ahhh someone else itt has the same avatar as me, trippin me out

Wow i found the Draft excel i did last time for you guys:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...CJCskMcE#gid=3

It is insane the amount of free time i had at that time.

I'm surprised Judd fell to 33

hottest guys of survivor, where is this list?

I just listened to nearly the entire Dom & Colin & Kos podcast and really enjoyed it. Even though on the entire spectrum of Survivor fans you guys are all in extreme agreement, there was enough disagreement that you challenged each other on your views. One thing it revealed is that there is no consensus about what "equity" or "best player" or "most impressive performance" even means.

-Are you evaluating a player as a "first time player" or as the final product that they show off in their latest season (with their previous performances having some, but less, impact on the final analysis)? IMO you obviously judge based on their most recent appearance. Boston Rob's performance in Marquesas has almost nothing to do with where you rank him equity-wise.

-Is equity based on how they would do vs random first-time opponents, or as a returning player, versus other returning players? Most everyone would say versus first-time opponents, but in reality, they will only ever play again as returning players. So I don't think this question is as cut and dry as people think. To me it's more interesting to predict how Kim will do in her next go-round, than to predict how she'd do in a hypothetical season that can't ever happen.

-There is a small difference between who has the most equity and who is the best player. Like cstone was saying J.T. has the most equity, but he hesitated to say he was the best player. I think most would agree that there is a reasonable distinction here.

-Kos at one point said he evaluates equity based on who he would vote for at FTC. That to me is a very controversial statement.

-I think you guys scrutinize strategical decisions and rank people quite a bit higher or lower based on them making the right/wrong move, but when you evaluate people's personalities you paint them with broad strokes. For example saying that Mike Chiesl or Grant would probably win Tocantins as easily as J.T. does. As if they're all basically the same person. Obviously it's much easier (and more fun) to evaluate a strategical move than it is to describe and evaluate someone's personality/aura/appearance/intangibles, but IMO the over-reliance on strategy does skew your equity rankings. Like saying Stephen has more equity than J.T. after J.T. dusts him 7-0 at FTC.

-Kim was not judged as harshly as some other all-time greats. You said that one flaw Boston Rob has is lack of adaptability. He comes up with a game plan and then goes about manipulating people to make it happen. But when you talked about Kim voting Kat out at F7, creating a 3-3 power struggle, you were like, but it was okay because Kim could just manipulate her way out of it. Boston Rob using a set game plan to inspire fear and loyalty makes sense as part of his whole arsenal just like Kim's last-minute decision style works well with her persuasiveness. There's more than one way to skin a cat. And you said a flaw with J.T.'s game is that he often gets booted late because he's too much of a threat, but never considered that Kim has the same problem.

-I would argue that one thing that makes Parvati and Kim verrrry close equity-wise, is that Parvati is not so incredibly likeable that people will always see her as a threat late, ala J.T. or Kim. Also I think Parvati is better at manipulating other returning players than Kim will be.

-For a returning player, Boston Rob's fear and loyalty meta seems like the strongest one of all.

Sorry TGM. I changed to get into the spirit of the Survivor POG game. Mind if I share for a few weeks?

To the ones defending JT's idol giveaway move. I agree that it is very creative and potentially genius. However, if there was one person in the history of Survivor that I would NOT give this idol to, it would be... well do I really even have to say the name.

Yeah, but isn't that results orientated. JT had no opportunity to really know Russell and he decided to go for it all. Even though it didn't work I respected the fact that he would put himself out there being a previous winner and all. To add to it his post merge vote strategy wasn't terrible either. I think he truly can't ever think that Parvarti occupies both idols in that spot. Had it been anyone else on that side (villains) with the two idols it would have most definately come down to a stones scenario.

The main problem with JTs play here was that it was far to risky and high variance for the stage of the game. Willingly giving up power in Survivor when you do not have a high level of confidence in the outcome is very, very stupid. And the earlier in the game you do it (i.e. When the resulting increases in equity are smaller) the more stupid it is. The men on One World did it when they chose to go to TC, and JT did it here when he gave the HII to Russell. And it doesn't matter who he gave it to - the move is stupid regardless of the recipient.

I think Sandra is a very good player. I think the boys are blinded by dislike and their own idealism. Sometimes I bang my head against the wall defending Sandra. Sometimes I just think about her spending her millions and figure she doesn't need defending.

Here is the thing about her and the thing that I think offends some of the fellas who prize strategy. She is very good at the game, but...not entirely by her own intention. She's just completely built for the post merge game. Not a threat--can't perform in challenges and seems abrasive enough to disregard as a social threat. Can even go around taking pot shots at her own foot with little backlash...sometimes it even helps her.

If the game IS flawed, Sandra personifies the flaw. She's a wolf in goat's clothing. I actually like that someone can drag this particular goat to the end and then get slayed by her. She might not travel through the game in control of it or with as much purpose as some, but if you are foolish enough to take her to the end, I'm going to laugh at your ass when she beats you. She's not nearly as bad as she seems. But I agree that she's not necessarily great on purpose, and that's why the boys can't stand her. She's a paradox.

Things I think she is good at: 1. Knowing what is going on. 2. Making sure she's not the target...most of the time she doesn't have to do anything. 3. Closing. If you pair her strengths with the flaws she has that are actually positives in the game of Survivor, she's got PLENTY of equity.

I can understand not respecting her game. I cannot understand discounting her equity. I would think someone who thinks it's proper to drag goats to the end would at least respect her equity. She has enough ability to make herself the lead goat most of the time. And she's a goat with sharp canines.

What is the likelyhood if Sandra plays again she is first voted out?

