Well, yeah. If something was a bad move, it's a bad move no matter what the outcome was. In that situation, results don't matter.

Yeah and the issue I have is a lack of identifying what constitutes a "bad move" in Survivor. You are already calling it a "bad move" to begin with, so of course to you, it doesn't matter what the result is. It's like when an atheist asks how a Christian knows how God exists and they answer, "Because the Bible says so". The underlying implication is that they have already decided that The Bible is truth, and have taken the leap of faith in that as the truth. It's a self-fulfilling logic that they can use to assert that God exists without having to actually prove it themselves. What I'm essentially asking is, how do you know the Bible is true? Kirblar never explains what what he's talking about. He makes these completely vague statements (usually critical and biting) with no follow-up or explanation, and sits in his ivory tower and preaches from his soap box

If you're saying that nothing can be impirically judged a bad move on its own - or that it's a logical fallacy to do so - then there's no point in even talking about Survivor strategy, because everyone is always equal and the "quality" of a play is dependent exclusively on its outcome.

I'm sort of saying that, but I don't see how weighting "results" in determining whether a move is "good" or "bad" necessitates that everyone is equal nor nullifies the point of talking about Survivor strategy. For 1 thing, some people oversimplify my position. I am not saying you can't use other POVs to evaluate the same move. I agree that sometimes, a move that worked out can be considered "bad" when judged from a GT perspective, or a statistical perspective, etc. My point is at the end of the day, I really feel that results should be our main evaluative compass. Most other types of evaluations tend to be more subjective, theoretical, abstract, and faith-based. 1 thing you can't get away from are facts and scientific data. Is that perfect? No, of course not. Interpreting facts involves its own subjective quality and arbitration, and of course, it's always most important to consider the context in relation to facts. However, I still think evaluations should be centered around the facts mostly with these things in mind. Too often, people kind of conclude, "Facts are meaningless" and then use that to justify basing their ideas and decisions based on whims, because it's easier and allows more room to support their favorites or whatever

You have to be able to make that judgment or there's nothing to be discussed: "Well, how can you say it was a bad move without knowing the outcome" is equal to saying that nothing is ever a bad move.

No it's not. Saying that "nothing is ever a bad move" is equal to saying that "nothing is ever a bad move". "How can you say it was a bad move without knowing the outcome?" is a totally different idea. When you don't know the outcome to something, then you know it can be EITHER a good move but STILL be a bad move possibly. Nothing is ever a bad move means that when you don't know the outcome, all moves are neutral or good, which is NOT what I'm saying at all. Simply said, I'm saying: Let's not jump to conclusions, ESPECIALLY when the results/facts fly right in the face of what you're proposing

Your discussions with Kiblar make it clear you don't really play (or understand, if you do) poker, but that's really all I can use for a comparison.

I understand the basics, I just don't know all the technical terms nor studied the statistical strategies for evaluating what moves are optimal and which aren't. And Survivor is not Poker. Survivor is more like a Hold Em, Poker, 7 Card Stud, etc. Each season is a unique game, and judging 1 game by another's standard results in the logical fallacies that I've had an issue with when people want to judge "bad moves" based off of a criteria and strategy that doesn't correlate precisely in the same way as it does in each other season. Now if you can explain why you feel a move is bad, then I'm all ears. Until then, it sounds simply like people are basing "bad moves" on wider generalizations and interpretive theories like GT, which IMO are outdated or need revision

If you make a play that is mathematically incorrect - calling with a hand that is way behind your opponent's range when you aren't getting the right price to do so - it's a mistake, and you screwed up. Period. It doesn't matter what your thought process was, whether you decided it was "worth" making a mistake or not, or anything like that - you will lose money in the long run, so it was a bad play. End of discussion.

