Exactly, i cant say i enjoyed watching her, but she played a very good game

I think she deserved it. Been a long time and it wasn't my favorite season, but I remember thinking she should be the winner and that she made the right moves at the right time for herself. Gameplay wasn't sexy tho (no posters of Vecepia dunking on fellow Survivors and so forth). Her personality was kind of meh iirc.

Also iirc, she was on RHAP a while back and I think I'd rate her ability to discuss the game in an intelligent sounding fashion as higher than Sandra's.

From a controlling the game standpoint, I thought Sugar should have won Bob's season (but LOL at her social game). I thought Chase or Sash should have won Fabio's. The jury doesn't always vote on the merits that I think are important tho.

Imo I think Suzie could have won Gabon and I wouldn't have been upset. Given she made moves (flipping on Bob's alliance) and was capable of winning comps I can get behind her being the winner. Sugar on the other hand....... BTW Suzie is so Sandra 2.0, except she was more willing to make moves imo.

I agree. I couldn't remember her name tho. Susie did what she needed to for herself. Bob won all those comps. Made the killer fake idol. And was very likable. Not like he had nothing going for himself.

To be honest, I am kind of grouchy after catching up on the thread. With all the activity, I figured many posters were discussing Albert's insightful appearance on Dom & Colin. Nope, I find 30+ posts related to Sandra's insomnia curing RHAP appearance. Not that I had a lot to say about the newest Albert-cast, but I wanted to see what others thought about his comments on Dawn (and Cochran).

85% sure you are joking, but Boston Rob was very impressive on RHAP. So was Kim. So were many other winners.

It would be interesting to hear what Sandra would have to say on D&CP. I'm guessing she would sound more observant and less vindictive on that show. Most of the players who record retrospectives with Dom & Colin come off as astute.

Haven't heard it yet, but looking forward to it. I've been enjoying the thread. Sandra or no Sandra I always enjoy the discussion around how the game is played by various people...how we think it should be played...how people vote...how we think they should vote. Fun times. Here I'll post a threadsaver...





Mmmmm that's good stuff.

lol

One last question for the pro-Sandra crowd, and then I'll do my best to lay off: what do you make of her dumping out the fish in Pearl Islands? From my POV, an anti-strategic impulse move (one that was clearly made out of anger) like that automatically tells me she doesn't have her head in the game at all times. Throwing a tantrum that would have burned her had she been caught sure doesn't strike me as great gameplay.

Dumping the fish was what I was referring to when I said she has an inner Brandon Hantz. It was impulsive. Very risky. Bad for her game if she got caught and she was very lucky that they thought it was someone else. Scratching my head a little because surely that all goes without saying? Like, I would think from everyone's POV it was an anti-strategic impulse move. Same with her wanting to burn the shelter down, but it was too wet (if that story was true). I also can't figure out why you even bring up great game play when most of the Sandra supporters rate her as above average at best. (And I think average survivors are pretty bad, so it's not like that's saying much.) I mean, I think if a person is trying to win they have a good shot at being at least average in my mind. So many aren't particularly trying to win. And just because a player is trying to win doesn't mean everything he/she does in the game is going to further his/her cause in the game. I would think an average player and a slightly above average player would still make plenty of mistakes. I actually think really good players usually make some mistakes. ...Yes, I think tilt is bad and the better a player is, the better he/she will avoid tilt.

I feel like some of you have your ideal Survivor play up on some sort of pedestal. Not sure Sandra is worth getting this riled up about.

Listened to this today as well as their regular episode. I can't remember anything specific but I think Albert definitely showed some flaws in some of his thinking. And he comes off fairly poorly when he continually takes credit for things that he obviously played a small role in. Other than that it was a really enjoyable listen and I do think he is a way above average player.

Regarding the season I definitely agree that Malcolm dropped the ball pre merge. I think the best way for an alpha like him to get to FTC is to be the swing in a final 5 alliance. I think he could have locked up final 3 deals with Brenda/Erik and Reynold/Eddie. Reynold and Eddie probably would have agreed with very little persuasion and he most likely could have got Brenda and Erik by showing them his idol and telling them about Reynold's idol. I mean seriously, who isn't going to want to join the alliance with two idols. I think in this instance using the idol as leverage is much better than keeping it secret.

