I feel like Mike getting the two gold stars in round 2 was the best thing to happen to the group - he realised that he had control of the game for the foreseeable future, and told the rest of the players that he was under no circumstances going to give that up, which allowed the other players to start playing WITH each other instead of AGAINST each otrher. Once the 4 people were together (and since mike was truthful and is just a lovable guy) he was able to slide in to swap it from 4v1 to 5 v the house. this was fascinating!,(reply>), I think the players did fail to discuss a bit their lack of knowledge of future rounds and games, or maybe Tom just edited it out.,(reply>), It’s like Nim. If you realize right away that status-quo mean you win, the game is already won.,(reply>), @KiLLJoY keep it mind that one of the rounds with medals tied and no one earned them. It was possible he could have lost the medals lead earlier but by the last game he had an advantage,(reply>), @aceofspades but it doesn’t matter. for every round he gains a medal so you might as well void it. He could have burned the medals as much as he wanted but why would the game be made so that the person with 2 medals automatically wins the briefcase? it makes no sense.<br><br>I’d have immediately voted medal each round and gotten everyone some money. it would have been my objective to just ruin each round and throw all strategy out the window. that’s when it stops being about promises and turns into lies, which you can manipulate and catch out.,(reply>), @KiLLJoY They couldnt. Mike could keep choosing the medal card and 'destroying it' if someone else chose it. It wasnt until the final round that a second medal came into play, and if they had fought with Mike the previous 3 rounds, they wouldve lost more money than they wouldve gained by trying to tie and steal the briefcase away from him