Stephen's Strategy Blog - It's a ghetto blog, and that's all it is in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Stephen's Strategy Blog - It's a ghetto blog, and that's all it is

Started By

Comment

zapagonged

[-]

Posts: 1896

09/01/11 11:35 AM

TheWizard wrote:
Except remember when Natalie and Ashley had the opportunity to blindside Rob and STILL keep numbers with Andrea but decided they didn't want to bc they didn't like the gross Zapateras or whatever it was? Or didn't want to work with Andrea? Yeah - awesome gameplay. I mean I think it's a fair and true point that Rob played an awesome game, regardless of how mentally deficient his competition was. He probably did a lot of the work in MAKING them not think for themselves. But to argue that they were all actually playing savvy strategic games and he just happened to outfox them all goes against EVERYthing that was shown on television. From my own experience, I know that, for the most part, the TV show is a roughly accurate portrayal of what actually happened. But even giving some editorial intervention, there's no way they could turn the thoughtful strategists you're discussing into the mindless zombies that the cameras picked up.

THE WIZARD HAS SPOKEN.

everyone else stfu.

Advertisement
	Remove this ad /td>

Mariano Man

[-]

Posts: 1158

09/01/11 11:36 AM

TheWizard wrote:
Except remember when Natalie and Ashley had the opportunity to blindside Rob and STILL keep numbers with Andrea but decided they didn't want to bc they didn't like the gross Zapateras or whatever it was? Or didn't want to work with Andrea? Yeah - awesome gameplay. I mean I think it's a fair and true point that Rob played an awesome game, regardless of how mentally deficient his competition was. He probably did a lot of the work in MAKING them not think for themselves. But to argue that they were all actually playing savvy strategic games and he just happened to outfox them all goes against EVERYthing that was shown on television. From my own experience, I know that, for the most part, the TV show is a roughly accurate portrayal of what actually happened. But even giving some editorial intervention, there's no way they could turn the thoughtful strategists you're discussing into the mindless zombies that the cameras picked up.

Rob was spending countless hours with Ash/Nat during the day and cuddling up with them at night. I imagine that the relationships that develop on this type of show can be very intense for a lot of people who are unable to emotionally disconnect and use pure reason to analyze the situation (such as yourself). These young women had to be feeling very emotionally close to Rob by this point (even Andrea called him a big brother) and why exchange one F3 deal with someone you like for another F3 deal with someone you don't care about? to be able to argue that you made a big move? I guess but the truth is most jury's would have awarded Natalie the money over Rob/Phillip and would have given Ashley the money over Rob/Natalie. In fact even with this jury if Ashley won the F4 immunity I think it's very likely she would have won the game.

the truth is people love Rob. Not sure if you remember but it was your GF who said that she hated to see Rob get voted off on HvV bc for some reason you just love him so much you want to see him win. Sounds like something Taj said about JT from your season. Those two have some kind of charm that most people do not possess. Before he got voted off by the villains it was pretty clear that JT was the most popular player on the heroes side.

tango

[-]

Posts: 759

09/01/11 11:55 AM

TheWizard wrote:
Except remember when Natalie and Ashley had the opportunity to blindside Rob and STILL keep numbers with Andrea but decided they didn't want to bc they didn't like the gross Zapateras or whatever it was? Or didn't want to work with Andrea? Yeah - awesome gameplay. I mean I think it's a fair and true point that Rob played an awesome game, regardless of how mentally deficient his competition was. He probably did a lot of the work in MAKING them not think for themselves. But to argue that they were all actually playing savvy strategic games and he just happened to outfox them all goes against EVERYthing that was shown on television. From my own experience, I know that, for the most part, the TV show is a roughly accurate portrayal of what actually happened. But even giving some editorial intervention, there's no way they could turn the thoughtful strategists you're discussing into the mindless zombies that the cameras picked up.

They are not savvy strategic players but they had a legitimate strategy. Why blindside Rob and risk a Zapatera member in the finals ? to make you happy ? to make the game more interesting ?
Natalie believed the jury would be bitter (exactly like ASS, Samoa, HvV), Rob was her male ticket to the final 3 (she should have played a better social game with the Zapatera tho).
Ashley - the same thing, she believed she could beat Rob at the final. was it better for her to sit along side a Zapatera member\Grant\Andrea in front the jury ? her best bet was to beat Rob in the final 4 IC (like she beat him in the past) and take Philip and Natalie.

I agree with Mariano Man, the editors made a poor job - they focused most of their strategy talk (99%) on Rob and ignored everybody else (maybe the endless complain of "undeserving winners" got to them and they decided to show a like-God dominant game, maybe it was Probst fantardam of Rob, who knows).

They could have shown Rob as a ruthless villain (making all the double deals, charming his tribe-mates, playing them, the strong bond he had with each one of them, especially Grant - instead they showed Philip's antics) but he was their favorite, he was their legend, they wanted the fans to root for him, not hate him (FF vote also) so they "fell between the chairs" and made a boring and predictable season

BTW, welcome back, Mariano Man <333

Last Edited By: tango 09/01/11 11:59 AM. Edited 1 times.

TheWizard

[-]

Posts: 1711

09/01/11 12:11 PM

Avocado Assassin

no, obviously the correct strategy was not to take a Zapatera. Don't be ridiculous. But remember, the Zapateras went up and TOLD the girls - "look, we are all voting for Rob. He's the only one doing anything." Now of course, maybe they didn't believe them. Nevertheless, the correct end-game goal was to (1) make a move to oust Rob, thus earning the respect of the Zapateras without any jury enmity, except from Rob, (2) go to the finals with Phillip and one of the other girls who was complicit, but not the prime mover, in the Rob ouster.

Where are you getting that Natalie or Ashley thought the jury would be bitter? Certainly not from anything Natalie said within the game. I mean Natalie's jury speech was basically entirely, "Rob's so awesome" and included nothing along the lines of, "Rob is a jerk and screwed you guys over."

(To head-off any comments about MY jury performance - my strategy WASN'T to get to the end with JT)

Mariano Man

[-]

Posts: 1158

09/01/11 12:16 PM

tango wrote:
TheWizard wrote:
Except remember when Natalie and Ashley had the opportunity to blindside Rob and STILL keep numbers with Andrea but decided they didn't want to bc they didn't like the gross Zapateras or whatever it was? Or didn't want to work with Andrea? Yeah - awesome gameplay. I mean I think it's a fair and true point that Rob played an awesome game, regardless of how mentally deficient his competition was. He probably did a lot of the work in MAKING them not think for themselves. But to argue that they were all actually playing savvy strategic games and he just happened to outfox them all goes against EVERYthing that was shown on television. From my own experience, I know that, for the most part, the TV show is a roughly accurate portrayal of what actually happened. But even giving some editorial intervention, there's no way they could turn the thoughtful strategists you're discussing into the mindless zombies that the cameras picked up.
They are not savvy strategic players but they had a legitimate strategy. Why blindside Rob and risk a Zapatera member in the finals ? to make you happy ? to make the game more interesting ?
Natalie believed the jury would be bitter (exactly like ASS, Samoa, HvV), Rob was her male ticket to the final 3 (she should have played a better social game with the Zapatera tho).
Ashley - the same thing, she believed she could beat Rob at the final. was it better for her to sit along side a Zapatera member\Grant\Andrea in front the jury ? her best bet was to beat Rob in the final 4 IC (like she beat him in the past) and take Philip and Natalie.

I agree with Mariano Man, the editors made a poor job - they focused most of their strategy talk (99%) on Rob and ignored everybody else (maybe the endless complain of "undeserving winners" got to them and they decided to show a like-God dominant game, maybe it was Probst fantardam of Rob, who knows).

They could have shown Rob as a ruthless villain (making all the double deals, charming his tribe-mates, playing them, the strong bond he had with each one of them, especially Grant - instead they showed Philip's antics) but he was their favorite, he was their legend, they wanted the fans to root for him, not hate him (FF vote also) so they "fell between the chairs" and made a boring and predictable season

BTW, welcome back, Mariano Man <333

exactly. They planned to fly UTR, let Rob get the blood on his hands and then win a bitter jury vote. Simple yet often times a successful Survivor strategy.

and thanks Tango/Dora for the welcome back <3

LadyShmady

[-]

Posts: 9811

09/01/11 12:17 PM

There's Something About Shmady

I remember an Ashley confessional where she actually does consider aligning with Nat and Andrea to take out Rob but then (rightly) speculates that Nat would never really vote out Rob and so it wasn't a viable option.

TheWizard

[-]

Posts: 1711

09/01/11 12:18 PM

Avocado Assassin

Mariano Man wrote:
tango wrote:
TheWizard wrote:
Except remember when Natalie and Ashley had the opportunity to blindside Rob and STILL keep numbers with Andrea but decided they didn't want to bc they didn't like the gross Zapateras or whatever it was? Or didn't want to work with Andrea? Yeah - awesome gameplay. I mean I think it's a fair and true point that Rob played an awesome game, regardless of how mentally deficient his competition was. He probably did a lot of the work in MAKING them not think for themselves. But to argue that they were all actually playing savvy strategic games and he just happened to outfox them all goes against EVERYthing that was shown on television. From my own experience, I know that, for the most part, the TV show is a roughly accurate portrayal of what actually happened. But even giving some editorial intervention, there's no way they could turn the thoughtful strategists you're discussing into the mindless zombies that the cameras picked up.
They are not savvy strategic players but they had a legitimate strategy. Why blindside Rob and risk a Zapatera member in the finals ? to make you happy ? to make the game more interesting ?
Natalie believed the jury would be bitter (exactly like ASS, Samoa, HvV), Rob was her male ticket to the final 3 (she should have played a better social game with the Zapatera tho).
Ashley - the same thing, she believed she could beat Rob at the final. was it better for her to sit along side a Zapatera member\Grant\Andrea in front the jury ? her best bet was to beat Rob in the final 4 IC (like she beat him in the past) and take Philip and Natalie.

I agree with Mariano Man, the editors made a poor job - they focused most of their strategy talk (99%) on Rob and ignored everybody else (maybe the endless complain of "undeserving winners" got to them and they decided to show a like-God dominant game, maybe it was Probst fantardam of Rob, who knows).

They could have shown Rob as a ruthless villain (making all the double deals, charming his tribe-mates, playing them, the strong bond he had with each one of them, especially Grant - instead they showed Philip's antics) but he was their favorite, he was their legend, they wanted the fans to root for him, not hate him (FF vote also) so they "fell between the chairs" and made a boring and predictable season

BTW, welcome back, Mariano Man <333

exactly. They planned to fly UTR, let Rob get the blood on his hands and then win a bitter jury vote. Simple yet often times a successful Survivor strategy.

and thanks Tango/Dora for the welcome back <3

you mean this is your ex post facto justification for the way they were playing, without any justification from anything they said or did.

token lunatic

[-]

Posts: 34465

09/01/11 12:32 PM

Registered user

Bold moves only work when everyone is on board. No way in fucking hell Natalie would have ever blind-sided Rob. So there goes your theory down the terlet, Wiz. Sorry.

TOKEN HAS SPOKEN

PS, What are your thoughts about your buddy Coach being on. And is Courtney preggers? I detect a baby growing somewhere.

FistOLegend

[-]

Posts: 2780

09/01/11 12:44 PM

Mariano Man wrote:

Not sure if you remember but it was your GF who said that she hated to see Rob get voted off on HvV bc for some reason you just love him so much you want to see him win.

Yup, if Robs alliance hadn't fallen apart in S20 the Villains would very likely have been the original Ometepe. And that's not necessarily bad strategy. Courtney came close to winning China by playing much like Natalie Tennerelli did. Strategically she should have voted against Todd at F4, but she liked the guy too much.

tango

[-]

Posts: 759

09/01/11 01:29 PM

TheWizard wrote:
no, obviously the correct strategy was not to take a Zapatera. Don't be ridiculous. But remember, the Zapateras went up and TOLD the girls - "look, we are all voting for Rob. He's the only one doing anything." Now of course, maybe they didn't believe them. Nevertheless, the correct end-game goal was to (1) make a move to oust Rob, thus earning the respect of the Zapateras without any jury enmity, except from Rob, (2) go to the finals with Phillip and one of the other girls who was complicit, but not the prime mover, in the Rob ouster.

Where are you getting that Natalie or Ashley thought the jury would be bitter? Certainly not from anything Natalie said within the game. I mean Natalie's jury speech was basically entirely, "Rob's so awesome" and included nothing along the lines of, "Rob is a jerk and screwed you guys over."

(To head-off any comments about MY jury performance - my strategy WASN'T to get to the end with JT)

Natalie said clearly, in her post show interviews that she hoped\expected a bitter jury (If you believe her or not it's a different subject). It doesn't change her horrible FTC performance, no excuse for that.
Ashley said in an extra confessional (not shown on the show) that she believes she could beat Rob in the end and he's a good person to take in front of the jury (he's 4 timer bla bla).

