Except that time that they thought it would be F3 and took her or that time where she missed out only because she sucked at making fire. Although in Exile Island it is unclear whether Aras would have taken her to the F2 over Terry.

However I do agree that it is a problem that the Cesternino's and Cirie's have to overcome. Whereas people like Tom and JT can be in similar positions but actually have the ability to win the final challenge. Imo the truly great players are the ones that can dominate strategically but are still able to win if they lose the final immunity challenge with some exceptions.

Winners that were strategically dominant and lost the FIC are: Hatch, Aras, Yul, Earl, Todd and Parvati.

- Obv, Cirie > Sandra to my mind, with a caveat (see below)

- Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but only a little. My point is that this thread often views the game in a particular way, as one in which one must strategically outmaneuver the opposition. Sandra pretty clearly views the game in (simpler?) different terms: Last longer than other people, period. It's a approach that can only really exist when most of the game thinks the other way (if there are only a few strategists...see season 1). The things she's doing in the context of THAT definition of the game, she does pretty well, namely:

* Staying in the game
* Earning people's respect
* keeping things real with them in a way one can't when trying to be the dominant strategist
* Not inspiring their distrust.

In short, our game makes people chess pieces. Her game keeps them human, and there are tangible benefits at final tribal to making people feel that way.

- Her targeting goats seems contrary to that in getting to the end, but it isn't contrary at the end, where the jury holds no bitterness for her because she hasn't been duplicitous towards the majority, and often respects her enough to make voting for her credible because she's been 'honourable'

- To those who point out she could go early, its not like she has a choice there. She's physically weak and therefore a target, but to my mind that's an argument in her favour as she's survived anyway. She's made herself useful in the early game and earned her stay as a result, that's strategy at work, even though it's not our kind.

edit to add: With regards to my first paragraph, I feel like the best approach in a given season is going to depend largely on whether there are more 'strategists' or 'Sandras' (Eriks? Clearly a variation on the theme...)

I can't get behind Sandra having more equity then cirie. I think thinking so is results oriented. Sandra was extremely lucky overall and Cirie was pretty unlucky.

I'm pretty sure most of the Sandra haters still don't get the point here. These discussions would be a lot less adversarial if people had a more accurate perception of the good strategic/poor social players. It's just hard not to defend Sandra, and other floaters when the same people hating are praising other poor players, just because they understand the game.

It's like considering a sports analyst is better then some moron jock, just because he sounds like an idiot when he tries to explain his thought process.

I think these are great points but even within this paradigm, Sandra isn't aware enough to execute optimally. I don't think she really understands any of this and, while she's intuitive enough to adapt, she does so far from optimally.

Does Sandra keep a target off her back, or is there never one there to begin with because the other players in the game realize the things that have been pointed out itt: that she doesn't take a long-term view of the game, is poor at executing whatever plans she does come up with, and is incredibly unlikely to mess up anyone's plans by winning immunity at the wrong time?

You might be right...she may just play this way as a natural occurrence. I'm not saying it's a conscious tactic, but the way she ultimately plays.

She's poor at executing her plans because they ultimately have to take a lower priority than her longer term plans though, right? I feel like she'll have ideas, but ultimately won't push to where she needs to in order to implement because her survival instinct is always at the forefront. Again, not necessarily consciously, it's just her way regardless of the level on which she's doing it imo.

btw, not saying she hasn't had her luck. Speaking spanish the first time around and having Courtney on her tribe for the second were clearly helpful, but I don't think anyone wins without a degree of good fortune.

True. It' hard though to clearly define a long term in this game when only 26 seasons have been played. Would you gather players have more equity in winning if they are proactive or passive in their gameplay?

I also don't think Aras can be viewed as a top level strategic player. Given Cirie seemed to continuously be bailing him out post merge, and that he chose to vote with Cirie instead of voting her out at final 4. He just so happened to get lucky Cirie lost the challenge, because if she wins imo. he is drawing dead to win in that group of three going to FTC

This is a key point, it depends on the individual. I think being proactive is optimal but so few players are able to execute a proactive strategy that some form of passivity becomes the best route for most.

