I think this game is actually pretty close to a prisoner's dilemma. Why wouldn't you choose steal if you've managed to convince someone to choose split? If they didn't chose split, you'd still lose anyway.
In very basic, almost evolutionary terms, the dumbest thing to do is both choosing Steal, because that would mean that there are two losers. Only choosing split yourself makes sure that there is a winner.
Steal only seems sensible if you care about winning yourself.
I think you are making a big assumption with your number of "50%". It's true that there are two possible outcomes for either choice I could make. But what makes you say they are equally likely? To my mind, the estimating of that probability is actually the crux of the game.
Yes, that was what I was talking about - If you make a choice and then depend on another person making a choice, your chances are precisely 50/50. That's the prerequisite of the game.
Of course, it gets a lot more complicated after that, particularly because you can talk to your partner. (That's kind of why I wrote "superficially", but it seems that word has triggered the downvote police.) Not sure whether it changes much of the math, though - after all, anything that you weigh in favor of something could always be a lie.
I was pointing out that of the basic choices that are offered to you, one is very disadvantageous, so it should be an advantage to prevent it from even possibly happening by choosing Split. You can literally prevent 1 in 4 outcomes with your decision. This realization, paired with some very social engineering in the example is what made this so impressive to me.
in the case of the show there is a third player that loses when you both split so it is not clear that steal is only sensible if you care about winning yourself. :)
