Rigged games shows #1: Goldenballs (UK)

Over the course of their existence, there have been several cases of rigged game shows. Usually this has taken on the form where popular contestants have been helped to win. However, the form of 'rigging' I'm speaking about here is the modern, money-conscious, control all variables form. And nowhere is this better exemplified than in the UK game show Goldenballs.

For those who haven't seen the show, it begins with four contestants who each have four golden coloured balls before them, two each in two rows. Everyone can see the 'front' two balls but only the contestants can see the rear two. The balls each have a money value inside them, however, to make things interesting, there are several 'killer' balls which come into play in the final round and thus form one basis for 'voting off' contestants. In round one, the four contestants talk and try to convince each other of what they have in the other balls and why they should go to the next round. After a time limit, they vote and one person is removed, showing all their balls (which are then removed from play). More money balls and killer balls are entered into play and the second round proceeds much like the first (except each contestant now has 5 balls). After the voting, two players remain. They then enter a short, cooperative round to build up as much money as they can by trying to select money balls and avoiding killers. The show ends with the inevitable back-stabbing round where each player elects to either 'split' or 'steal' the money. If both 'split' they each take half the pot. If one splits and one steals, the stealer takes all the money and if both steal, none get the money.

At first appearance, the show seems an interesting psychological experiment. First in trust and deception, then in the old golden vs silver rule of life. When broken down logically, however, it can simply be seen as a fun show where virtually no one will ever take home any money.

Why?

Let's look at the final round: split or steal, and break it down logically.

1) Choose 'split'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win half the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

2) Choose 'steal'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win all the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

From the above, it is easy to see that a contestant's best option is always to choose 'steal', regardless of any real or perceived greed or trust issues. Regardless of which choice one makes, there is a 50/50 chance to take home money. However, with 'steal' you will take home twice as much as with 'split'. Since the odds are the same, but the take is higher, contestants could always be counted on to choose 'steal'. But if all contestants choose steal, no one will ever win money and the show never has to pay out. (thus, if every contestant chose 'split' they would all win, always But since there will always be someone choosing 'steal', so too will everyone else).

The only way one could ever see it changing would be if several contestants made a written agreement, in private, before the show. Or, perhaps in a charity show where all could be expected to choose 'split'.