I don't know how there can be people who apparently play poker saying that whoever wins a season deserved to win it. Whoever gives themselves the highest possible chance of winning the season deserves it; if that happens to be the winner, fine, but that's not always the case. In general, people who are controlling the flow of their season are the ones who gives themselves the best possible odds of winning. The only time when this isn't true is when there are many people attempting to control the game at the same time, but even then the placement of a floater is generally out of their own control.

The distinction between tactics and strategy is a valid one, and it's fair to say that Russell often made fundamental strategic mistakes, but to then elevate people like Natalie and Sandra who have no grasp of either tactics or strategy is absurd. Natalie does beat Russell in a jury vote >90% of the time, but the only way she ever makes it there is if she's the beneficiary of a lucky confluence of events, given that she did nothing to bring it about herself.

+1

Probst.

And all floaters are not created equal. The good ones have the best understanding/execution of that last paragraph.

http://robhasawebsite.com/2010/11/29...vivor-podcast/

oo new podcast

This post is perfect. I'm glad someone is more eloquent than me when it comes to arguing this.

So Phil Ivey deserves to win every poker tournament? lol. You guys say how easily Natalie would've been gone if Russell wanted her gone. She played a game that basically ensured Russell would keep her til the finals. A player like Russell values loyal votes above all else. His ego blinds him to how other people perceive him If you actually want to say the person with the highest possible chance of winning a season deserves it, then Natalie is that person!!

Russell played a game destined to lose. Not even because of how he played throughout the game, but because he was so arrogant and condescending toward the jury members at the end... When a guy who you already dislike is talking about how he's the greatest and you're all dumb sheep, well guess what, you have a vote to help put a big ol' asterisk next to his "im the greatest claim." Getting bitter, irrational, emotional jury members to vote for you to win is a huge part of the game.

No. Survivor is like a tournament, and our rankings of the players are like a lifetime of poker playing. Anyone can win a tournament, but that doesn't make them good. Ivey is the favorite going into pretty much any tournament or cash game, so even when he doesn't win, it doesn't hurt the argument that he's the best player in the world because he's consistently the most profitable over a large sample.

So did Mick. And Jaison. And Shambo.

No, but if he outplays you and you get your money in behind, your poor decisions aren't retrospectively validated because you spike your four-outer on the river.

In Samoa he was 'the greatest' and they were all 'dumb sheep'. It's not as if he's unable to establish good relationships with people in the game - John and Shambo, the only two people post-merge who could legitimately claim to have been betrayed by Russell, liked him and voted for him. He simply committed the cardinal sin of failing to realize that if you're a polarizing figure you don't want to go up against the paragon of innocent virtue. Is his inability to identify potential jury threats a massive flaw in his gameplay? Of course. But he's arguably the best tactician the game has ever seen, and he understands that part of the game at a higher level than anyone on either of his seasons. Jaison played a better game than Natalie by almost any metric you might care to use, but you don't see any Natalie fans drawing attention to that fact.

+1 to all of that tilt.

I have never heard anyone claim Jaison played a better game than Natalie. Everyone was utterly shocked when Russell sent him home b/c he was by far the easiest left to beat and Natalie was clearly the hardest (based on edits, of course).

Russell is only the best tactition if you ignore the fact that there is a jury vote he needs to win. Not only is he bad at figuring out the jury threats, he has no shot to win vs ANYONE because people don't like being bullied threatened and micromanaged for a whole game. If the game were "make the final 3 and stop," sure he's the best tactician. In Suvivor he's just another in a long line of bad players.

