The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses the first round of indictments as part of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and potential collusion with President Trump’s campaign.

Paul Manafort, who served as chairman of Trump’s campaign, and Manafort’s business associate Rick Gates surrendered themselves to authorities on Monday. Documents were also made public Monday showing that a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contact with a Russian professor with ties to Kremlin officials.

The team puts the investigation into historical context and weighs the ramifications for the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

The Los Angeles Dodgers couldn’t buy a run, and their World Series chances were slipping away. After scoring six times off the Houston Astros but coming up short in a crazy, back-and-forth Game 2, they mustered three relatively low-leverage runs in Game 3None of those scores ever brought them any closer than within two runs of the Astros.

“>¹ and were shut out for the first six innings of Game 4. A loss here would have dropped LA’s World Series odds to around 20 percent, if history was any guide, and left this 104-win juggernaut staring at another postseason disappointment.

But finally, after waiting most of the series for their bats to heat up, the Dodgers got what they were looking for late Saturday night. Cody Bellinger, who’d gone 0-for-13 in the World Series before the seventh inning of Game 4, delivered a double, then came around to score the tying run on a Logan Forsythe single. Two innings later, Corey Seager, who’d been hitless since Game 2, got on base with a single and scored on another Bellinger double, giving LA a lead it would never relinquish. (Joc Pederson’s three-run insurance homer four batters later also helped.) Suddenly, instead of falling into a 3-1 hole, the Dodgers knotted up the series at two games apiece and are back to being championship favorites again.

Before Game 4’s assault on the Astros’ bullpen, the Dodgers as a team had produced 7.1 fewer runs than average in the series based on their weighted on-base average (wOBA),Using the formula and constants provided at FanGraphs.com.

‘>² including a collective 6.5 runs below average from the team’s four best hitters during the regular season by wOBA — Bellinger, Seager, Justin Turner and Austin Barnes. But all four batters played a role in LA’s late-innings scoring outburst, during which they collectively produced 1.6 runs above average (to go with 0.9 runs above average from their teammates):

It’s impossible to say whether the Dodgers’ well-timed turnaround at the plate will kick-start their offense over the rest of the series. But they’d definitely been hitting below their talents up to that point — with a wOBA 94 points below their regular-season average — so it wouldn’t be surprising to see Bellinger and company’s late-game performance be part of a positive regression to the mean going forward.

As for the Astros, Game 4 was an enormous missed opportunity. Starting pitcher Charlie Morton pitched extremely well — he had a Game Score of 76, tied for seventh-best ever among World Series starters in a game the team ultimately lost — and it was looking like he’d steal Houston a crucial second series win in a game not started by team co-aces Justin Verlander or Dallas Keuchel. Leading up to the World Series, Houston was 5-1 in playoff games started by Verlander/Keuchel but 2-3 in all other games, so getting a pair of wins from Morton and Game 3 starter Lance McCullers would have been a major coup for the Astros at this point in the series.

Instead, Houston is left wondering how a bullpen that had outpitched Los Angeles’s early in the series managed to blow such a winnable home contest. According to ESPN’s Stats & Information Group, Astros closer Ken Giles has now allowed as many earned runs (10) in 7⅔ postseason innings as he did in 50⅔ innings during his last 50 appearances of the regular season, and the Houston bullpen as a whole now has a 5.21 ERA during the playoffs — nearly two runs worse than their starters per nine innings.

The Astros aren’t doomed, of course. The series is basically a toss-up now, a de facto best-of-three affair that will see them face the Dodgers’ best pitcher (Clayton Kershaw) at home and also be able to use their own top starter (Verlander) to neutralize LA’s home-field advantage in Game 6. But in a flash, the Dodgers’ cold bats warmed up and saved their season, turning what would have been a commanding Houston lead into a series either team can now win.

CORRECTION (Oct. 29, 2017, 11 a.m.): A previous version of this article mischaracterized the regular-season stats of Ken Giles. His 10 regular-season earned runs allowed came in his last 50 appearances of the season, not the entire season.

