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.,(reply>), @L Sedge I really appreciate that you care enough to explain but look up the meaning of word "semantics",(reply>), @Amine Hachani Mia said they expected there to be £0 left. It was before we knew about the rounding situation. <br><br>The only way therefore that £0 could be left in the box (to their knowledge) would be if nobody put any money at all in.<br><br>We then found out about the rounding down, and Mia said they put £1 in.<br><br>If any of the other players picked up on that, it would've given away that Mia was lying.,(reply>), @J B In real life in general, this applies and I live by it. But a gameshow/social experiment is a completely different environment.,(reply>), @L Sedge huh, that sentence totally doesn't make sense, just the semantics perspective not why you did it,(reply>), Even without that analysis," <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJSI7QTAt_o&amp;t=37m58s"">37:58</a> Mia gave away that they definitely lied and put in £0."