I liked reading this; thanks for posting. The reality is that "floating" indeed works (just as it does in Big Brother), but without the agency and persuasion skills, one's equity takes a hit. In terms of equity to win a random season (where a 5% chance to win a season of 20 players is baseline), Sandra certainly isn't without persuasion skills; I'd give her more than 5%. For a maximum/ceiling, I'm not sure I'd even give Kim (when she's unknown to her opponents) anything higher than 10% equity at the start of a season.

Ha! That's helpful to know; thanks

Ooooh yea I just started watching this and had a similar reaction. Not a fan of:

I was anti-Sandra till this season, now after this season I have a lot more respect for her game... I think her more strategic style this season was a function of her reading the room and out of necessity -- to me there's little doubt if she had played a lay low, play the middle, floater style game this time around she'd have been voted out way earlier than she was, due to being seen as a "huge threat." My big takeaway from this season is she's amazingly adept at knowing exactly where she stands in any given situation, and is very good at understanding what makes the other players around her tick, and then is able to use that information in a way to best serve her without other players realizing that's what is going on. The first two times she played, she never had to step into an alpha role for the sake of surviving longer because she was real in tune with the fact she didn't need to -- this season, she did. Heck, she was even in control up to the extremely unlucky tribe swap that had her deep in the minority and did her in. That's why I now view her as one of the best even though this season was her "least successful." I'd even go as far as saying she just might be the most perceptive player of all time (and if not her, then maybe it's Cirie).

Very perceptive when she said "aint nobody over there got no idol"
and malcolm gets shanked

She's just done too many boneheaded things in the past for me to give her too much credit. You say she's one of the most perceptive players of all time, but back in HvV, she actively tried to get rid of Russell time and time again, but was never able to pull it off. But it was PRECISELY her failure to do this that led to her win. Unless she's levelling everyone by just trying to make everyone around her think that she was trying to get rid of Russell (spoiler, she's not) then it's incredibly imperceptive of her to not have realized that the best thing for her was to go to the end with Russell. Had she actually succeeded in the one thing she was actively trying to pull off, she would've reduced her chances to win significantly.

Her strategy has been essentially to try to fold into the money and move up the pay ladder, and both times she's done this, she woke up with aces 3 handed when better and more shrewd players woke up with Ax and shipped it.

Since she's acerbic and not a challenge threat, she's a more attractive person to have around than a floater who may be a bigger threat in those areas. It is precisely BECAUSE she kinda sucks at everything, that others choose to keep her around. I don't think it is necessarily any kind of intentional strategy for her to be like this. She has twice ended up making it to the end against someone who took her there, and the other person happened to be very disliked by the jury. She gets no respect from me, and the fact that she thinks she's the best Survivor ever bc she's won twice is meta-infuriating because not only does it show a lack of humility, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the variance of the game. It's like listening to Trump gloat about winning the electoral college. F her forever. She sux.

I almost didn't want to post this because it's on the tin foil hat side of things - but there's a chance that the skills we saw from Sandra this season simply weren't there in S20+S7 (I'm of course not forgetting the Courtney vote and other times where she did successfully demonstrate some agency). Given Sandra's legacy as the only 2 time winner, it would be foolish for production to not give that asset a whitewashed edit in S34, regardless of how she finished. For all Survivor does to paint itself as a grueling physical+mental competition (which it really is - there's no denying that), they wouldn't want to cheapen the asset they have in Sandra by giving her a less than favorable edit.

For that reason I'm almost surprised that they included her role in the scenes involving catching the goat - since it doesn't really paint her character in a good light. There's of course a reasonable counter argument to make that producers wanted to show how in control she was - e.g. JT and others bending to her desire to eat.

When was the last time FTC made any difference in the vote?

Hahaha it's been a while - probably S23?

Aubry seems to get more love on these boards than strikes me is deserved. Am I missing something?

She did have some decent showings in immunity challenges toward the end of her first season, and her confessionals suggest she was fairly dialed in. Yet back then and still now she seems to fade into the background more often than not and doesn't appear to be driving the game much, if at all.

I get that there's something to being in control without overtly being in control, but is that actually what she's doing? And even if it is, to win the game don't you have to strut your stuff to some extent, or at least leave others with the impression that you're deserving? To me, she seems like a floater with better confessionals than actual game play. Like she'd be a good person to serve as a color commentator, more so than a player.

Yes, she was already seen as a threat as a 2-time winner, but she made herself even more of a target by taking the obvious vocal strongarm leadership role that almost always gets voted out. She isn't suited for that role. She is way better at the floater role, and it could have worked this time as well.