CORRECTION (Oct. 29, 2017, 3:30 p.m.): A previous version of this article said Los Angeles scored seven times in Game 2. The Dodgers scored six times.

A poor start from Yu Darvish hurt the Dodgers early on Friday, and they never mounted a comeback. With the Astros now riding a 2-1 lead and two games left in Houston, the Dodgers are in trouble. In addition to their deficit, a pattern of heavy reliever usage might leave them understaffed in the remaining World Series games.

Darvish didn’t have his best stuff Friday night. Despite impressive fastball velocity, his slider was unusually flat. Houston pounced on the normally dominant ace in the second inning, gaining a four-run lead. From then on, the Dodgers attempted to build a handful of unsuccessful rallies but only managed to score three runs.

Darvish’s bad outing adds to two other shorter-than-necessary starts for Los Angeles and might leave the bullpen tired in the next two pivotal games in Houston. Even if the relievers were fine Friday, the pattern of short starts is a poor omen for the Dodgers.

Of the five teams who leaned on their bullpen most in the series since 2000, three went on to lose, and the Dodgers’ fate is still undecided. Only the 2002 Anaheim Angels came back, and they faced an opponent (in the San Francisco Giants) who employed their relievers even more frequently.

That’s not to say that reliever usage is a death sentence. Oftentimes, it simply reflects poor starting pitching: Each of the teams who used their starters less than the Dodgers saw them give up more than a dozen runs. This underscores how unusual Roberts’s reliever usage has been because his starters, comparatively, have been quite good. Aside from Darvish’s clunker last night, the Dodgers had two of the best starts for their length in World Series history, from Clayton Kershaw and Rich Hill. If Roberts had allowed them to go deeper into games when they were dealing, the bullpen might be fresh now.

Roberts didn’t help matters when he used his bullpen aggressively Friday night, attempting to keep Houston within striking distance. In total, the Dodgers manager called on five different relievers to end the game, and only one — Kenta Maeda — went longer than 2 innings. Combined with the workload from the previous two games, key relievers have been pitching almost as much as the starters. So far, Maeda has pitched 4 innings this series, and Brandon Morrow, the crucial bridge to closer Kenley Jansen, has pitched 2 2/3 innings as well. Jansen himself has pitched 3 full innings.

But as ESPN’s Sam Miller pointed out, if the Dodgers had managed to come back, Roberts’s tactics would have been hailed as strategically brilliant. Like many other postseason managerial moves, the aggressive reliever usage is easy to criticize in hindsight but much harder to argue with in the moment. It might have been a good bet that failed to pay out, but the strategy still leaves the Dodgers depleted of bullpen arms at the time when they need them most. In contrast, Houston manager A.J. Hinch relied on only two pitchers to carry the Astros to victory: starter Lance McCullers and starter-turned-reliever Brad Peacock. Despite running into some high-leverage jams, they managed to hold a powerful Dodgers lineup to only three runs. Like Roberts’ decision, keeping McCullers in the game in the third inning with the bases loaded was a gamble. But Hinch’s call managed to pay off when Dodgers shortstop Corey Seager hit into an uncharacteristic double play.

The Astros’ win leaves them with a 67 percent chance of taking the World Series. That’s far higher than our opening prediction, but it comes almost entirely from the two victories they’ve edged out over the Dodgers. The remaining games are all coin-flip affairs, so the importance of that extra win in an evenly divided series can’t be overstated. That it came down to two managerial decisions that might have gone either way speaks to how balanced this matchup is. Had one or two pitches gone differently, the Dodgers might be in a commanding position right now, instead of fighting to tie the Series.

Video by Christine Laskowski, Tony Chow and Emily Scherer

The social contract of Halloween is simple: Provide adequate treats to costumed masses, or be prepared for late-night tricks from those dissatisfied with your offer. To help you avoid that type of vengeance, and to help you make good decisions at the supermarket this weekend, we wanted to figure out what Halloween candy people most prefer. So we devised an experiment: Pit dozens of fun-sized candy varietals against one another, and let the wisdom of the crowd decide which one was best.This meant that we were able to sort through scores of entries without demanding each participant know everything about every entry. We don’t really need to care about the, say, hardcore Hershey fans attempting to rig the sample, because in order for someone to seriously dent their candy’s outcome, they’d have to go through scores of irrelevant matchups.