I understand that. What do you think I was talking about when I mentioned the "statistical strategy" involved in poker? From THAT POV or mathematical strategy, yes that would be a "mistake or "bad move". Based on the long run and basic mathematical probabilities, you will lose money in the long run. That is why I said a play can be a bad move and a good move AT THE SAME TIME based on your POV. Even if it's a bad move statistical wise and rationally from that POV, you can hardly call it a bad move" in terms of results though for that specific hand. If that hand and luck with the same results was to repeated over and over again, then you would do that same move every time because it would earn you more and more money. That basic mathematical strategy was formulated BASED on RESULTS itself. So that was largely defined on a series of results which netted data and hence a formulaic strategy that should be used as a GUIDELINE (not absolute though since social and contextual strategies also come into play)

That is where I feel the logical fallacy comes into play. You are favoring 1 form of results over another form of results, and its fine if you understand that, but based on some of the things people say, it appears they don't. They believe in the black-and-white world of either a move is good or bad, but it can't be both at the same time. People don't understand "perspective". The problem with applying poker logic to Survivor is that poker at least has a fairly dependable statistical strategy that the pros use to do well in poker, based on mathematical certainties and constant variables. Survivor is WAY more random or luck-based than poker, so the analogy isn't as applicable. Poker is probably 1 of the better analogies, but it's still not a perfect match. The format of Survivor changes from season to season and we do not have a corresponding system for determining what makes a move "good" or "bad" in Survivor. GT is 1 of the few that I know of that tries, but with the newer seasons, it doesn't necessarily even do such a great job from a statistical standpoint or predicting events and results

If it works out, great - it was still a mistake. Great poker players have a mantra: "Don't be results-oriented." It's a huge thing among the best players that just because something worked out doesn't mean it was right, and just because something didn't work out doesn't mean it was wrong. The goal is to make the best possible decisions with the information that you have at that time; whatever happens after is irrelevant.

I think we're having a semantic issue. Great poker players are results-oriented, despite that mantra. They are talking about 1 kind of "results" but ultimately, their plays are based off of different types of results:

(1) Statistics = Rational ideas of what move to make based on basic probabilities and number crunching. These are mathematical RESULTS
(2) Instincts = Often honed by experienced, which guess what--is RESULTS
(3) Social strategy = Bluffing, reading people, etc. also influenced by life experience and mental acuity which, surprise surprise, is RESULTS

So what you have a problem with is the favoring of a short-term result (generalization based off of 1 successful hand) versus long-term ones (generalizations based off many). But, each type of evaluation is based off of results

Obviously, the metaphor doesn't extend fully, because it is much harder to determine what the theoretically "correct" play in a Survivor game is than in a poker game due to the huge number of variables. But the basic point stands: you have to be able to determine what was a mistake or not, and results are not relevant to that. Obviously, there is room for debate over whether something was actually a mistake or not, and that's where the subjectivity of any "best of" list comes in. But basing whether something was a "good move" or not on what the result was is totally backward and makes no logical sense.

Well I already explained it above, but again, it's absolutely not backwards, its actually common sense and completely logical. If you lack a long-term results or theoretical/statistical breakdown of what constitutes good and bad gameplay, than obviously, it's certainly not a bad thing to look at a short-term result and evaluate it based on the result. Does that mean you forsake context? Absolutely not. That is why, contrary to how Kirblar tries to frame it, I do not saying that the ends always justify the means. That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm just saying, I am more dubious when you call a successful move "poor" without some kind of proof or strong argument (which Kirblar never gives), when the short-term results fly right in the face of what you're saying. I don't think that's unreasonable at all

Monkeyhunt. I am very impressed with your thought process. I feel you are 1 of the few who understand my position and are willing to actually listen to what I have to say (or understand it) even if you don't agree. I've never seen you around before until now, and I wish you'd have posted in my thread before and offered your insights

Again: Well, yes. If I think something is a bad move based on the information that was available to a player at the time, then I don't think it matters what the result is. Obviously you have to explain why it was a bad move (or a good one), which is the point I was trying to make, and opinions on that front can and will diverge - but I don't think the results of the move should have any part in the argument except in occasional circumstances (eg. when a move is very close between right or wrong and seems to depend on a specific insight or look into how others are going to respond, in which case what we see as the results can show us whether the decision-maker's thought process was accurate or not).

