Is it good strategy to play both sides? in Lions, Tigers, Survivors

0 Points

Is it good strategy to play both sides?

Started By	Comment
redemptionwhore	Is it good strategy to play both sides?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 260 05/12/12 12:25 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I was watching random survivor clips on youtube and I saw one of Chris talking about how he was playing both sides. I haven't seen all of the seasons but a couple of other winners did this to. Sandra,J.T,Aras,Parvati, Sophie(within Upolu) and if Kim wins which it looks like she will she played both sides.Is this good strategy?It can make you look like a mastermind or hated by the jury.
	Remove this ad
white lancer		#1	[-]
Posts: 2288 05/12/12 12:38 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	It depends on the season/jury, really. If it's a jury that's more inclined to put personal feelings aside and vote for someone whose gameplay they respect, then playing both sides is a good move as long as you don't get caught. If the people on the jury tend to be more emotional, then playing both sides is only good if you'll get voted out otherwise.
HammerF27		#2	[-]
Posts: 286 05/12/12 12:54 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	It is great to be a potential swing vote at F7 because it pretty much guarantees you to make F4 in most cases. I think a great example of this is Sash in Nicaragua as he positioned himself at F7 to get to FTC in almost every scenario and made the correct decision going with Chase and Holly, because Jane would eventually be an auto-boot. If all the shit with Jane hadn't gone down, I think Sash likely could have won and would have played a near optimal game in the process.
Tehui		#3	[-]
Posts: 1098 05/12/12 01:06 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yes, it is a good strategy to play both sides. But winning will ultimately come down to who the other finalists standing next to you are, and the thoughts & feelings of the jury.
HammerF27		#4	[-]
Posts: 286 05/12/12 01:11 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Tehui wrote: Yes, it is a good strategy to play both sides. But winning will ultimately come down to who the other finalists standing next to you are, and the thoughts & feelings of the jury. Captain Fucking Obvious.
nemo78		#5	[-]
Posts: 515 05/12/12 01:24 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	It is a good strategy if you just are able to lie your way out of it like Chris did.
TigerTurk		#6	[-]
Posts: 2505 05/12/12 01:35 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	HammerF27 wrote: It is great to be a potential swing vote at F7 because it pretty much guarantees you to make F4 in most cases. I think a great example of this is Sash in Nicaragua as he positioned himself at F7 to get to FTC in almost every scenario and made the correct decision going with Chase and Holly, because Jane would eventually be an auto-boot. If all the shit with Jane hadn't gone down, I think Sash likely could have won and would have played a near optimal game in the process. Captain Fucking Obvious.
GSWblue		#7	[-]
Posts: 325 05/12/12 02:49 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	redemptionwhore wrote: I was watching random survivor clips on youtube and I saw one of Chris talking about how he was playing both sides. I haven't seen all of the seasons but a couple of other winners did this to. Sandra,J.T,Aras,Parvati, Sophie(within Upolu) and if Kim wins which it looks like she will she played both sides.Is this good strategy?It can make you look like a mastermind or hated by the jury. When did Aras play both sides? He never proposed an alliance with Austin/Nick after the first tribe shakeup. I don't count anything before the first shakeup because it was for such a short time and never tested in an actual vote, plus Austin/Nick were clearly with Terry coming into the merge and had no expectations of Aras being with them as they both clearly stated they knew they were outnumbered. Also, Aras certainly never had anything going alliancewise with Terry or Sally. Then in the endgame, he/Cirie/Danielle controlled the vote for two rounds and his loyalty was ultimately to Cirie. The only unusual circumstance for Aras was his vote for Bruce during the Bobby boot, and Aras based his vote simply on his dislike of Bruce/belief that Bruce was the weakest; he didn't promise one side his vote and then back out to cause a surprise. I see no playing both sides in any of his game. All the others I get - Sandra working with Rupert/Christa, then Jon/Burton to get T and Jon to get Darrah; Sandra obviously being willing to vote with the Heroes if not for Candice; J.T. using Coach/Tyson to get Brendan and Stephen/Erinn to get Taj; Parvati booting Eliza with Ozzy but then using her Alexis/Natalie connections to get Ozzy; Sophie working closely with Albert and Coach throughout the game but also undermining Albert by revealing his deviousness to Brandon; and Kim promising a side alliance to Jay/Troyzan but ultimately backing out of it.
Tehui		#8	[-]
Posts: 1098 05/12/12 03:21 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	HammerF27 wrote: It is great to be a potential swing vote at F7 because it pretty much guarantees you to make F4 in most cases. I think a great example of this is Sash in Nicaragua as he positioned himself at F7 to get to FTC in almost every scenario and made the correct decision going with Chase and Holly, because Jane would eventually be an auto-boot. If all the shit with Jane hadn't gone down, I think Sash likely could have won and would have played a near optimal game in the process. You think?
	Remove this ad
HammerF27		#9	[-]
Posts: 286 05/12/12 03:27 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	GSWblue wrote: redemptionwhore wrote: I was watching random survivor clips on youtube and I saw one of Chris talking about how he was playing both sides. I haven't seen all of the seasons but a couple of other winners did this to. Sandra,J.T,Aras,Parvati, Sophie(within Upolu) and if Kim wins which it looks like she will she played both sides.Is this good strategy?It can make you look like a mastermind or hated by the jury. When did Aras play both sides? He never proposed an alliance with Austin/Nick after the first tribe shakeup. I don't count anything before the first shakeup because it was for such a short time and never tested in an actual vote, plus Austin/Nick were clearly with Terry coming into the merge and had no expectations of Aras being with them as they both clearly stated they knew they were outnumbered. Also, Aras certainly never had anything going alliancewise with Terry or Sally. Then in the endgame, he/Cirie/Danielle controlled the vote for two rounds and his loyalty was ultimately to Cirie. The only unusual circumstance for Aras was his vote for Bruce during the Bobby boot, and Aras based his vote simply on his dislike of Bruce/belief that Bruce was the weakest; he didn't promise one side his vote and then back out to cause a surprise. I see no playing both sides in any of his game. All the others I get - Sandra working with Rupert/Christa, then Jon/Burton to get T and Jon to get Darrah; Sandra obviously being willing to vote with the Heroes if not for Candice; J.T. using Coach/Tyson to get Brendan and Stephen/Erinn to get Taj; Parvati booting Eliza with Ozzy but then using her Alexis/Natalie connections to get Ozzy; Sophie working closely with Albert and Coach throughout the game but also undermining Albert by revealing his deviousness to Brandon; and Kim promising a side alliance to Jay/Troyzan but ultimately backing out of it. What the fuck are you talking about? J.T. didn't play both sides in either of those situations in Tocantins. The point on J.T. playing both sides is in reference to the Heroes tribe where he had himself set up as the swing vote for the Cirie boot.
satnaam		#10	[-]
Posts: 5049 05/12/12 03:41 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	HammerF27 wrote: GSWblue wrote: redemptionwhore wrote: I was watching random survivor clips on youtube and I saw one of Chris talking about how he was playing both sides. I haven't seen all of the seasons but a couple of other winners did this to. Sandra,J.T,Aras,Parvati, Sophie(within Upolu) and if Kim wins which it looks like she will she played both sides.Is this good strategy?It can make you look like a mastermind or hated by the jury. When did Aras play both sides? He never proposed an alliance with Austin/Nick after the first tribe shakeup. I don't count anything before the first shakeup because it was for such a short time and never tested in an actual vote, plus Austin/Nick were clearly with Terry coming into the merge and had no expectations of Aras being with them as they both clearly stated they knew they were outnumbered. Also, Aras certainly never had anything going alliancewise with Terry or Sally. Then in the endgame, he/Cirie/Danielle controlled the vote for two rounds and his loyalty was ultimately to Cirie. The only unusual circumstance for Aras was his vote for Bruce during the Bobby boot, and Aras based his vote simply on his dislike of Bruce/belief that Bruce was the weakest; he didn't promise one side his vote and then back out to cause a surprise. I see no playing both sides in any of his game. All the others I get - Sandra working with Rupert/Christa, then Jon/Burton to get T and Jon to get Darrah; Sandra obviously being willing to vote with the Heroes if not for Candice; J.T. using Coach/Tyson to get Brendan and Stephen/Erinn to get Taj; Parvati booting Eliza with Ozzy but then using her Alexis/Natalie connections to get Ozzy; Sophie working closely with Albert and Coach throughout the game but also undermining Albert by revealing his deviousness to Brandon; and Kim promising a side alliance to Jay/Troyzan but ultimately backing out of it. What the fuck are you talking about? J.T. didn't play both sides in either of those situations in Tocantins. The point on J.T. playing both sides is in reference to the Heroes tribe where he had himself set up as the swing vote for the Cirie boot. Well you are right, JT didn't play both sides to get out Taj...but he did use Coach/Tyson to get out Brendan/Sierra and then used Erinn to get out Coach and Tyson so in that sense he did play both sides using Erinn to help (using one side to get rid of the "Dragon" and then getting rid of the "Slayer" shortly thereafter).
