I think a major aspect of this game that hindered it was that every player was a fairly well-established public personality playing for personal benefit. 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. The winner of this game would be dealing a huge blow to their personal brand by taking all the money and running, but they could have all had a good laugh if it was to ensure the entire prize was awarded to a good cause they championed.,(reply>), @Julia Connell Mike has over a million subs and Sam has over 3 million. You may not know them, but other people do. Even though Sophie and Mia have relatively less followers, their livelihoods rely as on their public YT persona as much as the others and damaging that would be damaging their careers.,(reply>), The public reputation angle does carry over to the real world of international relations, though, which still makes this a fascinating little laboratory.,(reply>), I agree Joel - but only to a point re the "fairly well-established public personality"- the ONLY player I knew before this was Rohin - - Rohin at least was aware of this - near the end he made a similar point - *millions are watching*, the post-game consequences/personal brand far outweigh any monetary gain for each of these players,(reply>), I think the best rule would have been to actually have all 5 players playing for an individually chosen charity with a statement that the 'house' takings go to a charity chosen by Tom.  That would allow for all of the deception and people being as conniving as they like, while still ensuring no real lasting emotional tie to losing the money.,(reply>), It does not work if all players have to donate their funds for charity. There are psychological studies that show even thinking about money makes people more agressive and less cooperative in these games. When all winnings go to charity, the only incentive is to cooperate. <br><br>Plus there was no rule against Mike just pocketing the briefcase to win the game and then donate everything to charity and even raise it,  to save his public persona...