It would be interesting to see how this played out with people who have no public reputation at stake,(reply>), Exactly, the way as it stands it's a contrived experiment in surveillance, peer pressure, and the power of virtue signaling. I'm even afraid the exactly wrong conclusions will be drawn from this, e.g. that these instruments are necessary to make people "play fair" and that we need more of them. Like banning privacy - because all the players here were fully aware that their decisions would be made public later on and probably were focusing more on that aspect than the actual rewards.,(reply>), Well the others would probably not trust Mike to split it so game 4 might have been different too. You could lets say have one person voting star and split the rest. The 4 still get the same amount of money and just won't get the boost to next round.,(reply>), @Felix Roux Mike could steal all the money, hop on the car waiting outside and leave remember?,(reply>), @Ahmet Gırcın Do you understand how the final game works? There has to be a 3/4 majority in agreement about the final deal or else nobody gets any money.,(reply>), Everyone would steal the final 6000 unless they have some sort of a religious/ethical incentive to not do so.