I agree! That's what I think. The problem I've been having is when I find a case to be ambiguous and someone else thinks its a clear cut case of a bad move, and I'm like: explain, and they say: I don't have to

But the people arguing for not considering results are considering facts - just not the same ones as you. We look at the circumstances of the game at the time the decision was made, how people related to each other, game theoretical considerations, etc. etc. - those are facts as well. And admittedly, they do require more abstract, opinionated thinking than results-oriented thinking, but that doesn't make it inferior.

That's why I gave the disclaimer in my thread that I still could be wrong because facts aren't absolute, and I welcomed discussion even if it disagreed with mine. As long there was some decent logic behind it, I can swallow it. The problem is when an argument is full of holes or so completely against the facts that it becomes a conspiracy theory or a blatantly biased or campaigning for someone's favorite winner. Then, I'm less likely to be amenable to such discussion. It's clear that it's not so much a debate as opposed to a ramming of the same points and assumptions over and over again. I have been clear with my biases, and mine happens to lay more in weighting results. They have served me well in life and in different scenarios including online Survivor games. Others may have more success with their personal instincts or faith-based opinions and that's fine too

You bring up subjectivity like it's a bad thing, when in actuality I think subjective thinking is a better way of looking at Survivor strategy.

Well, I wouldn't say it's "bad," but I'm more leery of subjectivity. Non-fact based arguments tend to revolve around individual biases and preferences for emotional evaluations like favorite winner, specific types of gameplay preferences (i.e. respecting overt game control over a subtle game controller, respecting a player who makes ballsy or risky moves, liking a fun character, etc.). Science and objectivity (or the striving towards it) has produced much more concrete knowledge in the history of mankind, and that's why I favor the methods that resemble academic type epistemology more. Is it flawless or perfect? No. I find it more reliable than the more whimsical and non-fact based assumptions and speculations of the normal everyday person who doesn't really have a broad perspective or sort of haphazardly comes up with conclusions

In terms of subjective thinking being better than objectivity, I flat out disagree on that one. I think it has its place, but I personally just don't think that leads to more realistic knowledge. I've made decisions when I was guided by emotions and subjectivity, and later in life (like now) when its guided more by facts, and for me, I find the latter to be much more accurate and useful to me than my earlier phases when my reality was constructed based on less concrete data. I think my instincts are pretty good, but they have definitely failed me before, and that's why I tend to trust "results" or concrete data more. They have served me much better

Because of the hundreds of thousands of millions of variables and permutations in the game, it is flatly impossible to make any objective judgment of strategy, and subjective arguments, while more abstract, tend to also be more considered, subtle, and useful than whatever objective measurements someone could make.

Can you give me an example? I think subjective ideas can be more interesting or fun to toss around, but they definitely don't seem more accurate to me. Complete objectivity is of course impossible, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it entirely and throw it out the window. I dislike when people use that as a cop-out. It's like saying no one should ever be ethnical, since it's impossible to be perfect or 100% virtuous

The reason focusing on results makes discussion pointless is that every argument can be ended with, "But it worked, so it was a good move," - or, inversely, "It didn't work, so it was a bad move" - which leaves no more room for discussion, as you saw in your thread.

I think there is plenty of room for discussion for the more ambiguous topics. I understand what you're saying though, but what are we supposed to do? Invalidate the facts because they end debate?

As long as it was, and as good as it was, it eventually devolved into everyone repeating the same arguments over and over without getting anywhere.

That's just human nature though. People have set opinions and get attached to their ideas. There are plenty of other topics that could and should get discussed, but people only like to talk about the hot topics. I wish you would participate, since you have an interesting POV, and I feel you've articulated it pretty well. A lot of posters probably take your stance, and I'm annoyed that Kirblar tries to be the mouthpiece for such counter opinions, because he sucks as a representative. He also constantly reduces my ideas into simplistic 1-dimensional soundbytes which are not reflective of my true position

Okay, that paragraph sucked. What I'm trying to say is this: The simple difference in looking at results primarily versus in the moment decisions is itself subjective, and it is subjective on a much more fundamental and broader scale than the differences in opinion on one player's decision at a specific moment in time. It's the difference between arguing over whether Jesus actually existed and arguing over what he meant. If you stop at the discussion as to whether Jesus was real, there is no need to even broach the other subject; if I don't think he was real, why should I even think about what he said? This is not to say that you are only focused on results, simply that, taken to an extreme, that position eliminates any discussion - if a play worked, it was good - and by your own admission that is the driving force behind your opinions.