Right. Players don't come in as blank slates...they each have traits and skills they've developed prior to gameplay and it's up to them to figure out which approach will work best based on those skill sets.

I don't think those are the only two choices. At least if you define proactive=control the game and passive=floater. You don't need to be the strategic driver/decision maker to make active decisions in the game.

Again that would be a fair point if there was any evidence she is making a choice to use that strategy because it gives her highest equity but there is not. We all agree her passivity and lack of skill give her higher than average equity. Nobody is arguing that.

We are simply saying that does not translate into her being a good player. It means she is accidentally well suited to have decent equity if everything else goes her way.

She can be accidentally well-suited and still be a good player clovis. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

If you could rank every player in the main event of the Wsop from best to worst and by shear luck the 9th worst player draws the 1-8 worst players, is the 9th worst player a good player by any logical definition?

Sandra is the 9th worst player. She possesses some traits that allow her to run deep if everything else goes her way by pure chance.

But for some reason you think the strategists that pick a terrible strategy for their skillsets are decent players??

No we're saying that on a random season of 16 she will be better then 8, or more. It makes 0 difference why she's better. It's not like she has more equity then some strategic player but then we consider that the strategic player understands their bad strategy so that makes them a better player.

I think a large part of the problem here is that her thought processes appear to be flawed if you listen to the words that come out of her mouth. People ITT are like how can she be good when this is how she thinks.

I've really enjoyed the activity ITT the past couple of days.

KOS, why don't you debate Sandra's merits or lack thereof with Rob C next time you get to talk to him. He has actually played the game before and probably has a better perspective than we do.

The comparison isn't apt because of the nature of the game. I know a **** tonne more about baseball than many major leaguers, but I'm not going to tell anyone I'm a better ballplayer. Just because she's not studied, doesn't mean her natural thought processes aren't the right ones. Talent comes in many forms.

Oh, and also, are Boston Rob, Parvati, Cirie and the other HvV players 1-8?

I do? I think lots of strategic players are bad players. Corrine is strategic she is just really bad it, for example.

If she would've had a confessional that she was going to pretend to want Russell gone but secretly she wants to keep him then most of us would respect her more. As it stands her ineptitude at getting people to follow through on her plan is the main reason she won.

Right, but this is a terrible approach, and 95% of players try it as well. Sandra is the only one who has succeeded at it, but that doesn't mean her success at it is even 1% skill-based. If Sandra is good, why isn't Courtney good? Why isn't Purple Kelly good?

This may seem simplistic, but "anyone but me" only works when it works. It's Erik's approach right now, but would we say it's working for him?I wouldn't. Sandra and Erik's success can only be evaluated post-game based on one factor: the result. In my mind, that's a bad way to play this game and an even worse way to evaluate it.

What about Russel, Marty and Albert?

Regardless, it doesn't matter if you're correct about these guys, you're wrong to think Sandra is terrible. She's either terrible at understanding her game play, terrible at expressing herself, or both, but she's not terrible at Survivor.

Rob has zero interest in bashing anyone's game or even debating their ability. It's too negative of a vibe for his show; he's interested in pointing out everyone's strengths.

As an aside, I'm listening to D&C now, and Colin's bashing of Brenda while Dom sighs over and over is great. I love listening to you guys bash each other's favorites.

If she was more aware of her skillset and smart enough to use it optimally, then she'd be a hell of a lot better. As it stands, I don't see how your point takes away from the fact that she has above average equity, and is therefore an above average survivor contestant.

One thing Probst mentioned in an interview a while back is that Sandra always "has her head in the game" at all times. It's highly unlikely she is getting blindsided. That alone gives her a big leg up in the game.

I think if she hypotheticallty had been a part of the Corrine/Malcolm move last episode she would have found out before TC that the numbers weren't happening. And yes, I know she wouldn't try a move like that.