In some cases the tribe swap is done by Probst handing out different baskets of e.g. eggs to each tribe with an even distribution within each basket, but you're right that many swaps are disproportionate.

Because they pulled the draw from different bags. Guys pulled from one bag with 4 of tribe A, 3 of tribe B. Girls pulled from another that had 3 of tribe A, 4 of tribe B. I believe my memory is correct on this. I think they did this to ensure they got the closest balance of Men/Women in each tribe. In other years, they appear to be less concerned about balance and often pulled from the same bag.

I don't even get what you're arguing. You're saying it's better if we just have totally random tribe swaps, and great players will always figure out a way to wiggle out of it? Come on. You're telling me Aaron from China had a totally fair shake?

I don't think he's telling you that.

Listen kos, cstone knows first hand that a good player can wiggle out of an unlucky swap.

Lol, so at first I was simply "missing [your] point" but now you "don't even get what [I'm] arguing"?? Ok... I figured you'd try and deflect by completely reframing the argument or ignoring my main point.

You claimed that from a "game theory perspective" starting with 3 tribes is bad for certain players because the 3-into-2 tribe merge creates "a ridiculously high-variance crapshoot", which would suggest that you believe this scenario is quantifiably more of a variance-fest than the standard method of swaps between two tribes (it would have to be for you to contend that 2 tribes is better than 3). My argument, quite simply, is that you have nothing definite to back up this viewpoint and you don't really know what you're talking about.

What I'm saying is that whether we like it or not, random tribe swaps are part of the game. If you were saying that Survivor should do away with any and all tribe reconfigurations (aka: swaps and/or consolidations) from the minute the tribes are first created to the point where everyone merges into one single tribe, then your argument might make sense.

What happened to Aaron was incredibly unfortunate but it wasn't a traditional swap by any means. Aaron's fate was not decided by random chance, the players on the other side were the ones responsible for picking him and sealing his fate. This type of "swap" could be ok, but only if the balance of new/old players on each tribe was equal. In this scenario, only a max of 2 players from each tribe were even eligible to change tribes (only time this has ever happened). This left the poached players completely vulnerable to be plucked from their tribe by other players (not chance), immediately enter their new tribe as the minority, then voted off like Aaron and Sherea were. It's not a surprise that Survivor has never implemented this type of poaching in any other season.

Ok, now for Kim. Your basic premise is that the 2 tribe system better enabled her to get all her ducks in a line and increase her chances of survival post-swap. I'm going to throw out a few scenarios that--in a two tribe system--could have drastically altered the game for Kim and potentially sealed her fate, regardless of all her planning and alliances.
A) Colton and the guys don't vote of Bill and instead the girls lose another tribe member and enter the swap at an 8-6 disadvantage. Assuming the swap is done to ensure balance, then the guys would have a 4-3 advantage in both tribes and Kim and the girls would be screwed. Remember that the focal point of the theory you put forward is that at least initially old tribemates would stick together, so you can't introduce new post-swap machinations (i.e. the guys would flip).
Now, let's even say that that is farfetched and LOL Men and go back to the scenario where we have 7 men and 7 women:
B) Kim is the one to go with Christina and Alicia and at the first tribal she's the one voted off instead of Monica
C) Colton doesn't leave the game and instead his tribe loses the immunity challenge and they dump christina or alicia, leaving Kim at a numbers deficit entering the merge.

My point in all this is simply to show that even in a two tribe system there is a ton of potential variance, but there is no way to use game theory to argue that going from 3 tribes to 2 produces a greater number of proportional outcomes that would hurt a certain player than just simply swapping two tribes. So yea...

cliffs: KOS, that is not what I'm saying at all.
You don't really know what you're talking about.

For the record, I don't like swaps as a player, but I don't see why that's relevant. They're good for TV, good for increasing depth of pre-merge strategies, etc.

I gave you an example of why the multi-tribe swap increases variance and makes early game allies less valuable. I guess you just skipped over that. I don't understand how you can even attempt to argue that swaps switching more players to more tribes doesn't increase variance. You're saying more variables and more possibilities doesn't increase variance, which is hilarious. You seem to just be trying to pick a fight.