HammerF27		#11	[-]
Posts: 286 05/12/12 04:01 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	satnaam wrote: HammerF27 wrote: GSWblue wrote: When did Aras play both sides? He never proposed an alliance with Austin/Nick after the first tribe shakeup. I don't count anything before the first shakeup because it was for such a short time and never tested in an actual vote, plus Austin/Nick were clearly with Terry coming into the merge and had no expectations of Aras being with them as they both clearly stated they knew they were outnumbered. Also, Aras certainly never had anything going alliancewise with Terry or Sally. Then in the endgame, he/Cirie/Danielle controlled the vote for two rounds and his loyalty was ultimately to Cirie. The only unusual circumstance for Aras was his vote for Bruce during the Bobby boot, and Aras based his vote simply on his dislike of Bruce/belief that Bruce was the weakest; he didn't promise one side his vote and then back out to cause a surprise. I see no playing both sides in any of his game. All the others I get - Sandra working with Rupert/Christa, then Jon/Burton to get T and Jon to get Darrah; Sandra obviously being willing to vote with the Heroes if not for Candice; J.T. using Coach/Tyson to get Brendan and Stephen/Erinn to get Taj; Parvati booting Eliza with Ozzy but then using her Alexis/Natalie connections to get Ozzy; Sophie working closely with Albert and Coach throughout the game but also undermining Albert by revealing his deviousness to Brandon; and Kim promising a side alliance to Jay/Troyzan but ultimately backing out of it. What the fuck are you talking about? J.T. didn't play both sides in either of those situations in Tocantins. The point on J.T. playing both sides is in reference to the Heroes tribe where he had himself set up as the swing vote for the Cirie boot. Well you are right, JT didn't play both sides to get out Taj...but he did use Coach/Tyson to get out Brendan/Sierra and then used Erinn to get out Coach and Tyson so in that sense he did play both sides using Erinn to help (using one side to get rid of the "Dragon" and then getting rid of the "Slayer" shortly thereafter). Everyone split votes between Brendan/Sierra so to give J.T. the credit for that move is a bit much. Coach and Tyson were more than willing to make that boot. I have a hard time giving JT the credit for flipping Erinn to their side, seeing as how Erinn had her closest ties to Stephen and they both had their endgames set up with each other in them. In general, I can't really give J.T. much credit strategically with many of his boots in Tocantins. He is certainly a great player, especially socially, but he needed three fucking immunities to make it to the end so if you are going to credit him with playing both sides in that game, he sure did a shit job at doing so.
satnaam		#12	[-]
Posts: 5049 05/12/12 04:10 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	HammerF27 wrote: satnaam wrote: HammerF27 wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? J.T. didn't play both sides in either of those situations in Tocantins. The point on J.T. playing both sides is in reference to the Heroes tribe where he had himself set up as the swing vote for the Cirie boot. Well you are right, JT didn't play both sides to get out Taj...but he did use Coach/Tyson to get out Brendan/Sierra and then used Erinn to get out Coach and Tyson so in that sense he did play both sides using Erinn to help (using one side to get rid of the "Dragon" and then getting rid of the "Slayer" shortly thereafter). Everyone split votes between Brendan/Sierra so to give J.T. the credit for that move is a bit much. Coach and Tyson were more than willing to make that boot. I have a hard time giving JT the credit for flipping Erinn to their side, seeing as how Erinn had her closest ties to Stephen and they both had their endgames set up with each other in them. In general, I can't really give J.T. much credit strategically with many of his boots in Tocantins. He is certainly a great player, especially socially, but he needed three fucking immunities to make it to the end so if you are going to credit him with playing both sides in that game, he sure did a shit job at doing so. agreed, Timbira was so fractured it was easy for JT/Stephen/Taj to get in the cracks...and Stephen was doing the heavy lifting strategy wise, but regardless if Stephen dragged him there or he did it himself, he was a part of playing two factions of one tribe against each other. Stephen certainly was the strategic mastermind in that pairing, but JT wasn't absent from that process and clearly gave a lot of input. A big reason for JT's immunity string though was that he was up against the likes of Stephen, Taj, Erinn and Coach...which was a part of his strategy (get rid of Tyson and Brendan and their alliances)
GSWblue		#13	[-]
Posts: 325 05/12/12 04:41 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	HammerF27 wrote: satnaam wrote: HammerF27 wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? J.T. didn't play both sides in either of those situations in Tocantins. The point on J.T. playing both sides is in reference to the Heroes tribe where he had himself set up as the swing vote for the Cirie boot. Well you are right, JT didn't play both sides to get out Taj...but he did use Coach/Tyson to get out Brendan/Sierra and then used Erinn to get out Coach and Tyson so in that sense he did play both sides using Erinn to help (using one side to get rid of the "Dragon" and then getting rid of the "Slayer" shortly thereafter). Everyone split votes between Brendan/Sierra so to give J.T. the credit for that move is a bit much. Coach and Tyson were more than willing to make that boot. I have a hard time giving JT the credit for flipping Erinn to their side, seeing as how Erinn had her closest ties to Stephen and they both had their endgames set up with each other in them. In general, I can't really give J.T. much credit strategically with many of his boots in Tocantins. He is certainly a great player, especially socially, but he needed three fucking immunities to make it to the end so if you are going to credit him with playing both sides in that game, he sure did a shit job at doing so. No need to get nasty hammer; I agree that J.T.'s playing both sides is hard to really pinpoint, because everyone who made the jury or later, sans Stephen and Erinn, made multiple irrational decisions and let J.T. cruise to the end. People point to J.T.'s "charisma" as being his most key attribute that led him to make the end, but in reality, it was far more the failure of Timbira to get along (stemming from their leadership conflict right from the get-go) that let J.T. win, rather than J.T. doing a lot on his own to get it - as J.T. himself said in a confessional, people trusted him for no reason even after he proved untrustworthy, most notably Coach/Debbie after the Tyson boot. And I agree that J.T. has strong social skills - his handling of the FTC was certainly excellent - but I think he lacks what it would take to get to the end every time. Some combination of poor strategy a la HvV and rational people realizing the need to pick him off before he could go on an immunity run would do him in (he's clearly beatable in a number of challenges, as Tyson (2x), Danielle and Candice all have head-to-head wins against him.) I doubt that many people will agree with this, but I think that any male contestant who seemed strong, showed challenge prowess pre-merge and was otherwise relatively unobjectionable (contestants from other seasons like Colby, Ethan, maybe Bobby Jon, Brandon from Kansas in Guatemala, maybe even Palau Tom Westman despite being slightly older than the others I listed) could have gotten to the same place as J.T. did at F5, simply by agreeing with Coach that he (the stand-in contestant) was a warrior and that Brandon was a dragon who needed to be slain. And yes, maybe some of the other contestants I listed wouldn't have been able to sweep the final three immunities, but they'd all have a shot. To me, J.T. will always be a strong winner, but certainly not the best ever.
