The 'Split or Steal' game show dominated TV, but a genius player ruined game’s entire premise with a single move

Television game shows are popular across the world for giving people an opportunity to win big money. While most game shows claim to be fool-proof, one man proved it wrong with a scientific application of the 'game theory'. A contestant on the UK game show "Golden Balls" forced his opponent into making a choice that favored him. 

How is Golden Balls Played?

In “Golden Balls”, contestants collect balls containing prizes worth  £10 (~$13) to £75,000 (nearly $100,000). In the final round of the game, two finalists play a game called split or steal to win the money. 

In this, each contestant has to choose if they want to split the jackpot or steal it. Here, both of them have to choose to split, to share the prize but if one chooses to steal and the other picks to split, the former walks home with all of the amount. However, if both choose to steal, then none of them win anything.

The game hinges on one of the applications of game theory called the "prisoner's dilemma". 

What's the prisoner's dilemma?

The “prisoner’s dilemma” can be described by the example of two friends, who are arrested for a crime. The police offer the two the same deal which is, if they confess and rat out their friend, they go free but their friend goes to jail for longer.

If they both confess, they go to jail but on a lighter sentence. However, if they both choose to stay quiet, the police could only convict them of a small crime, for which they would go to prison for only a year. In this scenario, staying quiet is the best for both. The dilemma here is how much they trust their friend to stay quiet, the same as the split or steal game. 

Here's how Nick played the theory

In the episode, Nick was up against Ibrahim who was playing to “split or steal” a jackpot of £13,600 (~18,000 today). Nick immediately chose an unusual strategy to play the game as he opened by telling Ibrahim that he was 100% going to steal. He urged Ibrahim to split and promised that he would unofficially split the prize with him outside the studio.

As the audience burst into laughter, the host confirmed that Nick could legally split the prize outside if he wanted to. In turn, Ibrahim says that he would keep his word and choose to split only if Nick chooses the same. However, Nick stays adamant saying that he would choose to steal no matter what Ibrahim picks. 

Thus, Nick has played the game theory and limited Ibrahim's options. If Ibhrahim chooses to steal, they both would lose and get nothing. However, if he chooses to split and loses the prize, there would be a chance that Nick would keep his word and share the prize. This means, Nick has basically forced him to choose split.

Ibrahim still tries repeatedly to convince Nick by appealing to his sense of morality. As Nick refuses to budge, Ibrahim calls him an idiot. Eventually, the host tells them to make a decision and both players lock in their choice.

When the answers are revealed, Nick's brilliant strategy plays out. They both picked the option to split. Nick used deception to make sure that Ibrahim was left with no choice but to split, as he would choose split too.

The episode from 10 years ago still serves as a brilliant example of playing the game theory and effective communication.