The bolded and deadmau5's post really nail why Sandra is great at this game. Nobody needs to respect her talents(I don't have much respect for her), but denying she has huge equity is just obtuse.

[lamepokeranalogythatithinkialreadymade]It's kind of like Phil Helmuth in the WSOP ME. Put this guy up against the fish and it doesn't matter that he doesn't really have a clue, he just has it in him to get it done.[/lame]

I can't remember; can someone tell me if there was ever a spot where Stephen could have axed JT?

I can see Dom's point about Todd being a bit immature and impulsive. However, when trying to project random equity, I would think Todd would have more than guys like Tom Westman, Yul, Boston Rob...because those guys are playing with the handicap of being OBVIOUS threats in so many ways, while Todd is some frail looking boy who comes off a bit catty.

Not as high as they should be imo.

I came across this article about "risk intelligence" on Slate.com yesterday and thought that people here might find it interesting. An excerpt from the article, mostly to convince people to click on it:

Most people probably haven't heard of risk intelligence. What is it?
It is the ability to estimate probabilities accurately, it's about having the right amount of certainty to make educated guesses. That's the simple definition. But this apparently simple skill turns out to be quite complex. It ends up being a rather deep thing about how to work on the basis of limited information and cope with an uncertain world, about knowing yourself and your limitations.

How do you quantify risk intelligence?
I set up an online test to measure risk quotient or RQ. It consists of 50 statements, some true, some false, and you have to estimate the likelihood of a statement being true. The average RQ is not high. There are two ways you can have a low RQ. One is by being overconfident, the other is by being underconfident. You do find people making the underconfidence mistake, but there are far fewer of them.

The article is here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health...bilities_.html

The second question I excerpted above has a link at "online test" that links to his test. I took it and thought it was pretty cool. It would be interesting to get these results on all Survivor winners. I think that this skill - risk intelligence - would be really, really important in this game. My bet is that someone like Sandra would score very high on this test.

The problem with this is that HvV filmed before Samoa aired. He who must not be named was just some random guy on the villains tribe to the heroes. I've seen the argument "but he's on the villains tribe for a reason, moron" used a lot but I don't think it's valid. Look who else is on the villains tribe:
Coach, Sandra, Courtney, Randy, Tyson, Jerri. It's not as if these people are strategic masterminds or anything. They are just characters that for one reason or another viewers dislike (or are supposed to anyways).

When he looks across and sees Randy -> Tyson -> Rob -> Coach be the boots so far, and then looks at who is left and it's Parv, Sandra, Courtney, Danielle, Jerri, and Russell what is he supposed to think? Sandra isn't going to be the head of this alliance. Courtney isn't the one that has been pulling the strings. Jerri has never been a strategy guru. Danielle did show some signs of doing things in Panama, so maybe it was her. Russell was a wildcard. Parvati had shown capability to not only spearhead an effect and cutthroat alliance, but it was also a women's alliance.

So from JT's perspective you have the following options:
- Danielle is playing over her head a bit
- Parv is doing what she's already done before (effectively)
- The new guy is some boss who runs ****

Even if it's #1, the play is fine.
If it's #2, the play is elite.
If it's #3, you look like a moron and get got.


So then you just have to assign the liklihood each one is what is occurring. And with all available info to them in this game of incomplete information, who can really fault him for skewing the percentages to #2?


This has always been one of the more odd moves to get hate on here for me. I understand general public or other forums being like LOLJTDUMB, but this move - while incorrect - showed a thought process I thought people on this site would really get behind.

This is cool

+1 I was optimistically surprised JT made so many moves HvV. From voting out James to the idol it seemed like he was playing to win or else be a early boot. The thing that surprised me most about the idol situation was that it seemed non of the heroes were shown expressing that it was a terrible idea. Though it was not great for JT it was much worse for the other heroes who if JT pulled the move off would have been set up in a great spot.

Kos, what do you think Rob should have done to prevent Jerri and Coach from defecting to Russell's side? What argument does he make?

On Hatch:

I love his equity against people who don't know him from Adam. He was a provider for his tribe, but also ran around naked and was sometimes disagreeable to mitigate the positive feelings one would expect people would have for him for feeding them. He was the leader of his alliance. He aligned with goats. He can read people. He is an openly gay man who became buddies with Rudy ffs.

On Russell:

His strategy is flawless? His strategy included burning socks so the players on his pre-merge tribe are miserable. He had little concern about cannibalizing his own tribe and going to the merge without numbers. He aligned with likable people and voted off people who were not as well liked. He also seemed in favor of Fairplay's tell them one thing, then vote them out and laugh about how awesome their blindside was. I personally, don't think his strategy is flawless. He's great entertainment. He's a great manipulator and reader of people. His idol finding without clues was revolutionary. The strategy, much like the man, has some flaws.

Just like in poker, and many other things, it is possible to be TOO aggressive. 5 betting rags often isn't optimal, even though you might be thinking at a higher level than your opponents. That being said, I think you explained your point pretty well and I def give JT a lot of props for making a ballsy move like that. And hey I'll admit it, if that would have worked we might be calling him the GOAT Survivor. You have swayed me on JT, but I still have to take a LITTLE bit off of where I rank him all time, because in the end it was most definitely a blunder.

I think one of the biggest reasons we get JTDUMB is the ludicrous note he wrote to Russell and the way it was edited.

I mean holy ****, he wrote a goddamn novel to the guy.

looooooooooooool


BFFs!

I do want to clarify that while I defend this move pretty strongly, and while I think his Tocantins game is in the short conversation for GOAT single season game, that I do not think he is near the GOAT survivor.

XOXO