Of course the smart thing to do (for Natashly) was vote out Rob and take Philip to the end but it is easier said than done -Rob had the HII, there was still the returnee from R.I (Matt\Grant\Mike looked like the best possibility) and they needed Rob for the IC.
Their vote for Andrea in the second final 5 was a strange one (they clearly should have voted for Rob even just for "playing"\getting respect from the jury) but they knew he had the HII so maybe they didn't want the lose his support or jury vote (if he would've lost the F-4 IC).

BTW Parvati mistake in HvV was not voting Russell before the final 4 - she must have known Russell was so hated she would earn jury points for that.

Hey Wizard, when you think about it your GF could have been a millionaire, only if they would have voted out Sandra instead of her.....

Advertisement
	Remove this ad

TheWizard

[-]

Posts: 1711

09/01/11 01:59 PM

Avocado Assassin

token lunatic wrote:
Bold moves only work when everyone is on board. No way in fucking hell Natalie would have ever blind-sided Rob. So there goes your theory down the terlet, Wiz. Sorry.

TOKEN HAS SPOKEN

PS, What are your thoughts about your buddy Coach being on. And is Courtney preggers? I detect a baby growing somewhere.

yes but not being able to get people to do what you want them to do is basically the DEFINITION of bad gameplay. Anybody can have an idea to do something, but the men get separated from the boys by who can execute. Anyway, yes, that's my point - Natalie sucked for never being willing to vote Rob out, and the other girls sucked for not being able to convince her, and also for not REALLY wanting Rob out, more than maybe a passing whim that they showed on TV to add a sliver of drama.

Excited to see Coach on TV, as always. I think HvV he went in with too much baggage from Tocantins. If you look at the 3 Tocantins guys, they all sort of spectacularly flamed out-- and I think it was bc the amount of time since the show was basically perfectly wrong. Russell went in IMMEDIATELY after playing Samoa - i.e. primed and in full-on game mode. The Tocantins guys had just enough time to sort of rehabilitate to society but not so much that they could get any perspective on their gameplay. I think a couple years later, Coach is going to be dynamite!

TheWizard

[-]

Posts: 1711

09/01/11 02:00 PM

Avocado Assassin

FistOLegend wrote:
Mariano Man wrote:

Not sure if you remember but it was your GF who said that she hated to see Rob get voted off on HvV bc for some reason you just love him so much you want to see him win.

Yup, if Robs alliance hadn't fallen apart in S20 the Villains would very likely have been the original Ometepe. And that's not necessarily bad strategy. Courtney came close to winning China by playing much like Natalie Tennerelli did. Strategically she should have voted against Todd at F4, but she liked the guy too much.

yeah EXACTLY. Courtney wasn't playing to win, and nobody's here arguing that she secretly WAS playing to win, which is what Mariano Man was doing re: Natalie.

That said, I think Tyson probably would have been a stronger foil for Rob than Grant was - and would have made a move to eliminate him.

TheWizard

[-]

Posts: 1711

09/01/11 02:03 PM

Avocado Assassin

tango wrote:
TheWizard wrote:
no, obviously the correct strategy was not to take a Zapatera. Don't be ridiculous. But remember, the Zapateras went up and TOLD the girls - "look, we are all voting for Rob. He's the only one doing anything." Now of course, maybe they didn't believe them. Nevertheless, the correct end-game goal was to (1) make a move to oust Rob, thus earning the respect of the Zapateras without any jury enmity, except from Rob, (2) go to the finals with Phillip and one of the other girls who was complicit, but not the prime mover, in the Rob ouster.

Where are you getting that Natalie or Ashley thought the jury would be bitter? Certainly not from anything Natalie said within the game. I mean Natalie's jury speech was basically entirely, "Rob's so awesome" and included nothing along the lines of, "Rob is a jerk and screwed you guys over."

(To head-off any comments about MY jury performance - my strategy WASN'T to get to the end with JT)
Natalie said clearly, in her post show interviews that she hoped\expected a bitter jury (If you believe her or not it's a different subject). It doesn't change her horrible FTC performance, no excuse for that.
Ashley said in an extra confessional (not shown on the show) that she believes she could beat Rob in the end and he's a good person to take in front of the jury (he's 4 timer bla bla).

Of course the smart thing to do (for Natashly) was vote out Rob and take Philip to the end but it is easier said than done -Rob had the HII, there was still the returnee from R.I (Matt\Grant\Mike looked like the best possibility) and they needed Rob for the IC.
Their vote for Andrea in the second final 5 was a strange one (they clearly should have voted for Rob even just for "playing"\getting respect from the jury) but they knew he had the HII so maybe they didn't want the lose his support or jury vote (if he would've lost the F-4 IC).

