My children and I have recently finished watching Beat Games and loved it. If you aren’t aware of it, it’s a reality show hosted by YouTube sensation MrBeast (if your children are over the age of 20 it may he may have passed you by), which pits 1,000 contestants against each other in a battle for a mind blowing, life changing $5 million prize, and with additional prizes such as a tropical island, a Lamborghini and substantial cash payouts thrown in along the way.
Beyond the drama, high-end production and staggering prizes (the budget was reported to be $100m), Beast Games offers a fascinating insight into behavioural finance, the economic term for the relationship between money, behaviour and emotion. In other words, how our thoughts and emotions influence our financial decisions.
Why We Make Seemingly Irrational Decisions
Right Here. Right Now
Faced with immediate cash offers to leave the game, contestants had to decide between a guaranteed sum now or a slim chance at the $5 million jackpot. Many took the money on the spot, preferring instant gratification to an uncertain future gain. It’s the same bias that encourages many of us to spend today rather than save for the future.
Was it the correct decision? For the vast majority, yes. The 1 in 1000 chance of winning $5m is a hard one to logically argue for.
The Pain of Loss > The Joy of Winning
Our tendency to fear losing money more than we enjoy gaining it was evident. Contestants often settled for smaller guaranteed sums rather than take a gamble for something larger. This is a common trait in investing, where people sell off investments at the first sign of trouble to avoid further losses.
Following the Crowd Isn’t a Strategy
Herd behaviour also shaped many contestants’ decisions. Players formed alliances and followed the crowd, even when individual strategies might have served them better. We see the same thing in financial markets, where investors pile into trends or follow the latest hot tip, simply because everyone else is.
Emotional contagion spread throughout the competition. Anxiety, excitement, fear and relief were infectious and influenced how players made decisions. Markets experience similar waves of emotion, where fear or euphoria spreads from investor to investor, often driving irrational decision making.
“I’ve Got This”
Overconfidence cropped up time and again. Many contestants believed they were destined to win, even though the odds were impossibly low. Faced with other decisions with those odds most people would immediately dismiss them but the sight of $5m in cash in a glass box is hard to resist. Such hubris can lead investors to believe they can outsmart the market, often to their detriment.
So Close, But Still So Far
The sunk cost fallacy was evident in the later rounds, as contestants who had endured days of physical and emotional strain refused to leave, simply because they’d “already come so far”. In finance, this same mindset leads people to hold onto poor investments or continue pouring money into failing projects because of the resources they’ve already invested.
Seeking Out Supporting Evidence
Confirmation bias shaped how contestants interpreted information, gravitating towards facts that supported their existing beliefs while ignoring evidence that contradicted them. “I can trust that contestant, but not that one“. Investors often fall into this same trap, seeking out articles and opinions that reinforce their existing strategies rather than challenging them.
Use The Right Reference Point
Anchoring bias was clear whenever cash prizes were offered. Contestants anchored their expectations to the first sum they saw, shaping how they valued future offers. This same bias influences how we value investments or financial products, comparing them to arbitrary reference points rather than actual worth.
Ownership Isn’t Evidence
The endowment effect could be seen whenever contestants gained something: a place in the next round, an advantage or a small cash prize and immediately valued it more highly simply because it was “theirs”. This is the reason people often overvalue their homes, heirlooms or underperforming investments when they would normally advise others against the same decisions.
“It Just Happened” Is A Strong Bias
Recency bias led players to overemphasise events that had just happened: a betrayal, a near-miss, a narrow escape rather than consider the bigger picture. Investors often do the same; a recent market dip can overshadow years of steady growth.
Surviving Maybe Luck Not Skill
Survivorship bias appeared as the remaining players grew more confident in their strategies, simply because they were still standing. They overlooked the hundreds who had played just as well but were eliminated through bad luck or marginal errors. This bias colours how we view successful investors or entrepreneurs, forgetting the countless others who took similar risks and failed.
It’s OK, I Was Good Earlier
Moral licensing played a subtle role too. Some contestants who had acted kindly in early rounds seemed to permit themselves to make ruthless decisions later, justifying bad behaviour because they’d already done some good. The same pattern emerges in personal finance; people who’ve been frugal for months sometimes justify extravagant spending sprees as a reward.
Better The Devil You Know
Status quo bias was another influence. Some players stuck with alliances or strategies long after they stopped being useful, simply because change felt too risky. This reluctance to break from the familiar can hold investors back from rebalancing portfolios or adjusting strategies when circumstances change.
Confusing Skill & Luck
Self-serving bias influenced how contestants explained their fortunes. When things went well, they credited their own skill; when things went badly, they blamed luck, the rules or other players. It’s a common human tendency and one that regularly surfaces in investing.
Beware The Angel
The halo effect also shaped how players were perceived. Those who made good first impressions — through kindness, charm or competence — were often given the benefit of the doubt, even after questionable actions. This same bias can lead people to trust financial advisers, companies or products simply because they like the packaging or the person selling them.
Life Lessons for Families
What made Beast Games especially valuable for me, watching with my children (10 & 7), was how it combined all these behavioural lessons with broader moral ones.
We were able to talk about why some players lied and cheated and how tempting that can be when money is on the line; why greed and fear so often drive poor decisions; and why playing fair, even when it’s hard, is always worth it in the end.
It also gave us a chance to reflect on what money is actually for. The eventual winner wasn’t driven by greed; he wanted to find a cure for his son’s rare disease. Having a purpose bigger than personal wealth gave his journey meaning and ultimately made his victory all the more satisfying.
Final Thoughts
Beast Games might look like light entertainment, but for anyone interested in how money, behaviour and character intersect, it’s a fascinating case study. Whether you’re teaching your children about money or reflecting on your own relationship with wealth, it’s a timely reminder that financial decisions are never purely rational, they’re shaped by who we are, what we value, and how we choose to treat others when the stakes are high.
And, as any parent will know, you can do your best to inform and educate but don’t always get the response you hope for. I asked my daughter what she’d spend $5m on: “Squishmallows“!
