| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
SurvivorSurvey |
|||
|
I'm not saying that I don't care about accuracy I'm just saying in that instant it would not affect the ratings for the vote or the overall
ranking. Please if you find some more like that please bring them to my attention. None of this is set in stone.
|
|||
SurvivorSurvey |
|||
|
Exactly Kirblar that's a good metaphor to use for it. That is why Chris and Sandra are much higher in his list then mine. They made mistakes that should
have been game-ending which is why they don't belong anywere near the top of any winners rankings.
|
|||
RavuRules |
|||
You are right Ravu that ranking systems do focus on differnt things. I think the main difference between our systems is that I look at what happened in the winners game and take it one step at a time. I feel in some of your analysis that you argue they ended up winning so it was the right move. I don't believe in that at all. Why? I think your logic operates under and implicit assumption of what the "right" or optimal move is (like GT) and you count that anything short of that as a "mistake"--correct? However, given that Survivor is an ever shifting game dependent on various luck factors including twists, those kind of assumptions can be damaging and hence, we shouldn't knock winners for making their correct moves in that particular context even if it was lucky. You don't have to give them extra credit, but it doesn't make sense to call their move a "mistake" if it won them the game or advanced their position While my system does not focus on luck as nearly as much as your's does it does analyse how players you were given luck or an oppurtunity played it out. Except for analysing Amber's game I don't look at how the other winners performed in All Stars. Okay. I think that is indeed where we disagree. Thanks for addressing that evaluation difference
I find that illogical. We were able to gleam the extent and limits of their abilities from watching their gameplay in that season regardless of a victory or a loss. In terms of not having a chance to win, that is not what led to Tina and Hatch's lower ranking at all. In fact, against popular misconception Ethan's ranking was raised by All-Stars since he proved that he could do decently without riding the coattails of a male alliance
You could say the same about Tina though It's why his "analysis" isn't that at all. A poker player in a heads up match who calls an all-in bet on the first hand with 2/7 off is not a good player and did not make a good move. They made a bad move and got rewarded for it because they lucked out.Exactly Kirblar that's a good metaphor to use for it. Absolutely not. That is a horrible metaphor. I already explained why it was wrong in my thread, and he never responded to it, because he knows he's wrong. As I said before, in your analogy, the poker player who wins with the 2/7 made a "bad move" in terms of rational statistical calculations, but because he did manage his luck, you can't say he made the "wrong move". If it really was "bad" then I'll take a billion such "bad moves" that lead to victories any day over "good moves" which fail due to bad luck. "It's better lucky than good". No one is saying that poker player is a better player or smarter player than the others who lost that round, but you can't say he made a "bad move" in that particular instance Who defines what a "bad move" is? Doesn't results show us when a person made a good move or bad move based on victory? You guys are basing your ideas of what constitutes "good move" and "mistake" on a similar type of criteria. You have constructed a set of informal Survivor laws and set of movements that tend to result in better odds based on the results of the early Survivor seasons. Where my issue with the system is that it has largely become invalidated by the results which demonstrate that the Survivor winners are definitely produced by certain luck factors (though you may not like that fact) and also optimal moves that aren't appreciated or recognized by GT enthusiasts For example, let's take Sandra. You might say she is a bad winner, because she didn't take overt control and had to rely on Lill to bring her to F2. However, if she didn't make that "mistake" and did try to take overt control in that situation, I think it's fair to assume and speculate that she probably wouldn't have won. If she loses by doing that "optimal move" as proposed by GT, we're supposed to commend her for losing? We're supposed to knock her for making a move that led to her victory and call that "bad" because in other cases that aren't Pearl Islands, those would be the right move? That's completely illogical. Results or scientific facts (i.e. a victory instead of a loss) should be our compass, not this religious faith-based idea of what constitutes good gameplay on Survivor. You can't evaluate Sandra and Chris's performance based on Outback or Africa optimal strategy. You have to evaluate them based on Pearl Islands and Vanuatu strategy, and in those seasons, what they did was near-optimal, hence their victories. Also, it doesn't make sense to lower Chris or Sandra's ranking, because they got lucky because ALL the winners were lucky. And Sandra and Chris were hardly the luckiest ones That is why Chris and Sandra are much higher in his list then mine. They made mistakes that should have been game-ending which is why they don't belong anywere near the top of any winners rankings. What were their "mistakes"? I can point to every winner who made potentially "game ending" mistakes including Tina who left the door open for a Kucha/Amber comeback after ousting Jerri before all the Kucha were marginalized. To apply Kirblar's criticism and POV, one could say Tina "lucked out" just like Sandra and Chris, and relied on the luck of having competitors not being as intense or cutthroat as the other seasons. She had no real competition to go against. No Fairplays, Rob Mariano, Dreamz--heck even Katie or Sundra's to go up against. If you're factoring in competitive level as you say you are, your ranking doesn't make sense to me, and I'd like you to explain how you incorporated this in your evaluation so I can see what you see |
