I think it would be even more interesting if it was exactly the prisoner’s dilemma by having only one NE, say by giving 5-10% of the amount to each party in case that both of them steal.
What would happen if you tell the opponent that you are going to steal. No doubt about it, you will steal. (The opponent is likely to believe you, because it would be unreasonable for you to say you will steal and then split.) Then you tell your opponent that if he/she wants the money, then he/she must split. Then once the money is won, promise to write a check for 1/2 the amount. Would the opponent be more willing to trust you because they have very little recourse, or would they be more likely to sanction you for strong arming the interaction?
I think it would be even more interesting if it was exactly the prisoner’s dilemma by having only one NE, say by giving 5-10% of the amount to each party in case that both of them steal.
Ouch!
Probably the optimal strategy is to Steal and then write your opponent a check for 50K if they split!
What would happen if you tell the opponent that you are going to steal. No doubt about it, you will steal. (The opponent is likely to believe you, because it would be unreasonable for you to say you will steal and then split.) Then you tell your opponent that if he/she wants the money, then he/she must split. Then once the money is won, promise to write a check for 1/2 the amount. Would the opponent be more willing to trust you because they have very little recourse, or would they be more likely to sanction you for strong arming the interaction?
Gut-wrenching!