“>¹

While we don’t know who exactly voted, we do know this: 8,371 different IP addresses voted on about 269,000 randomly generated matchups.That’s an average of 32 and a median of about 11 matchups from each IP.

“>² So, not a scientific survey or anything, but a good sample of what candy people like. And here’s what they said:

Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and their spinoffs come out huge here, taking four of the top 10 spots and appearing pretty synonymous with the platonic ideal of Halloween candy. The brand was the best-selling candy in the U.S. as of 2013, and market research showed it was the top snack-sized candy in Halloween times.

But what made some candies more desirable than others? Was it price? Maybe it was just sugar content? Nah, neither really. I pulled fun-sized portion sugar content from a series of dieting websites (FatSecret, MyFitnessPal), and in cases of particularly hard-to-find candies, I just went to the nearby drugstore. I pulled bulk prices from Candy Warehouse. After a spooooky regression with a truly hellish r-squared, there’s no evident link here between price, sugar and perceived quality.

So if it’s not price or sugar, there must be something about what’s in the candies that make some better and some worse. With the fervency of a stay-at-home dad who recently learned of a child’s mild peanut allergy, I scoured the internet for descriptive ingredient data about all the candies in our data set. Were they chocolate? Did they contain peanuts or almonds? How about crisped rice or other biscuit-esque component, like a Kit Kat or malted milk ball? Was it fruit flavored? Was it made of hard candy, like a lollipop or a strawberry bon bon? Was there nougat? What even is nougat? I know I like nougat, but I still have remotely no clue what the damn thing is.

With a full typology in hand and access to some of the most powerful statistical software available on the market, my questions were answered.

That’s a lot to take in! In general, here’s what this information says. According to the regression, about half the variance observed in the quality can be explained by these nine properties of candy, which isn’t great but also isn’t awful — and is thus enough for us to work with.

A Halloween candy that has none of those ingredient components would be expected, as a baseline, to win a matchup about 35 percent of the time. Sure enough, this bears out in our data: For giggles we also put in “one dime” and “one quarter” to see how desirable they were, and the dime — which is neither chocolaty, nor fruity, nor full of caramel, peanuts, wafers, et cetera — beat 32 percent of competitors, and the quarter beat 46 percent.

The table adjacent to this paragraph simplifies that “coef.” column. If a hypothetical candy had chocolate in it, we’d expect its win percentage to rise by about 20 points. If it’s fruity, we’d expect it to rise by 10. If it had nuts, we’d also expect its win percentage to rise by 10, with wafers or crisped rice rising by 9. And nougat and caramel don’t bring a ton to the table. A candy being hard — like a lollipop or jawbreaker — actually knocks about 5 points off its win percentage. Whether it’s in bar form or a bunch of little candies makes no major difference.

Note that a candy can be one or two or all of these things: A Snickers is a chocolate (+20), peanut (+10), caramel (+3), nougat (+2) candy that we’d expect to have in the ballpark of a 70 percent win rate, and it does in fact have a 77 percent win rate.

Which brings up an obvious question: Can we build the perfect Frankencandy based on this information?

On one hand, no, that’s a ridiculous oversimplification of a somewhat scientific process and is likely to result only in an abomination.

On the other hand, that exact ethical dilemma did not stop Dr. Frankenstein, and ’tis the season!

We’ve got to have chocolate — the win percentage of contenders containing chocolate was about 11 points higher than the average contender and 19 points higher than contenders that did not have chocolate. The same goes for both crispiness and nuttiness: Entrants with peanuts or almonds had win percentages about 13 points higher than the average contender, and ones with crispy wafers or puffed rice were nearly 16 points higher than average. Nougat and caramel are net positives for sure, so throw them in.

