Yuku free message boards

---

Honestly, I question his grasp of comprehensive Survivor strategy. I'd seen his comments on the old Survivor Live where he thought Eliza was a dreadful player, particularly for her wishy-washiness and selling her alliance down the river due to paranoia. Now from a Game Theory perspective, he's right in that it wasn't a rational move, and one can easily see that her lack of a truly stable foundation might have cost her game long-term. However, that still doesn't explain how Eliza did so well and account for the fact that there are many ways to play the game and do well, nor the significant luck factors involved in the game. He didn't even apply Game Theory in ASS. Now, you might argue he felt he had to do something drastic, because he was a winner. However, even with Game Theory, he failed the basics of getting in with a good solid allianceRegardless, his lower rank among the winners is mainly due to the weak competitive level of Borneo--not ASS. Like with Tina, ASS was just the confirmation that there Hatch wasn't extraordinarily special. Only about the final 7-8 players thought of alliance strategies in Borneo, and some of those people only realized it once they were alright marginalized and slapped in the face with hopelessness. Obviously, they didn't have the benefit of history, but there's little doubt that it still made them weak competitors. Just looking at Jenna Lewis before and after clearly shows how dramatically 1 can improve with that kind of knowledge. She didn't become dramatically more intelligent. She just was able to apply her already pre-existing intelligence with the new strategic lessons she learned in Borneo


Eliza lasted a long time not due to much on her part. Perhaps her social ties with Ami kept her a few more rounds after she was needed, but she was viewed as untrustworthy and unstable. Rich was on the mark with his criticisms. Rich on All Stars demonstrated that he is fallible,only the delusional would think one person could survive every single circumstance.Based on peoples reasons for getting rid of him, it could be said that he has not the bet social game, but neither did he on Borneo. He should have made inroads, but were they really surmountable? It all depends on what kind of group you have. Mogo Mogo was very puritanical imo. I would say that Shii Ann is actually a very conservativ eplayer,and didn'tseriously consider any alliances with him, nor would anyother castmember off ASS save for Rob C or Rudy due to their biased perception. Therefore,we can only judge him from his Borneo stint I think.

The reputation excuse for ASS only goes so far. Now that we have another comeback season, the excuse looks even weaker with the additional data and other people to compare him to. Ozzy was essentially the Hatch of Micronesia. He was the closest thing to a winner, and the only runner-up in Palau. People were gunning after him pretty hardcore, constantly making him a target, and assuming he'd win for sure if he ever made the finals. Obviously neither won (nor would I expect either to), but Ozzy at least managed to make the jury and was blindsided by someone he considered to be like a sister to him (although Parvati clearly didn't see it that way). Parvati for her part, was gunned after hardcore for reputation bias too and managed to win the whole thing. Eliza's luck was quite bad as well, yet she managed to overcome her target status for awhile by keeping it simple and allying up with people. Hatch's luck seemed somewhat reasonable actually. Had he had a better social game and secured his alliances better at the start, I think he could've at least lasted longer than he did. Instead, he called people when he probably shouldn't have, ran around naked, spied on the girls, etc.

Eliza managed to last due to the various quits/injurys/quits throughout the show.Her number was coming up eventually. Ozzys as well. I don't recall anyone targeting him before the merge. Everyone has a reason to keep him. Not to mention that he is a threat and would be proped up during the merge. Post merge,NOONE wanted to keep him through no fault of his own.He was a prop,and wasn;t in the state of mind to use that to his advantage.I don't Parvati was targeted after Cirie joined the younger folks on the favorites tribe.After Jonathan was evacuated,noone targeted her. I don't think Rich could done anything to save himself really. If he wasn't "spying" then they would accuse him of something else, they're that kind of group

That doesn't seem like the case with all of the members of Mogo-Mogo. Shii Ann seemed to want to work with him. And Mogo-Mogo had agreed to stick together. The main individual who screwed him was Colby, but this was arguably also in part because of Hatch's inability to forge a real bond or working relationship with Colby. Now, it may have just been bad luck. Maybe colby and the others would never have given him a chance no matter what. However, reputation bias only goes so far, since Hatch was tossed for ANOTHER winner--Ethan, who was SUPPOSED to be the tribe's original target. So that would suggest that Ethan is a better social player than Hatch to have managed to weasel himself above Hatch in the alliance structure despite coming from an entirely different tribe. Yes, Hatch was a more famous and perhaps feared player than Ethan. However, the difference between 2 winners is like the difference between like Jonathan Penner's reputation and like Amanda's. Negligible

I don't think All Stars and Micronesia can be compared that way. The "favorites" on Micronesia I think were much more pragmatic then the All Stars bunch. Thats a generalization, but I think that at least they understood the dynamics better then most of the ASSers. Ethan was spared,I think due to his friendship with Lex. Lex obviously wanted some kind of oligarchy, and the concentration of power was centered around Lexs opinion of the persons contribution to his "success".I don't think Ethan did anything to distinguish himself as a wesealy sort of player. And I agree with the statement that nothing would of propelled Rich into a shot at winning the game

It's a fair point to say he had relatively sound decision making. However, most of the winners have also had sound decision making. So it's not really enough to put him above the majority of them, when you account for the naivety of the competition. Of course, he's a good player. All the winners are, so no one's really doubting that

Of course they are, but I put more weight on decision making rather then the sophistication of the cast because "sophistication" is relative. Gretchen would not be considered a good player by yours or my criterion, but in her situation(Pagong) she was awesome. I think Richards decision making skills are more consistent then most of the winners.Thats another debate,for another time.

He clearly acted like a loose cannon. Now, he may have had reasons for it, but there's no doubt that running around nude, avoiding early game alliances, purposely not working in camp, etc. is a risky and unconventional social strategy. It was enough for his actions to get special attention and commentary in confessionals Dr. Will.

He was unware of game tribal dynamics maybe, but he could have been using that as a stratagy,similar to Wills on BB. Neither of us can be perfectly sure of what Rich was thinking out there unless he can post from prison

As for Tina, we've already had that debate and we reached a stalemate.

How so? If it's a perception issue, then yes it's a stalemate. But if you think there are facts that haven't been covered, then that's different. I haven't really talked much to you about this stuff in awhile. I do think the analogy of an atheist and someone who's religious is somewhat appropriate here. There are some who believe certain winners (Hatch, Tina, and Heidik in particular) are master manipulators yet never provide ample proof merely having faith that the TV edit failed to capture all their real abilities on camera. Now, this may be true and these believers may be right. However, like someone who believes in God, this idea is ultimately faith and assumption driven, whereas I'm asking for tangible proof and evidence to support such assertions. Additionally, if we're to give the benefit of the doubt to certain winners, that the camera "missed" showing all their abilities in their naked glory, then shouldn't we give the same kind of assumptions to all the winners? Failure to do so constitutes "bias" in my eyes, and I don't think it's an accident that many of the most popular seasons and winners hold a close correlation with opinions on winner capabilities



Absolutly. Actually, as far as religion is concerned, I'm on the skeptical side myself,despite having having certain religious beliefs(a contradiction, but I might be able to explain it in another post).I was saying that her maipulative skills haven't been shown throughly because Outback and ASS were polar opposite. If she were to be placed in a neutral survivor environment,I would feel better giving her a high ranking.But I do give her credit for her seeming to understand game theory well. That could also be applied to Parvati,wait.On reflection, I now rank Parvati higher then Tina.

I don't know if I'd simplify it to just that, but Jonathan was definitely a key luck factor in Yul's success. He was someone that dependent on Yul, who Yul was able to understand and manipulate, and someone who was willing to make a high risk, high reward manuever in order to win. I would say his decision was non-rational in terms of not being a low risk, high reward manuever, but I would say it was logical in that he had decent reasoning behind the move. However, he likely was also influenced emotionally to side with Aitu given their social games and moral leverage after the mutiny

Simply blaming Jonathan is definitely not accurate however, as the conditions that caused Jonathan to jump in the 1st place involved just about everybody. Technically, you might say Jonathan never *really* left Aitu, in that he had followed Candice thanks to an impulsive twist where he had to quickly react to things. So in that sense, even if Yul got "lucky" that Jonathan went back to him, he really wasn't "lucky" in the scheme of things, because Jonathan really shouldn't have left in the 1st place. You have to consider the entire context, not just what Quiddity likes to do and assume that taking out something like the HII means everything else would play out EXACTLY the same


I wouldn't put too much weight on Aitus underdog statis.From what we saw,they were a better regimented,more organized tribe then the Raros,so its no suprise that they won the majority in the end. You admitted to Jonathans emotional decision. I agree,but I disagree that he had a real reason to flip.Had he voted for Yul, the HII would be eliminated, and Jonathan has no reason to fear him leaving because each side now needs him for concurrent votes(the raros need him at f8,the aitus need him at f7,and so on).Other factors come into it, but it would of been a more rewarding stratagy for Jonathan then what he did.

I haven't read any solid tactial reasoning behind that move."I want to align with the person with the idol". WHAT?! Especially with a great player like Yul,when you have a chance to get rid of the idol and get away scot free,you take it!

Not necessarily. First thing's first, you don't always get rid of the idol. You get rid of the idol in most scenarios, but if your ally is true to you, it hurts you to get rid of it:
(1) Why get rid of an idol that's essentially helping you, even if it's indirectly doing so? I might add, this was incredibly frustrating when I was playing with you in Aruba, as I had every intention of going to F3 with you from the moment you became an Outcast, and you kept trying to get rid of it, when me having the idol would only have benefited you. It seems like you took the "get rid of the idol" lesson learned in CI and applied it to Aruba, but you have to understand that you need to apply such "rules" when the context is appropriate. You don't ALWAYS get rid of an idol in each and every circumstance! Had you been more of a complacent ally, we might've have trusted you enough to take out bigger challenge threats like Melinda before Morgan, in which case you would've been more likely to have made F3 with the rest of us
(2) The biggest problem with flushing an idol out is that the idol gets re-played and may fall into enemy hands. That can obviously be WORSE, especially if you flush it out of an ally's or working relationship's hands and it goes to like your #1 enemy or something. This kind of randomness and plan-changing game factor is often best avoided. The reason why I kept holding onto my idol was specifically for this reason. I didn't feel I needed it so much as I felt like I had to prevent others from getting it. I can definitely understand why individuals like Ozzy, Jason, or James would be inclined NOT to use an idol. It seriously turns you into, "My precious!" as Dreamz put it