|||
Kirblar |
|||
but because he did manage his luck, you can't say he made the "wrong move". If it really was "bad" then I'll take a billion such "bad moves" that lead to victories any day over "good moves" which fail due to bad luck. "It's better lucky than good". No one is saying that poker player is a better player or smarter player than the others who lost that round, but you can't say he made a "bad move" in that particular instanceOMG. Yes, because we're all the Scarlet Witch and have the ability to manipulate probability and have the ability to "manage luck". You understand nothing. |
|||
RavuRules |
|||
OMG. I don't know if the guy in your example went all in because he was: (1) a total idiot; which I guess would be what you meant (2) taking a calculated risk, because he's sized up all the opponents at his table and felt it was the optimal play given those conditions despite the bad hand looking at things from a raw numbers POV (3) bluffing Apparently, even if he's the idiot, he's the idiot who won that hand, so he didn't make the "wrong" move. The optimal move for that particular scenario in retrospect is clearly what he did, assuming someone called him. Then, he won the maximum amount of money for that particular hand. You can't say that was a "bad move". You could say, "Normally, that'd be a bad move". You could say, "I regularly would not advise you do what this guy did". But you can't say, "You made a bad move winning that hand and eliminating the other player(s) while taking all his chips". To use your own words: "You understand nothing" Do we say the guy got lucky? Absolutely and obviously. So I'm not going, OMG, this guy made the winning move, I'm ranking him higher than other people who made less risky winning moves. I'm just not going, "I'm going to rank him low because he made a move that is usually a mistake in other contexts, and I feel like applying Outback standards on Vanuatu, because I have this idea that all the seasons are the same and there is 1 best way to play the game, even though the data clearly shows there are multiple way and methods of doing well in Survivor". So until you grasp this idea of inherent format luck and throw your simplistic10-year old ideas of what constitutes real and fair Survivor with supposedly equal opportunities STFU |
|||
Kirblar |
|||
so he didn't make the "wrong" move. The optimal move for that particular scenario in retrospect is clearly what he did, assuming someone called him. Then, he won the maximum amount of money for that particular hand. You can't say that was a "bad move". You could say, "Normally, that'd be a bad move". You could say, "I regularly would not advise you do what this guy did". But you can't say, "You made a bad move winning that hand and eliminating the other player(s) while taking all his chips". To use your own words:ROFL. You are such a fucking joke. It's the wrong move, a bad move, and terrible play. It's a heads up match, the first hand and they have equal chips. Just because he won does not justify the move. That's why I don't try and debate you, it's like debating a hardcore scientologist on whether Xenu exists. I simply point out that you're a moron with faulty logic and reasoning because there's no point in getting into a debate with someone who doesn't understand basic game principles like "Bad move with accidental good outcome still = bad move." |
|||
RavuRules |
|||
It's the wrong move, a bad move, and terrible play. It's a heads up match, the first hand and they have equal chips. Just because he won does not justify the move. That's why I don't try and debate you, it's like debating a hardcore scientologist on whether Xenu exists. I simply point out that you're a moron with faulty logic and reasoning because there's no point in getting into a debate with someone who doesn't understand basic game principles like "Bad move with accidental good outcome still = bad move." Too bad you don't argue with sound logic, because you're using a self-fulfilling or redundant logical sentence: Bad move + Accidental good outcome = Bad move You've already defined the move as bad from the start, so lo and behold 1 + 0 = 1 You're the fucking douche for not explaining how it's a "bad move". What constitutes a bad move? Results dumbass. Losing. Winning = good and losing = bad. I shouldn't have to explain this What I'm saying is: Bad move based on statistics + Good outcome based on luck = Good move based on luck and results/bad move based on statistics So yes, we can say it's a "bad move" in the sense of not advising people to make that same type of move in any and all circumstances, but no we wouldn't say it's a bad move in that we'd advise that person to do that same move in the exact same circumstance they were in with the same good luck, because obviously, it ended up with a good result. In other words, it is BOTH a good move and a bad move at the same time (I know, that must boggle your little black-and-white ideas of how the world works), depending on what particular perspective you want to adopt. From a results perspective (which DEFINES what a winner is), then it makes sense to call those winning moves "good". Yeah, you can say the move was bad based on what normally you might do or based on whether Vanuatu or Pearl Islands were more like Outback or Africa. But that's a stupid analogy and the statistical cut and paste method which you so criticize. Why should we be evaluating Sandra and Chris based on the optimal strategy for previous seasons and making less relevant generalizations of what usually constitutes good gameplay when we should be evaluating them based on their specific context and what would best lead to a victory on their season based on that format and luck factors? Unlike poker, there is no specific set of rules that help define good statistical strategy. Survivor seasons are all different, so there are less constants and more variables and luck, which is why I criticize GT, which largely operates under the implict assumption that each season of Survivor and each winner has played under the same exact conditions and non-social situations. I mean, if you have the Bible on what makes a "good move" or "bad move" in Survivor, by all means share. Until then, you're just talking smack and not contributing at all to any worthwhile discussion. You just take mean-spirited jabs and then take the whole, "I'm so right, I don't even have to argue with you" stance, which anyone can see through. Obviously you're just bitching, because I've never seen a kirblar win a Survivor nor have I even heard of him winning a simulation like an online Survivor game while I have. So excuse me if I doubt your credibility and grasp on Survivor strategy And by the way, no winner on Survivor has made a move anywhere near as bad as your analogy, and that's why it sucks
Last Edited By: RavuRules
10/23/07 10:07 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
panurge46 wrote: Therefore, she made a mistake by thinking emotionally. I dont think Danielle would of held a grudge against her, there is no evidence that she ever held a grudge except for perhaps Bobby(which is more likely frustration/annoyance). Aras should be given benifit of the doubt that he planned to keep Cirie from getting Shanes vote |
|||
Monkeyhunt |
|||
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
|||
RavuRules |
|||
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
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 |
|||
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.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'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 whateverBut 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 proposingBut 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. 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. 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.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. I understand what you are saying with regards to Survivor being only short term decisions and results, and obviously poker is not a perfect metaphor, although for theoretical ways to discuss strategy, it works pretty well. I'll get to that in a minute. 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: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). I want to say that I feel like this last post of yours has done an excellent job of clarifying your position. I suppose when you're dealing with an antagonistic opponent (like Kirblar), it is harder to make yourself understood since the argument inevitably becomes emotional. I do understand where you are coming from, and I guess I even agree on some theoretical level, if not in application. There is no "long term" in Survivor, since each season does have very different circumstances (which is why when I rank winners/players I don't do it based on their actual strategic performance but rather what I see as their ability to think through different circumstances strategically, which is of course harder and more subjective). There is no single "perfect" Survivor strategy, although I feel that there are things players can do to maximize their expectation in any given season. I think we just differ on what should take precedence in judging an individual move's strategic value - you think (and please, if I'm off-base, tell me) that results come first because that's the only thing we can know with 100% certainty: what happened. I would prefer to go by what we know with 80%, 90%, 95% certainty, because if we're really trying to discuss strategy, the power luck has over the game needs to be minimized as much as possible, and I feel like the actual results are too tainted by that - they are, to at least some degree, independent of the quality of the decision - to be the driving aspect. If I'm not sure about a decision, or if I feel what I know is simply too unsure to make a confident statement, I'll look at results; I'm willing to acknowledge that my information is imperfect, and that a player's information, while still imperfect, is probably better than mine - that there was a reason for the actual results and the expected results to converge that the player knew that I couldn't. If I'm confident that the expected result and actual result are different, however, than the actual result is nigh-meaningless to me. Shit. I must really like to hear myself talk. |
|||
SurvivorSurvey |
|||
Why?