Now we get to some major qualitative components. Candies in bar form generally had a higher overall win rate than those in pieces, so we’ll want a bar. Yes, fruitiness can be fine, but things that had a fruity taste had a win percentage 11 points lower than those that did not. This is due to the near mutual exclusivity of fruity flavors and chocolate, with Tootsie Pops being the sole exception.The science is clear here: A Dum Dum wins 39 percent of the time, a Tootsie Pop wins 49 percent of the time, and a Tootsie Roll Snack Bar wins 50 percent of the time. I think we can all agree on why people are so eager to get to that center of the Tootsie Pop.

“>³

So, in the end, the best Frankencandy has the chocolate of a Hershey bar, the nougat of a Baby Ruth, the caramel of a Milky Way, the peanut butter of a Reese’s Cup and the wafer of a Twix, and it’s assembled in a castle looming over an Eastern European village. Or if you’re trying to make this at home: Maybe take a Twix bar and smush it on a PayDay, or roll a Snickers around in rice crispies.

Call me what you will — the modern Prometheus, a contemporary, pre-diabetic Frankenstein — but I think I have the next big idea in Halloween candy. So what I’m trying to say is, yes, Mr. Wonka, I am available to consult if you’re interested in entering the abomination business.

After a month of wrangling, Republicans in the House narrowly passed a budget resolution on Thursday that has no direct policy effects. Like all other budget resolutions of this kind, it doesn’t even go to the president for a signature.

But Thursday’s budget resolution, which was also approved by the Senate last week, really matters. Most importantly, to use the so-called reconciliation rules — by which lawmakers can pass a bill with a simple majority vote in the Senate instead of needing 60 votes to end a filibuster — Congress has to approve a budget resolution first. So now, Republicans can move forward with their proposal to reform America’s tax system and potentially pass a bill without any Democratic votes. (All Democrats voted against the budget resolution in both the House and the Senate).

But beyond legislative tactics, Republicans also made three telling decisions during this process, each with a potentially big impact:

1. They chucked aside concerns about the deficit

The original House version of the budget bill called for a tax reform plan that would be deficit-neutral, meaning that any tax cuts would have to be made up for with tax increases. The Senate, however, passed a budget last week that said tax reform could increase deficits by as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

How did congressional Republicans deal with this difference? At President Trump’s urging, House leaders simply took up the Senate bill and adopted that version. The resulting budget does not guarantee that the GOP’s eventual tax bill will raise the deficit by $1.5 trillion, but it’s a clear signal that Republicans are not committed to a deficit-neutral tax plan despite constantly complaining about rising deficits when Barack Obama was president.

2. They left open the possibility of getting rid of or limiting state and local tax deductions

Earlier this week, Rep. Peter King of New York, a Republican, demanded that party leaders commit to leaving in place the local and state income tax deduction, which allows Americans to deduct those taxes on their federal tax filings. King wanted that commitment before they held a vote on the budget resolution. The beneficiaries of that deduction are disproportionately upper-income people in states with high local taxes, such as New York and New Jersey. Republican leaders have not released the formal details of the party’s tax plan yet, but they have hinted publicly that they want to either eliminate or limit state and local deductions (which would be one way for Republicans to raise money in this legislation and reduce the amount that it increases the deficit).

Party leaders refused King’s request and held the vote anyway. That led 11 of the 14 GOP House members from New York and New Jersey, including King, to vote against the budget resolution. (Overall, 20 Republicans voted no, while 216 approved it. Several of the other 9 Republicans to vote no are either members of the House Freedom Caucus or known to be iconoclastic members who often vote against major party priorities.)

That House Republican leaders wouldn’t drop the idea of eliminating this deduction, even as some GOP lawmakers strongly objected to it, suggests that they are determined to include some version of it in the final legislation. At the same time, the 11 GOP “no” votes from New York and New Jersey nearly brought down the resolution. (It passed 216-212, meaning that the bill would have failed if two more Republicans voted against it.)