Edit: Natalie identified this very early in the game and planned to bring Russell to the end pre merge. She said as much, but Russell fans don't like to acknowledge this fact.

russel could win a vote. i think he can also adjust his game. he played once basically. he didnt get a chance to watch samoa. he thought he won right? he also got 2 votes. so stop saying itd be so impossible for him to win a vote. natalie would so easily be just another unnamed floated if russel wanted it that way. you wouldnt even remember her name if russel wanted it that way.

thunder d - she died, dude

Maybe. The jury loved Natalie. It might have been hard to gather the votes to boot her, we'll never really know. While Russell was bullying everyone she was learning about them and forging personal relationships. She could have stayed cold and aloof like Jaison and Mick, but instead she decided to play good Survivor.

the way i see it is. russel gets to the end much more. wins some of the time. (OH HE WILL NEVER WIN A VOTE BLA BLA BLA) 2 times is not a very big sample size. you understand right? random floater gets to the end much less of the time. wins a higher percent of the time. though still not that high of a percent cause if they are that big of a threat they will be taken out before the final tribal council(because they have absolutely no control of who goes home and are most likely weak at challenges).

hard to gather votes to boot her? mick and jaison were dying to get rid of her. russel just decided he thought she was easy to beat at the end. he made a mistake. she didnt play good there. just won another flip. maybe russel didnt even make a mistake. i have no clue what the jury thought of jaison. or maybe he thought natalie had a better shot in challenge vs brett. the point of it isnt whether natalie made the other tribe like her. good for her. shes a nice person. the point is if russel played better and identified her as the biggest jury threat. she would never even have a shot. i think knowing what russel does now. that the jury doesnt mind voting for someone he views as a weak woman. he WILL adjust his game and play a better end game.

LOL Deja Vu.

That's just a pretty blinded/results oriented view. He ran insanely hot both times (which anyone needs to do to get to the end in Survivor). If Tyson doesn't punt he goes home 2nd on his tribe because he tactics were poor at best. He also needs the whole Villain tribe to agree not to find the idol (which he had no part in). He also needs Rob to phone in convincing Jerri, which also seems unlikely.

And of course it's obvious how hot he ran on Samoa. I don't think after 2 seasons of some of the luckiest Survivor we've seen we can say he's so likely to get to the end.

anyone has to run hot to get to the end. but he increased his equity as much as possible each vote. he searched for idols without clues. he basically changed the game. if i didnt check this thread. i wouldnt even remember natalies name. she wasnt even mentioned on robs podcast. she never is. because shes just some random floater who realized being nice was smart. shes not some genius. she played good obviously.

All of this is true. But if your tactics are such that you have very little chance to win the game, how good are they?

I'm no Russell basher. I found him very entertaining and thought he played masterfully. That is if you think that the winner should be someone that controlled the game and made the most moves. Scored the most points if you will. That's what Russell thought would happen. But as Probst said, "That's a different game. This is Survivor." (paraphrase)

There's no such thing as a "bitter jury". The jury will vote how the jury will vote. People that fail to take into account what motivates the members of their particular jury have a flawed strategy. Just as a strategy that consists wholly of staying under the radar is flawed. Being genuinely nice - not just non-offensive - to the people that have the power to vote any way they want for what ever reason they want is an essential part of a complete strategy.

Yeah, I want to be clear. From the edit, I do think Natalie ranks among the worst winners. Bob is the only one off the top of my head who is worse. I do however think that Natalie intentionally got a bad edit to help sell the Russell phenomenon for HvV. Listening to her talk on post-season interviews she is a very bright woman.

When I say that the winner almost always "deserves" the win, I think many more than 1 person can deserve it, the eventual winner will just almost always rank among them.

i just want a new episode. im really excited to see how this season turns out. i could see some really awesome endings. there are 2 idols in play and both with people who could be targeted next week. predictions on who goes wednesday?

After Brenda going last time, I am terrified to try to predict. It seems like Holly and Jane are the ones actually running the game now, so I almost want to say one of them is going.

yeah. holly and jane, chase will be voting together. benry, fabio and dan will probably be voting together. kelly up in the air. so i guess sash probably picks up kelly and naonka and vote on whichever side they want?

The recap episode made it look like Sash would be next. I don't think he can pick anyone up. It seems like he has nearly no influence at all anymore. We'll see how well he can play the low-on-the-totem pole swing vote role. If he can change gears well here, I will gain much more respect for his game. I still say it's Holly's game to lose from here.

Nice try, Probst. I'm on to you.