Also while listening I added something to the list of things I'd want to do if I ever was on Survivor. Using Colin's scenario of Malcolm on the beach with Erik and Reynold coming in to show his idol. Hypothetically if Malcolm didn't have an idol himself then he could borrow Reynold's idol and at a later time approach Erik and say something like "Hey bro, I haven't told Reynold but I also have an idol" and just show him Reynold's idol. Thus having the effect of Erik now believing both Malcolm and Reynold have idol's. Just the idea of "duplicating" idols seems so cool to me.

I think with Erik you can get away with duplicating the idol with every person in your alliance. How could he resist aligning with the alliance that has 6 idols?

If Malcolm gets Reynold to ply the idol on Malcolm's behalf while Malcolm has his own idol in his pocket, I'll be very pleased.

My memory on this one is a touch hazy, but 1) obviously, impulse control could be better, 2) again, she remembered her priorities, allowing Crista to take all of the heat despite being her closest ally. 3) I'm guessing based on her play that there's no way she ever gets caught there...Sandra is first and foremost cautious to play with her longevity.

To echo what Soncy said, I'm not saying Sandra is top 5 GOAT or anything of the like; but that she's of above-average (granted, unrefined) skill by a pretty easy margin.

Why Brenda and Erik versus Corrine and Michael?.....or both?

Context was pre merge. And then at the merge form F7 alliance with Corrine and Michael.

I don't get it, it really seems like you're completely missing the point.

It's like when you're running. It's an extremely complex process (iirc, actually has more brain activity involved then conscious thought) but most people do it, with very little understanding of how it works. Okay, that kinda misses the point. Lets think of it like a race.

So, it's a wide open race, everyone starts at the same place but there are thousands of variations on the route to the end. The shortest routes are some combination of athletically challenging and difficult to navigate.

Depending on your skillset, there's a variety of optimal routes. It's great if you're savvy enough to pick the optimal route for you but it makes no difference how you pick your route(or if you picked the best route for you). All that matters is that your route is shortest.

The athletic players just hike over the mountain.

The great players use their wits to find the optimal path for them.

So, Sandra doesn't have the skillset to take one of the shorter routes. She's not clever enough to chose the optimal route for her skillset and she doesn't understand why the route she takes is quicker then most of the others.

Sometimes she even goes backwards on the course! It doesn't matter because she intuitively picks a route that is shorter overall.

It's like you guys are showing us a map of the race and you're just comparing everyone's path, with no regard to how fast everyone is going.

"Look! It's beyond obvious Sandra should have went this way, and going that way made her trip longer!" "See, look at how short Albert's path is!" The problem is that even if Albert's route is half as long, Sandra is going twice as fast (where speed represents social skills).

Sandra running a race? Now that is something I would want to see.

The missing part of your analogy is that for Sandra to win that race the worlds largest eagle has to swoop down, pick her up and fly her half way then a wormhole has to open at that exact point and it must lead to the finish line. She then ambles through the wormhole and people call her a great racer.

Ok she wasn't that lucky but you get my point. Without insane amounts of luck she never wins your race.

Without insane amounts of luck, it's not the same game. Everyone who wins does so with amazing amounts of luck. The right opposition, the right challenges...it's a moot point.

Nonsense, KOS is an expert at game theory and everything Survivor, nothing is beyond his comprehension. You clearly just lack the intellect to fully grasp his advanced thinking.

Sure, if it happens once. But if she got that eagle twice I'd start to wonder if she has a tallent for atracting eagles that will help her out.

Sandra nuthuggers would use this analogy to say that clearly she is the best at training eagles, obviously had the wormhole set up before the race started and also made sure that all of the other birds were poisoned so no other contestants could use them.

Or, she's just a terrible example of a winner. There have been many terrible winners on Survivor over the years who didn't outplay or outwit anyone - they just outlasted them by not having butthurt people on the jury through no skilled gameplay of their own.

This is a crazy thing to post for someone who covers poker for a living and makes me think you are now just messing with us.

1) I haven't covered poker for a living for about 8 months now.

2) There's a thesis to be written on how the luck elements of skill-inclined games keep them marketable/accessible for the masses. Why do you think chess isn't on ESPN?