If King’s bloc is not placated on this issue, Speaker Paul Ryan will have a very narrow margin on which to pass the tax bill through the House.

3. They left Obamacare out of the bill

The last budget resolution passed by Republicans, in January, explicitly laid out a path for health care legislation to be passed using reconciliation. That’s how they were going to repeal Obamacare.

This budget does not lay out such a path. That does not mean Obamacare is safe by any means. The budget adopted by both chambers calls for reductions in Medicaid spending, a big part of Obamacare. And, of course, Republicans can weaken Obamacare in other ways, from the Trump administration not really trying to enroll people in the law’s marketplaces (as it appears to be doing) to Republicans on Capitol Hill blocking a bipartisan bill (Murray-Alexander) to give insurers money to make up for certain cost-sharing subsidies that they provide for consumers. And Republicans could adopt another budget bill that explicitly called for an Obamacare repeal through the reconciliation process.

But at least for right now, Republicans do not have a clear path to repeal Obamacare with 50 GOP senators (plus Vice-President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote). This budget bill is in some ways a formal concession that the party can’t find the votes to get rid of Obamacare. And Republicans don’t have that much time to make good on their promise to do so, as they could lose control of the House, Senate or both after next November elections.

This all sets up a dicey path on moving forward with tax reform. Republicans are saying they will roll out the formal tax bill as soon as next week. That will set up three big intra-party debates as members of Congress, lobbying groups and the public examine this legislation and potentially push for changes.

• Is this bill going to spike the deficit?
• If not, how? Will Republicans propose smaller tax cuts? Or, alternatively, will they propose raising some taxes?This is where proposals like limiting how much Americans can put in their 401(k) plans, which GOP officials have floated, or the state and local tax deductions move come into play. Republicans are also talking about keeping in place the highest income tax rate, which is 39 percent, instead of lowering it to 35, as was in the original draft of the tax proposal.

  ‘>¹

• Are Republicans committed to the general tax structure that they laid out last month, which showed huge reductions in taxes for the wealthy and either modest cuts or even increases for middle-income Americans, or are they open to changing the distribution of the cuts?

Passing the budget resolution was the easy part for Republicans, just as it was with Obamacare. Now comes the hard part: Writing a bill that will get the votes of 218 House members and 50 senators.

Welcome to Survey Says, FiveThirtyEight’s advice column. In each installment, our two advice-givers will take a reader question, debate what he or she should do and then survey a panel of people about what the best course of action is. Need our advice? Send us your quandary!

I recently had a short, four-month relationship end with someone because they had to move away. It was a tough decision, because I got along really well with this person and saw us being together for a long time. We broke up over a month ago and both agreed it would be best to see other people but keep in touch. I am actually happy with everything going on with this part of my life, and I am moving on in my own way even if we text every day. The problem is with my best friend, who won’t quit asking me about it. He was initially sad for me when we broke up and asked how things were going, which I appreciated. However, he thought our plan to stay in touch was a bad idea and that I should “cut her loose.” I told him that both her and I are fine keeping in touch and don’t want to stop. Ever since then he wouldn’t stop asking how things were going and insists it’s a bad idea to text each other. Now I’ve started to lie about it to get him to stop. I don’t know how to tell my closest friend that I don’t want him to ask for updates anymore. — Ethan

Walt: This person just wants to gossip, and it’s way too close to home for Ethan.

Morgan: I don’t understand why this friend would be so obsessed with Ethan’s dating life unless he has experienced and been hurt by a similar situation. Then again, often times there are people who want to “save” others. They have paternal/maternal tendencies, and they think they know what’s best for their friends.

Walt: I get the vibe that Ethan doesn’t date much. That’s not a bad thing at all! It strikes me that the friend came into this with the best intentions though, given that “Ethan in a relationship” was a new thing, and now the friend does not really know what to ask next.

Morgan: Right. I think the friend’s intentions are good and he really cares for Ethan. But sometimes people have to learn when to dial it back and let others learn and mature in their own way.