She was voted out 6th. Her role wouldn't have mattered/changed the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or 5th votes. The only debateable one is the 2nd, her vs Tony. However, she likely never would have been targeted by Tony, if she weren't taking a more active role in the first place. She was actually in an alliance with Tony, and Tony only targeted Sandra after she was sneaking off in the middle of the night to discuss strategy with Troyzan. If Sandra were floating, she wouldn't have been targeted. And even if she was, then she can go into "anyone but me" mode and still shift the vote-out to Tony. So it's hard to see how she would have been voted out earlier if she had been floating instead of obnoxiously controlling her alliance.

Instead, if she were floating, she would have given herself a chance to stay longer, even with an unlucky tribe swap. A previous anyone-but-me version of Sandra might have lobbied for the majority to vote out Varner instead of herself, instead of trying to get a majority 5-2 alliance to cannibalize itself at the first opportunity, which rarely works. Then after Varner was voted out, she could have instead tried to shift the target the next week, since she's just 1 minority and the 5 would be more focused on themselves and the post-merge. Which could have worked, since even Varner almost got it to work, before he blew himself up by outing Zeke. Then post-merge, you can float for a long, long time. Which is how she won previous seasons.

This. Totally this. The difference I have, is that you don't need to respect her or her game, to acknowledge that it works. And that if it works, it can be a good strategy and make her a good or even great player, whether she knows it or not. Her intention doesn't even matter.

Even if you assume that she has no intentional strategy other than anyone-but-me (the first 2 times), she can luck her way into a good floating strategy and unintentionally be playing great, even if it goes opposite her intentions. Such as your example of her trying to vote out Russell and failing, and that ending up being a great move, even though it was counter to her intentions.

If behind the scenes, we were shown confessionals where Sandra says, I'm going to appear do to X, but I don't actually mean for it to work, instead, I'm actually trying to do Y, and in doing so, seemingly align with persons A, B & C, but I really mean to get them on the jury and get jury votes and win this mother****er - then a lot of us would say, whoa, she is an incredible player.

Instead, because she doesn't mean to do it, we don't give her credit. But does it really matter if she means to do it or not, if she keeps doing stuff like that time and again? Intentionality doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of themes, repeatability does.

For example, if Cirie intentionally does amazing strategic move Z behind the scenes, that's great, and we give her credit for it because she's likely to do things like that again. If Sandra blunders into the same move, we don't give her credit for it because it's random dumb luck. But if over the course of 100 seasons, Cirie and Sandra both did the same great Z moves 100 times...well then, intentions don't matter, just the repeated great moves.

There is a small sample size, but I saw enough from Sandra in her first 2 seasons to acknowledge that she unintentionally plays a great floating anyone-but-me game. In fact, her current season hurts her overall, to me, because if she tried to win the game using the alliance controlling role of this season, she would probably never do it, and she is so much worse than so many others at it.

You made this point yourself, which I fully agree with, that her acerbic, gloating, abrasive vocal behavior makes her a liability as an alliance leader, but makes her attractive as a floater. Her very personality makes her better as a floater and a seeming-goat who can then win the FTC vote due to social game and/or some run good, bitter juries, dumb luck, or whatever.

Anyway, I have GOAT floater Sandra as a great player due to all of the above. But her play this season actually diminishes that for me. An unaware Sandra who played her first 2 seasons' style forever would be towards the top of the game imo though.

To me, Aubry is playing more of a Cirie game, but she's just not as good at it or as persuasive as Cirie is. It's a strategic be in the majority alliance but also semi-floating and at times swing vote game. The intentional strategy is there, but the need to control a majority alliance is not, and different moves can still get you to the end. The social game and persuasive ability is key to this though.

Aubry has shown skill at it at times, such as being the key to getting Sarah to flip and vote Debbie out. And her thought process and results show repeatability and the ability to get to the end. So I have Aubry as a very good player, just not as good as Cirie.

To add a bit more - Isn't this pretty much an ideal game style?

Be in the majority alliance, have good relationships, good social game, never be in danger, but be a strategic thoughtful player who is always looped in, have bigger shields/targets in front of you, have the ability to shift the vote when necessary, have the ability to win immunity late, and then only take charge at the very end if necessary to vote out the "stronger" players who might get more votes than you, if any are left.

In fact, Aubry probably learned from her first season where she may have done a bit too much flipping and scheming, and made it to the end with 2 near-goats and deserved to win, but lost to a better social game and some bitter jurors. This season, her strategic skill is still there, but she probably intentionally doesn't want to drive the game as much, and is trying to improve her social game and not step on any toes.

Maybe in a garden variety season this could fly (yet of course it didn't with Aubry the first time around, at least when it came to winning), but with returning players it seems even more so like you have to be front and center and possessing of a list of resume items for FTC, or at least be able to explain how you were controlling the puppet strings all along despite not being in the limelight.

I happen not to be fully on board with Cirie either, but I can certainly submit that she's doing more to build a puppet strings case than Aubry. As such, if Aubry can't see that happening before her eyes, then I think it's a great argument as to exactly why she's simply not a top player.

