Played it perfectly. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p3Uos2fzIJ0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p3Uos2fzIJ0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> LMAO! Ya know this is going to appear in the US very soon. Imagine what happens after the show!! On the fly explanation of what the Nash game is: FU Buddy "...Hayek was largely ignored until scientists looking for ways to win the Cold War developed strategies based on 'Game Theory,' which was pioneered by the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash at the Rand corporation. Game Theory applied as military strategy kept a balance of power as the Soviet Union would not attack the USA out of fear and self-interest knowing that if they did, they too would be devastated. Game Theory, however, produced a dark vision of humanity where everyone was mistrustful of one another. John Nash demonstrated that it was possible to create stability through suspicion and self-interest in the whole of society rather than just Cold War strategy. Nash developed a game called "Fuck You Buddy" in which the only way to win was to betray your partners. By applying Game Theory to all forms of human interaction, he proved that a society based on mutual suspicion didn't necessarily lead to chaos, but he made the assumption that humans were naturally calculating and always seeking an advantage over their fellows and this led to an equilibrium. This system could only work if everyone behaved selfishly. As soon as people started co-operating together, instability ensued and this proved to be the case when the system was tested - participants co-operated with each other."
I prefer the FU Buddy since you can communicate with your "buddy" and can set things up to betray him/her whereas the prisoner dilemma, there's no real betrayal; your just choosing the optimal solution given the situation. If they weren't allowed to communicate, then the game would always end where both would choose the steal; the optimal or only real choice in prisoner dilemma scenario. But because they can communicate, it is in their best interest to try and sucker the other one into agreeing to split it.
He did a good job with his Nash equilibrium. However, I can't think why that would be related in anyway to economics.
It is prisoner's dilemma since the two prisoners are in a cell together before they get separated and have a general idea of what their situation is.
Ya I looked up pd and noticed the potential for an agreement beforehand and the betrayal. I still rather call this the FU Buddy since your just luring the person into the trap. Also there was a reference on wikipedia to show in the US with this concept on the Gameshow Channel called Friend of Foe. Somehow I don't think I would play because people can buy billboards: