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.
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.