Split or Steal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0

The above is a link to a video of a game show- Golden balls
I saw this video on Greg Mankiw's blog

Great video!! There are three key components- 2 participants and one large bag of money. Each player has to choose one option- Either 'Steal' or 'Split'. The owner of the money is determined based on the choices that these participants make.

Here are the rules:
1. If both the players choose steal then no one wins anything from the prize money
2. If both the players choose split then the money gets split between the two
3. If one chooses steal and the other split, then the full amount goes to the former

Sounds similiar to the prisoner's dilemna problem?

Not exactly. There is a slight difference here. In the actual prisoner's dilemna problem the two individuals are not allowed to talk to eachother. So decision making is very difficult. One has to assume what the other person will do and then take a decision based on it.
However, in this game show the participants are allowed to talk to eachother before making a choice. This does not make one's job easier but it certainly gives a chance to an individual to convince the other person to choose something (in this case 'split'). For example, if you and I are in the game, then I can convince you to split the money with me by choosing 'split'

Obviously 'split'-'split' is one option. But again this means that both the participants will have to trust eachother. You can never be sure about anything here.

In all the different videos that I have seen, i noticed, a typical style of people was to convince the other person to choose 'split'. Then, the smarter (and evil) ones, after convincing his/her opponent to choose 'split', would choose 'Steal' themselves. This is how most of the people (if not all) approach this situation. Effectively, the winner betrays the other person. I didn't see any winner enjoy his/her victory. After all adopting this strategy will mean betraying someone on the NATIONAL TELEVISION. I wouldn't like to show people that I can betray others for some money.

I can think of another strategy. Let us assume that there are 2 players in the game 'A' and 'B'. Our objective is to make A win more than 50% of the prize money (i.e., by not splitting the money).

When 'B' tries to convince 'A' to choose 'split', 'A' tells 'B' that he/she will choose 'steal' and is ready to give a share of your prize money to 'B'. How do you think will 'B' react? He/she will have two options-

1. Choose 'steal'- 99% of the people will not choose this. 'A' has already made it clear that he/she will choose 'Steal'. Now if 'B' chooses 'steal' then obviously no one will win anything...and this will also make 'B' look like an idiot on national television. Why will anyone choose 'steal' when he/she knows that the other person will also be choosing 'steal'
2. Choose 'Split'- All the Bs of the world will prefer choosing this. Obviously 'A' has made it clear that it will share a certain percentage of the prize money. B' will have no other option but to trust 'A'

Why is this approach better? This approach will make things predictable for both the parties. There is no ambiquity. Obviously player 'B' can also choose 'steal' and make sure that no one wins anything. But I don't think that anyone would do that (not on national television)
This will not make 'A' feel guilty about winning. After all it was a deal!!

Update: My friend Pooja very rightly pointed out that the game show organizers may not allow people to negotiate like that. Such an agreement between all the A's and B's of the world will reduce the game show organizer's probability to retain the prize money from 1/4 to zero