I still think it's crazy to adjust your game for your FTC speech instead of just prioritizing getting there in the first place. Like if you're always playing to maximize your chances of getting to the end, then once you're there you should be able to explain why it worked. You shouldn't have to be "front and center" just for the sake of it

I think Aubry is doing great. For someone that survived the pre-merge by the skin of her teeth, she's been in the majority for every postmerge vote.

The edit has to make you hate her chances, but in the game she's in a great position.
She's tight with Michaela. She has ties to tai and brad on the other side. That gives her maneuverability. And everyone on her side has made themselves a bigger target than her.

The only target on Aubry's back comes from her past performance.

It's not about tailoring to your speech. It's about showing the jury first-hand that youre in the game.

If the jurors carefully analyzed your moves and then decided, well you deserve to win, you wouldnt have to. But they dont. Theyre a bunch of dumb idiots. They want to be entertained.

If youre tailoring your game to FTC, youve already lost. Theyve already decided. You have to do things to draw attention to yourself.

Natalie is the prime example. Does she win if she gets to FTC? Maybe. But she made big moves before the jury and left no doubt.

Hannah and Aubry are victim to the exact same thing. They played phenomenal games, but were invisible to the jurors.

To this line of logic, all I can say is those who justify don't convince.

These two sentences are incompatible.

In the end that depends on whether one regards results as mattering at all. Some have even suggested the best players were probably eliminated early and were never seen, nor remembered. In that vein, perhaps Aubry played the best mathematical game as analyzed by those who have never played, though they watched a heavily edited, condensed version, and have a preference to her as a player and/or human.

I think Aubry is very good at reading people, and elite at evaluating her own position. She definitely doesn't bond as deeply as Cirie, but she seems to have a very sound understanding of where people stand and what is going on. She has played a lot different style than her last season due to the bigger personalities she is with this time.

She also has shown she has some sneaky athletic ability and is a strong competitor for challenges.

I would have to say based on two seasons she is definitely an above average player.

IMHO, intention counts a ton, if not for EVERYTHING, in determining the quality of a player, even if the resulting action is the same.

Incoming poker example: (sorry)

During a poker tourney, player A runs a huge allin bluff on player B on the river. Player B ends up calling with KT on a KQ875 board. We ask player B after the hand why they called.

In one universe, player B says, "Well, I'd seen player A do this in two other hands this level, where he fired out 1/2 pot on every street with just a draw, and then overbet the river, showing the missed draw both times after his opponent folded to needle him. Sure, he could've been changing it up this time, but it still seemed consistent. Also, he's very aggressive with his good holdings preflop, so I knew that if he had any pocket that made a set, or AA, KQ, or AK, he would've 3 bet my raise preflop, but he just flatted. He also tends to check raise his 2 pairs when out of position, so when he decided to donk bet every street, I honestly didn't put him on any 2 pairs. His actions just didn't add up to any kind of made hand, so unless the river completed a straight, like an A, J, 9, or 6, I was calling. When the 5 hits and he ships, I just decided well, if he has 69 then god bless him. Otherwise, I've got the winner, because no other made hands makes sense here. It's a missed draw often enough to make a call the most correct play."

In the other universe, we ask player B why he called and he says "I had a King with a good kicker! I didn't enter this tourney to get pushed around!"

Both player Bs decided to call, and were correct. You're making the argument that regardless of their thought process, both player Bs, are equally good, but that B is accidentally a good player. I strongly disagree.

Sandra's "strategy" relies on several things that are either out of her control or unintentional. They are:

1.Be a floater, and be more unlikable/seen as less of a threat than other floaters. (I would doubt this is intentional, and she would probably even disagree that she's unlikable)

2. Be taken to the end by players who are not only aggressive, but disliked by jury members. (So pure luck, that the players who are the most influential and make it to the end are also the least liked)

3. Be up against a jury that will vote based on who they like the most (dislike the least?) instead of on merit of who played the best.




You get my point. But basically, someone accidentally making the correct play isn't as good of a player as someone intentionally making the correct play. If I close my eyes and jack up 10 shots from half court and sink them all, Steph Curry is still a better shooter than me.

Your real point is that you really do not like Sandra as a person, nor the style in which she plays the game. That is your right, but with all due respect you appear to be trying very hard to validate your personal dislike for her with an analysis based on very, very incomplete information. Lots of people do that to support a personal agenda, they create an analysis to reach a desired ending.

The other players gave he genuine applause for her accomplishments when she was voted out. Not sure that happens to someone who everyone utterly hates. Certainly did not to Russell in his third go...

Ah yes - the Tom Waits argument. A genius at what they do, but sadly only appreciated by true scholars of their craft and not mere mortals.

Sorry, but this is a game; and winning the game is not only the object but also the measure of one's true ability to play the game.

Read my full post and my posts in the last few days and then read your reply and see if it is appropriate for my actual position.

All the best.