An interesting article points out that even game theoreticians don't believe their own results (when money is on the line).
a research team repeated the experiment using professional game theorists playing for real money. But even among game theorists, game theory failed
One hypothesis is that you can get good results by playing dumb. If your opponent knows you are totally rational, then they have to give up a lot to keep from getting screwed. (This particular example deals with the Traveler's Dilemma, but it applies to the Prisoner's Dilemma, as well).
I remember a book that dealt with various puzzle aspects of Game Theory as told by Sherlock Holmes, et al. One passage discussed the prisoner's dilemma, after a clever person tries to use it with real prisoners. When it doesn't work, he goes to Holmes, who then sighs and calls forth one of the prisoners.
"So you know that it's always better [to defect]." "Yes, guv'ner." "Then pray explain to [this doofus] why you don't." "Me mates would beat me senseless."
Glad to see the theoreticians catching up.
Now to just figure out how this relates to unconvincing cylons, and the applications will be endless!