It seems like there is something inherently evil in devising a game that rewards betrayal and lying, and then inviting friends or friendly acquaintances to play it.  Monopoly is infamous for that, but then it was originally designed as an allegory for the evils of (spoiler) monopolies.,(reply>), the game was never about screwing each other over, if the players have no lose condition and/or multiple winners are allowed then the game is automatically against the house.<br>if Tom wanted to encourage competition he should've stopped the players from sharing their winnings,(reply>), It rewards cooperation much more consistently, though. Had they worked together in Round 3, they would have made $360, instead I think the most anyone walked away with was less than half that.,(reply>), I would argue the games paid out much more money when they all started to work together.,(reply>), @Decimae The natural consequence, so both,(reply>), the evils of capitalism, not monopolies