You gave a horrible example. I am speaking specifically of 3 tribes vs. 2 (as were you initially) so don't try and reframe the argument. I bolded the important parts so it'd be easier for you to understand but I guess it wasn't. I'll try one last time: let's say a scenario has 4 possible outcomes, 1 is good for you and the other 3 are bad. Then let's say you add some variables and now you have 12 possible outcomes. In this scenario 3 of the possible outcomes are good for you but 9 are bad. Yes we've added more variables and possibilities, but we haven't really changed anything, you're still going to be ok 1/4 of the time and ****ed the other 3/4 in both scenarios.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight, but I'll admit I think it's funny that you often like to post with a certain air of authority (imo) when at times you have little to no idea what you're talking about, so I thought I'd take a few minutes to point that out. We can drop the issue since it's apparent you won't concede (not in earnest at least) the point and you've offered absolutely nothing credible to back up your claim.

swag check? someone IP check this guy.

swag, you got too much time on your hands bro? no woman? you think you're solving world peace? lol

love ya man, no really, i do, haha

waaaaaaaayy too much free time on my hands since olympics ended. haven't yet been able to reacclimate myself to the rigors of grinding > 1 hour/day. the work i put in on 2p2 fills me with more contentment than world peace ever could. no need to get jealous horatio, i'll never tire of ridiculing you.

Legit LOL at breaking every scenario down into "good" or "bad" while telling me my argument is incorrectly formed. You just picked random numbers out of the air, then multiplied them by three without really showing any reason why you'd be doing that or why the equity of each individual scenario didn't decrease. Oh, and you ignored my example (twice), presumably because you didn't have an answer for it. Well done!

And you have?

reduce randomness = reduce variance = better player more likely to win. i think we all agree on that. but i'm not entirely convinced the 3->2 tribe scenario is inherently worse than random swap or even a non-random swap. here's the way i'm thinking about it and open to hear if there's holes in my thought process:

if you look at it from day #0, you're 50% to come out on top in a swap and 50% to come out a loser in the swap (for sake of simplicity, i evenly divided tie equity between win/loss equity) since it's mostly based on your first tribe's challenge prowess, which is pretty random. there may be some incremental equity because maybe you can position your tribe better or be more likely to woo over other tribe's members but i'd say close to 50/50 is fair.

whereas in the 3->2 format, you're running really close to 0% to any tribe having 50%+ of the 2 new merged tribes. this allows a good player the opportunity to work with either of the other 2 tribes and play their game, rather than being reliant upon challenge prowess which i tend to think of as more random.

thoughts?

I have no idea what KOS and swag_check are arguing about but this is fun to watch

Maybe not quite as good as KOS v Kartinken, but still pretty good.

A compelling debate you lot are having here, I just signed up to wade in.

I feel in a hypothetical season where I am a good player and I have a strong inkling that there will be a tribe swap, I would rather it be 3 -> 2 rather than 2 -> 2.
Here's why:

I'm going to break the possible swap scenarios into good, bad and neutral swaps.

Good: A good player will almost always be able to advance to the merge in this scenario

Neutral: A good player will use their superior skills to advance to the merge a large majority of the time.

Bad: A good player is likely to be voted out due to being perceived as a threat if they reach the merge.

2 -> 2
Good: The tribes are swapped and I'm on a tribe with a majority of my former tribemates.

Neutral: The tribes are swapped and I'm on a tribe with even numbers of former tribemates and opposing tribemates.

Bad: The tribes are swapped and my former tribe are in the minority.

3 -> 2
In the case of the 3 to 2 scenario I only see neutral swaps as a possibility, that is I am on a tribe made up of members from 3 tribes with none of the tribes having any prior loyalties to another tribe giving me the opportunity to align with a member(s) from one of the opposing tribes.

Bearing all this in mind I feel I would rather take my chances advancing from neutral swap than running the risk of being involved in a bad swap and taken out by circumstances beyond my control.

DON'T POST PM'S FROM THE MOD!!!

Yeah, he was my insta-favorite from this cast. There are a few others I like, but I think he sets off the fewest red flags for me.

um, the rules were unclear?

Malcolm overrated ITT imo. Obv lacks Heidik's crucial self-control.

The Swag-KOS convo has made me consider skipping this season altogether just so I don't have to read this thread.

What, nobody named Hantz? Nobody related to a Hantz? Hallelujah!

Black Russell was on a season with Hantz so there's still a connection.

Angie: "I said yes to Survivor because..."

They recruit hot chicks? Whaaaaa?

Isn't that ridiculous? So many people who want to be there and they're out recruiting hardbodies. You can't tell me there aren't a few hot women/guys that are applying to be on the show.

Best move of the game imo.

Given the latter half of the bolded paragraph, I take it you mean you think he's overrated on an absolute level as opposed to compared to the rest of the field, which I can buy. I'm really not sure who else we're supposed to have much faith in from the rookies, though.