I do find it odd that Mike, who won the briefcase actually won the least in the end, but it was addictive viewing. Thanks Tom.,(reply>), @Markus Klyver I mean, it’s still being put on YouTube and watched by millions of people. Even if you played against strangers, your friends would still watch the video and say you’re a bastard haha,(reply>), @Tedfordshire if they turned down all 3 offers he didn't get any money.,(reply>), It didn't make any sense that he offered to split the briefcaser evenly. He was going to be in charge of the briefcase whether he made that deal or not.,(reply>), 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.,(reply>), I don’t find it odd, because the agreed-upon deal meant it cost him money for the other four to allow him exclusive access to control the case.  He took a calculated financial loss to ensure he had the sole decision what to do with the case at the end.  Not everyone who plays for control has selfish goals in mind, some are capable of using this power for the betterment of others.