BTW Parvati mistake in HvV was not voting Russell before the final 4 - she must have known Russell was so hated she would earn jury points for that.

Hey Wizard, when you think about it your GF could have been a millionaire, only if they would have voted out Sandra instead of her.....

I know! But obviously the season doesn't play out the same if it's Courtney instead of Sandra. I mean it's very possible that there could have been a 3rd faction with Parv, Courtney, and Amanda - and, who the hell knows, JT? Also Courtney would have had a much better shot in those "being thin and balancing well" ICs than Sandra did. And maybe someone else finds the idol and that whole thing plays out differently. Any tiny thing can switch up everything.

RussellRules

[-]

Posts: 1406

09/01/11 03:26 PM

Why did they vote out Courtney instead of Sandra? Anyone know? I don't think they ever explained it on the show.

Noctivagant

[-]

Posts: 2335

09/01/11 04:15 PM

RussellRules wrote:
Why did they vote out Courtney instead of Sandra? Anyone know? I don't think they ever explained it on the show.

Stephen can still chime in but I believe they voted her out because unlike Sandra, there was a possibility that Courtney could successfully work with the Heroes. She had Amanda and JT(good friends with Stephen who we all know dates Courtney) while at best Sandra had Rupert who according to her, she hadn't spoken to in a while before Heroes vs. Villains. Also it didn't help that it gave Parv another avenue to work with if she wanted to turn her back on her alliance with Russell, Jerri and Danielle as, while Court didn't like those three much, she was pretty okay with P and wouldn't have mind working with her.

I personally don't think voting out Courtney was their worst move and they were caught between a rock and a hard place when deciding between the two.
I mean they were right in that Sandra had very little sway with the other side. I would say Russell's move to vote off Danielle killed that pair more than anything else and then his insistence that Sandra was very much beatable when 'tis wrong.

TheWizard

[-]

Posts: 1711

09/01/11 04:26 PM

Avocado Assassin

That's my understanding as well.

Zesty66

[-]

Posts: 6068

09/01/11 07:10 PM

STFU Fishbitch, you wouldn't know a good player if one took you to the finals with them and beat you unanimously.

Sardonicus

[-]

Posts: 6265

09/01/11 07:21 PM

RussellRules wrote:
Why did they vote out Courtney instead of Sandra? Anyone know? I don't think they ever explained it on the show.

Because Russell quickly and correctly figued that if they kept Courtney around it would have given Parvati all the control in that alliance. Not only would she be heading into the merge with the numbers (Danielle and Courtney as loyal allies) but it would have also opened up the possibility that Amanda would have joined up with them as well leaving poor Russ at the bottom the totem pole with Jerri

redemptionislandsucks

[-]

Posts: 478

09/01/11 09:06 PM

Of course the smart thing to do (for Natashly) was vote out Rob and take Philip to the end but it is easier said than done -Rob had the HII, there was still the returnee from R.I (Matt\Grant\Mike looked like the best possibility) and they needed Rob for the IC.
Their vote for Andrea in the second final 5 was a strange one (they clearly should have voted for Rob even just for "playing"\getting respect from the jury) but they knew he had the HII so maybe they didn't want the lose his support or jury vote (if he would've lost the F-4 IC).

Thats why RI was one of the factors that helped Rob, and is one of many reasons why its a horrible twist.

Mariano Man

[-]

Posts: 1158

09/02/11 07:56 AM

TheWizard wrote:
FistOLegend wrote:
Mariano Man wrote:

Not sure if you remember but it was your GF who said that she hated to see Rob get voted off on HvV bc for some reason you just love him so much you want to see him win.

Yup, if Robs alliance hadn't fallen apart in S20 the Villains would very likely have been the original Ometepe. And that's not necessarily bad strategy. Courtney came close to winning China by playing much like Natalie Tennerelli did. Strategically she should have voted against Todd at F4, but she liked the guy too much.

yeah EXACTLY. Courtney wasn't playing to win, and nobody's here arguing that she secretly WAS playing to win, which is what Mariano Man was doing re: Natalie.

That said, I think Tyson probably would have been a stronger foil for Rob than Grant was - and would have made a move to eliminate him.

I always thought Court was playing to win but was just realistic about her chances and therefore had an apathetic attitude. Why wasn't she playing to win?

I guess that means you were thrilled she got voted out pre merge in HvV because according to you the people who don't make strategic moves are boring and ruin the endgame.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Stephen's Strategy Blog - It's a ghetto blog, and that's all it is