all 4 and one 5, then if someone picks 3 their share goes from 1 to 3. But with kettwiesel25's solution, the only way to deviate from the plan is for someone to pick 3 or 4, but in that case the person that kept their word and picked 1 gets the money, so the cheater gets 0.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue It ended up not being any different but if someone chose lower than 4 they would have won (slightly less) so they were still running that risk. This way there is no incentive to deviate because there would always be someone with lower.
The incentive to not do that is that it happens out in the open. It's an entirely different thing if nobody actually cares what the other people think.
I'm just saying that as long as someone actually cooperates and wins on five they are going to get the maximum value regardless.
What you said certainly works in cases where someone actually decides to screw them over.
But if you actually propose your idea to a group it reflects your own lack of trust. Which actually increases the odds that every starts suspecting you as well.
So the logical solution can cause a psychological backfire in that way. And since the result was still optimal second guessing is something of a moot point.
The fact Mia screwed everyone over in round one for 25 bucks and simultaneously sowed distrust throughout the entire rest of the game is some perfect content.
I strive to cause as much chaos as her in my daily life.
Its effing horrible
I would do the same just to spice it up
@@k.silverpoint You strive to screw other people over for your own self gain?
@@kittykitties4220 It's tempting, but no.
Just the same level of chaos.
Oh boy, I'd love to see a discussion of this after the fact, when they learn how it all turned out.
That'd be class watching that, I bet.
The best strategy for the second game may actually be for two people to pick 1, two people to pick 2, and one to pick 5. This way, any defector would lose money, assuming they are the only one that does not pick their respective number and that they'll split the money evenly.
That's true but I think the reason why this works for this group is that they all know each other so when the results are shown publicly, it would be a lot more awkward than if they were strangers to each others.
But in the the previous 500 dollar challenge, 2 people betrayed. So can anyone believe only 1 would betray.
i agree! unequivocally right dude
@@MutantMonke If I'm due to pick 1 and expect the other 1 to betray, then I can either stick with 1 and "win" (and get to keep a reputation for honesty) or I can switch to another number, but which? 2 won't win (unless both of them also betray), 3 only wins if the other 1 betrayed to 2, 4 or 5, but 4 only wins if the other 1 betrayed to 2 or 5, and 5 will only win if the 5 player also betrayed and collided with the other 1's betrayal pick.
The only question is whether you trust the 5 player to honour the deal and divide the money. So long as you trust that, any lone defector loses money, and any pair of defectors are likely to lose money unless they secretly co-ordinate and only split between themselves.
The key point here is that there's no obvious gain for anyone in betrayal (except in refusing to split the money afterwards), so, even without considering the benefit from preserving trust, it's in everyone's interest to co-operate unless they actively expect someone else to betray without a clear benefit.
Or just have the one person pick 1 and everyone else 5.. then if anyone would deviate he still wouldn't win anything. Best he can do is annihilate the prize but then he just loses money because he doesn't even get his share now
I really like Sophie, she's got a very cheery personality, and her accent is nice too, not really harsh, but not too subtle.
I despise her
@@RoboBitch42 The opposite of love isn't hate it's indifference x
@@RoboBitch42 You must have some nice friends.
@@SophsNotes In Round 3, you should have always chosen the highest denomination to prevent you from being screwed over because of being screwed in Round 2.
I remember watching this on Nebula. One of Tom's best works, and I'm glad he decided to share this with a larger audience!
Glad to be reminded not everyone believes in concrete pay walls. This is a great way to make some money and show such a great work to a larger community.
@@astrovan At this point, Tom Scott should be picked up by some Public Broadcaster for a show. Would give them enough budget and also wouldn't be behind paywalls.
I dont think it was an alone decision by Tom to make it available to the public, Nebula probably had a share in that discussion or any other producers of the show. Or Nebulas licence expired and the producers offered it to be open to the public, but as it is a Nebula original from the description of the video, it is probably mainly their decision.
If Sophie and Rohin switched seats everyone would've been arranged from most deceptive to least deceptive. Mia was quite obviously the most deceptive from the start and I'm not sure why no one tried to call her out on it.
@@1wasinAlpha you ok?
@@1wasinAlpha Bro what? lmao you went off the deep end with this one
@@1wasinAlpha your not wrong lmfao
@@1wasinAlpha Are you okay?
@@octs609 but they are... Unless if being transphobic is right to you?