No you obviously do not understand the situation. In many cases there are more than one moves that would be considered correct. You don't always have to make the optimal move in my system. The thing you don't seem to understand is for different parts of the game the voting criteria is different. Once a twist occurs the voting criteria changes as it does once you hit the merge.
I find that illogical. We were able to gleam the extent and limits of their abilities from watching their gameplay in that season regardless of a victory or a loss. In terms of not having a chance to win, that is not what led to Tina and Hatch's lower ranking at all. In fact, against popular misconception Ethan's ranking was raised by All-Stars since he proved that he could do decently without riding the coattails of a male alliance
Tina final score was affected by this but she still remained on top. I would argue that the Australia cast was just as strong as the Cook Islands cast if not stronger.
Absolutely not. That is a horrible metaphor. I already explained why it was wrong in my thread, and he never responded to it, because he knows he's wrong. As I said before, in your analogy, the poker player who wins with the 2/7 made a "bad move" in terms of rational statistical calculations, but because he did manage his luck, you can't say he made the "wrong move". If it really was "bad" then I'll take a billion such "bad moves" that lead to victories any day over "good moves" which fail due to bad luck. "It's better lucky than good". No one is saying that poker player is a better player or smarter player than the others who lost that round, but you can't say he made a "bad move" in that particular instance
Using your logic if my team is leading by 2 points in a basketball game with 10 seconds remaining and my team has the ball and I shoot and miss but the other team don't score that is a good move. It is a horrible move I just got lucky that my opposition wasn't good enough to capitalise on it.
How can you say that Chris and Sandra didn't make mistakes? Voting out Tijuana at final 7 was a terrible move for Sandra but because of equal terrible play by her opposition later on she got back in the game. However, that does not stop the fact that the move was a terrible one. It did nothing to improve her game position when voting out Fairplay or Burton would have. Just because it ended up working for you doesn't make it a good move. That's the flaw in your system.
Chris move, of voting out John K, was a mistake in the context of any game. That move ended every
other man's game except for Chris who lucked out. He did nothing to earn his spot in the end-game their and if it wasn't for Scout and Twila he would
have been sitting on the jury. Chris played a horrible strategic game and how you can have him 4th you have really never explained.
Now I'm not like Kirblar and I think that your system does have some excellent points and some value but there are still many flaws in it which I think makes my system better. |
|||
SurvivorSurvey |
|||
RavuRules wrote: But moves made by Ethan, Sandra and Chris should have been game-ending. A move is a mistake when it lessens your chances of winning the game significantly and thats what Ethan, Sandra and Chris did. |
|||
Kirblar |
|||
|
Gotta jump in on the John K. thing. That actually wasn't a fuck-up. John would have flipped to the women at the merge for sure because he would have never
accepted a 5th wheel slot with the guys and risked a purple rock, while they still had a glimmer of hope that Twila/Julie would stick with them.
The Lopevi dynamics ensured that once they went into the swap undermanned, they were almost assuredly going to be playing out of a minority situation. Look at how Julie managed to get back into the majority with the women after the swap. There was no chance of something like that happening with John K and the older men. I don't think Chris was one of the strongest winners, but he was playing decently out of a really bad situation, unlike Sandra and Ethan, who made absolutely terrible play errors while they had control of the game.
Last Edited By: Kirblar
10/23/07 7:15 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Sandra's move might not have been TOO bad, given that it singled Darrah out, leaving her as a free agent, left Burton and Jon around to keep making asses
of themselves to Lill, and led to Christa going home, which was the last obstacle in Sandra's path.
|
|||
RavuRules |
|||
|
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
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
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?
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
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
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"
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
| |||