True. But why do people only feel they can discuss whether a move is "good" or "bad"? Why can't we discuss how a move was good AND bad at the same time. Like you can criticize that a move was potentially bad or not optimal while still recognizing that it worked out and we don't necessarily knock the person who made it. However, why do we have to only decide that a move is ONLY good or ONLY bad? That doesn't seem accurate to me. I favor results, but like I said, it's not the only POV I consider. That's why I say I focus on context just as much as results. Results tends to trump the other types of evaluations for me, but I still consider all the other subjective ones as well and factor those in. Like you and I have both said, all the speculations are subjective to their own extent anyways

But this is itself a matter of opinion. I repeat: Except in rare circumstances where the results reveal important facets in the decision-making process, I don't care about them. The player didn't know for sure how his play was going to work out, so I don't think we should take it into consideration.

I disagree. Why would you blatantly ignore such facts? Technically, no players knows exactly "for sure" how their plays are going to work out until it actually happens. I say you consider it regardless, while still being able to speculate and do your subjective interpretations. However, at the end of the day, don't go overboard and start believing a conspiracy theory constitutes fact. I'm not saying you do that, but a lot of others DEFINITELY do. If they repeat it long enough, they really start to believe it, and then it just gets ridiculous. At the least, facts keep people grounded

A strategic decision in Survivor is, as you acknowledge, made based on available information; if a player's decision flies in the face of what I understand the information to be or applies it incorrectly, then that's all I need. Again, the excecption being if the results make it clear that my understanding of the information was faulty - which is different from the player making a mistake but it not hurting them.

Okay, all this hypothetical and theoretical talk hurts my brain. Maybe we should start using some clear cut specific examples, and go from there so our positions can be more clear. Anyone in particular you have in mind? It seems like you disagree with me from your tone, but what you're actually saying is a lot like how I think

In poker at least you absolutely can, and that's just not arguable except as maybe an issue of semantics. And it is simply because the results of one hand don't matter; or, rather, results in the short term don't matter. They just don't.

"They just don't" is a cop-out answer. If it's a million dollar bet, you can bet that 1 hand matters. I'll take the "wrong move" that wins me a million any day. It's not a "bad move" even if it's economically irrational or wrong from the poker basics perspective and idiotic by most standards. You know I'm right on this. This is definitely a semantic issue, but really "good," "bad," "right," "wrong" are usually and largely defined by results in 1 form or another. That million dollar move cannot ONLY be considered a "bad move". There are too many POVs for that to be the case. Now, if you're talking about best player or best strategist, then I'd say it was an example of a "bad move" by an uneducated player. However, in regards to the Survivor players, we don't have that same backdrop of clear cut standards of what makes for a perfect Survivor strategy in each and every season given that each 1 is an entirely different game than the next

Sure. They care about expected results - what the math and other factors predict should happen - and I'm referring to actual results - what did happen this one time. These are different things, and should not be confused. They are both results, but they tell us very different things and are significant in very different ways (the actual results' significance being basically zero - in the context of poker).

We're on the same page with this. My problem is applying the poker analogy too strictly to Survivor, let alone making broader generalizations of how 1 questionable move means they suck as a player. Again, I think people get way to caught up on "mistakes" and "perfection bias"

I want to say that I feel like this last post of yours has done an excellent job of clarifying your position.

Thank you. I have actually gone in-depth of this topic several times, but you may have missed it. When I posted it, no one really discussed what I read, which tells me they didn't read it, skimmed it, didn't understand it, didn't care about it, or didn't find it interesting or relevant enough to talk about it

I suppose when you're dealing with an an