Walt: I haven’t encountered a case of someone caring so much about a four-month relationship since Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock broke it off.

Morgan: LOL! A four-month relationships can be significant. I’ve dated men for three months and felt very intensely. This usually happens for people who don’t date much, and that may have been the case for Ethan.

Walt: What if Ethan’s friend is stirring up drama for its own sake though? He’s second-guessing Ethan’s decision to keep in touch. He’s goading him over the following weeks until he’s so exasperated, Ethan’s lying just to get him to stop. That, or Ethan’s friend is asking on someone else’s behalf? I don’t know.

Morgan: But drama for what reason? Because he’s so bored with his own life? I’m also wondering if Ethan’s friend may be asking on someone else’s behalf. If he’s not romantically interested in Ethan, then why does it seem like he has such an investment in all of this?

Walt: Some people just like to gossip.

Maybe Ethan’s ex is back-channeling through Ethan’s friend?

Does Ethan’s friend feel threatened by Ethan’s relationship with his ex? As Ethan later added, “I literally text and call this girl every week and am perfectly happy with how it has gone so far.”

Morgan: Wait … I think that’s exactly it. He feels threatened.

Walt: Ethan needs to ask his buddy what the real problem is — because there’s some other level to this we (including Ethan) are not picking up.

Morgan: Right. Or he can continue to lie to his friend about the relationship status.

Walt: Lying. Brilliant. Always my favorite answer.

FiveThirtyEight commissioned a SurveyMonkey Audience poll that ran Aug. 9-12 and received 1,009 responses. We presented respondents with Ethan’s question and asked them what the best advice is, given the situation. They were allowed to choose only one option.

1. Stop talking with the friend about keeping in touch with the ex.

   38.9%

2. Ask the friend if he feels threatened by the ex.

   24.5%

3. Tell the friend to stop creating drama.

   15.2%

4. Continue lying to the friend about keeping in touch with the ex.

   2.3%

5. None of the above is good advice.

   19.2%

Walt: No decisive answer here! Wow!

Morgan: This one was a bit complex, though. I’m not surprised that confronting the friend or declining to talk about it are the two most popular responses.

Walt: Right. However, this is somewhat surprising:

Morgan: I’m trying not to be gender essentialist here, but I’m surprised that fewer men than women thought it was a good idea to decline chatting about the friendship.

Walt: I too was not trying to be a gender essentialist but came to a similar “huh?” Men? Turning down an opportunity to avoid a conversation? This is madness.

Morgan: Yeah, OK, that’s surprising to me. When stuff is going down in our relationships, we usually talk.

Walt: The older someone was, the more likely they were to just shut it down.

By a lot.

Morgan: Would you say that the older you get, the less bullshit you put up with?

Walt: I would say so, yep. I am super not shocked on that front!

Morgan: Neither am I, friend.

Walt: So anyway: Talk it out, guys! There’s no need to feel threatened. Unless you’re over the age of 60, in which case never speak about your feelings ever again.

More of our advice:

• My Roommate Keeps His Bodily Fluids In Our Fridge. What The Hell?
• I Got Promoted, And My Work Buddy Didn’t. Now Things Are Weird.
• My Neighbor Uses Me As A Free Baby Sitter — How Do I Deal With This Mooch?

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team gathers to discuss the news that Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona will not seek reelection, as well as what his departure means for the GOP Senate primary in 2018, the general election and the Republican Party as a whole.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

The highest-profile 2017 elections are not far off. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team takes stock of the candidates, polling and strategies in the Virginia governor’s race and the Alabama special Senate election.

In Virginia, Democrat Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam is a modest favorite over Republican Ed Gillespie. In Alabama, controversial former judge Roy Moore, a Republican, is leading Democrat Doug Jones, but the race looks surprisingly competitive given that President Trump won Alabama by 28 percentage points.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

The most pivotal game in Week 7 of the NFL is between the Arizona Cardinals and the Los Angeles Rams. They’re playing the game this week that has the biggest playoffs implications for the teams involved. Watch the video above to see just how underwater the loser will be.