redemptionwhore		#14	[-]
Posts: 260 05/13/12 01:50 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	HammerF27 wrote: GSWblue wrote: redemptionwhore wrote: I was watching random survivor clips on youtube and I saw one of Chris talking about how he was playing both sides. I haven't seen all of the seasons but a couple of other winners did this to. Sandra,J.T,Aras,Parvati, Sophie(within Upolu) and if Kim wins which it looks like she will she played both sides.Is this good strategy?It can make you look like a mastermind or hated by the jury. When did Aras play both sides? He never proposed an alliance with Austin/Nick after the first tribe shakeup. I don't count anything before the first shakeup because it was for such a short time and never tested in an actual vote, plus Austin/Nick were clearly with Terry coming into the merge and had no expectations of Aras being with them as they both clearly stated they knew they were outnumbered. Also, Aras certainly never had anything going alliancewise with Terry or Sally. Then in the endgame, he/Cirie/Danielle controlled the vote for two rounds and his loyalty was ultimately to Cirie. The only unusual circumstance for Aras was his vote for Bruce during the Bobby boot, and Aras based his vote simply on his dislike of Bruce/belief that Bruce was the weakest; he didn't promise one side his vote and then back out to cause a surprise. I see no playing both sides in any of his game. All the others I get - Sandra working with Rupert/Christa, then Jon/Burton to get T and Jon to get Darrah; Sandra obviously being willing to vote with the Heroes if not for Candice; J.T. using Coach/Tyson to get Brendan and Stephen/Erinn to get Taj; Parvati booting Eliza with Ozzy but then using her Alexis/Natalie connections to get Ozzy; Sophie working closely with Albert and Coach throughout the game but also undermining Albert by revealing his deviousness to Brandon; and Kim promising a side alliance to Jay/Troyzan but ultimately backing out of it. What the fuck are you talking about? J.T. didn't play both sides in either of those situations in Tocantins. The point on J.T. playing both sides is in reference to the Heroes tribe where he had himself set up as the swing vote for the Cirie boot. No I was talking about in Tocantins when he pretty much had everyone talk to him about strategy.
GSWblue		#15	[-]
Posts: 325 05/14/12 02:41 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I don't think having everyone talk to you about strategy makes you someone who played both sides, because except in rigid situations like "the buddy system," people will toss out strategic ideas to just about everyone else all the time, just to see if they other person will bite or think of something they didn't (like Kim and Chelsea discussing booting Sabrina with Kat even though they ultimately decided not to). To me, if you played both sides, you either: A) Knowingly worked with survivors that were not on your original tribe to get rid of other survivors who were not on your original tribe (e.g. original Foa Foa Russell using original Galu Shambo to axe original Galu Laura); OR B) Made an alliance with survivors (let's call them A and B) that were not on your original tribe that A and B truly believed in, whether you honor that alliance for a vote (Parvati with Alexis/Natalie to get Ozzy) or not (Kim with Jay/Troyzan); OR C) When there are two suballiances/known pairs within a larger alliance all on your tribe, you have have both suballiances/known pairs truly believing you will vote with them, and/or you pit the two suballiances/known pairs against each other to cause tension which successfully takes a target off your back or otherwise helps you I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Aras in post 7. I don't think he played both sides, but I'd be willing to listen to an argument about why someone thinks he did.
redemptionwhore		#16	[-]
Posts: 260 05/14/12 04:24 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	GSWblue wrote: I don't think having everyone talk to you about strategy makes you someone who played both sides, because except in rigid situations like "the buddy system," people will toss out strategic ideas to just about everyone else all the time, just to see if they other person will bite or think of something they didn't (like Kim and Chelsea discussing booting Sabrina with Kat even though they ultimately decided not to). To me, if you played both sides, you either: A) Knowingly worked with survivors that were not on your original tribe to get rid of other survivors who were not on your original tribe (e.g. original Foa Foa Russell using original Galu Shambo to axe original Galu Laura); OR B) Made an alliance with survivors (let's call them A and B) that were not on your original tribe that A and B truly believed in, whether you honor that alliance for a vote (Parvati with Alexis/Natalie to get Ozzy) or not (Kim with Jay/Troyzan); OR C) When there are two suballiances/known pairs within a larger alliance all on your tribe, you have have both suballiances/known pairs truly believing you will vote with them, and/or you pit the two suballiances/known pairs against each other to cause tension which successfully takes a target off your back or otherwise helps you I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Aras in post 7. I don't think he played both sides, but I'd be willing to listen to an argument about why someone thinks he did. To me playing both sides is claiming your on one voting faction but voting against that faction. Aras did that with Shane from what I remember.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Is it good strategy to play both sides?

Is it good strategy to play both sides?