The comments mention that the rules were changed to disallow out-of-band bargaining after this event, which is important because this is one of the core solutions to the Prisoner&#x27;s Dilemma (which is what they&#x27;re playing, and is not a zero-sum game). The solution in general is contract law.<p>The verbal agreement &quot;If you do this and I do that then I will split the money 50&#x2F;50 with you after the show&quot; is a verbal contract which (due to the cameras recording the event) is nevertheless indisputable. You are giving them a task to accomplish in exchange for a promised financial reward. They have all rights to sue you in court if they did what you asked and you didn&#x27;t pay them for it.<p>What&#x27;s really interesting is that he promises to split 50&#x2F;50. In <i>theory</i> a rational actor who could commit to these things absolutely would say, &quot;Look, I am pre-committing to steal, and I will give you $100 after the game if you choose split.&quot; Then it is still rational for the other guy to choose &quot;split&quot; (getting $100) rather than &quot;steal&quot; (getting 0). However most people, in study after study, will be insulted by the disparity of only getting 1% of the winning, and the insult is magnified by the camera: it is public shame. So in some sense being insulted by unfairness introduces out-of-band costs that also tend to pull you to splitting the money, and splitting it more fairly.