So in Jonathan's case, what if he flushes out Yul's idol? He pisses off all of Aitu 4 for good. What if it falls into their hands again like Ozzy? Or worse someone like Nate? Then Jonathan screwed over a perfectly good F2 deal with Yul and a chance to get back in the Aitu 4's good graces, while allowing a well connected threat like Nate get the extremely powerful idol and reap all the benefits from Jonathan playing follower






I have covered the "solid tactical reasoning" before but I'll do it again. A good luck factor for Yul was ironically that his competitors in CI were so strategic and threats in and of themselves, which helped Yul become a little more UTR and less threatening in Raro and Jonathan's eyes. They were undoubtedly worried not only of Aitu but also of themselves as long-term threats. Nate was already trying to position himself where he'd be able to have the upper hand in the Raro alliance, and Jonathan was clearly uncomfortable with being Candam's strategic bitch. This I might add, would be an argument FOR submissive, reactive Kingmaker gameplay. For all those who say a player should ALWAYS take charge, play hard, and control their own destiny, I would expect no complaints about what Jonathan did

To recap on the soundness of the tactical decision:
(1) Jonathan was the swing vote between Raro/Aitu. He tried to change the vote to a non-Yul candidate, and they wouldn't budge, given their own strategic self-interests. This was partially underestimating Yul's ability to get the idol, underestimating Jonathan's desire to control his own fate, and also more importantly worrying strategically about one another (marginalizing Jonathan in this case). Due to mutual distrust and a lack of open communication, Raro made the mistake of playing in a way that was incompatible with Jonathan's personal gameplay style (being an overt game controller). Jonathan is the type to want to have a say in votes and be involved in decisions. Jonathan did not trust Raro enough to flat out tell them Yul had an idol, and Raro for their part didn't trust him enough to negotiate around his wishes and tried to strongarm the vote in their favor (i.e. implying Adam had the idol). This can't simply be blamed on Jonathan. He'd been the deflect boot for the last 2 rounds, and apparently Raro had not properly managed him as a strategic and social ally, at times marginalizing him or being cliquish in a way that was threatening to Jonathan strategically. He's a smart guy and the guy can sense where he is in the pecking order. I'd say the majority of the responsibility here falls on Candice. Her high risk manuever created a chain reaction of events and put more chaos into the scheme that ultimately affected her game chances in an adverse way. When you make a big play like that, you have to know that a lot of factors that you can't control might occur and can't plan for will happen in reaction. In this case, she miscalculated Sundra's loyalty to her and that Jonathan would also jump at the mutiny, which affected them both long-term. This would be an example of when conservative, low risk gameplay IS good

(2) Yul's F2 deal with Jonathan was the best deal given to him at that point in the game. The only other deal that was as good was Candice, but given the Candice/Adam showmance, it's easy to see why Jonathan would feel like he's actually 3rd wheel or worse (as was likely the case). Given his 5th wheel position on Raro, you should see how taking a F2 deal even under questionable circumstances is not entirely a horrible idea if you're playing to win

(3) At F9 we had the following alliance structure:

Adam/Candice
Adam/Parvati
Adam/Candice/Parvati
Candice/Jonathan
Adam/Candice/Jonathan
Adam/Nate
Parvati/Nate
Adam/Parvati/Nate
Adam/Candice/Parvati/Nate
Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati
Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati/Nate

Nate/Ozzy
Nate/Sundra
Nate/Ozzy/Sundra

Yul/Jonathan
Yul/Jonathan/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy

Yul/Becky
Yul/Sundra
Yul/Becky/Sundra
Yul/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy

The reason why the Yul vote was so controversial was that Jonathan was hedging on how he could gain leverage in the plethora of Raro alliances listed above. Out of those 11 alliances, Jonathan is only in 4 of them. Whereas Adam is in 9/11 of them and Candice & Parvati are in 7/11 of them. Nate, while only in 5/9 of them, but he also had 3 additional connections forming with Aitu possibly. With all these power players, Jonathan's only source of new options and control was Yul, who he'd had a tight connection with back on 2nd Aitutaki. In retrospect, it's easy for Sucksters to think it's moronic to not see how Yul and Aitu were the greatest threats and that all strategic priorities should be focused on marginalizing them. However, in a real-time situation without the benefit of foresight, this dynamic is not so obvious

From an overt control perspective, Jonathan gained:

Yul/Jonathan
Yul/Jonathan/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy


Jonathan got rid of:

Adam/Nate
Parvati/Nate
Adam/Parvati/Nate
Adam/Candice/Parvati/Nate
Nate/Ozzy
Nate/Sundra
Nate/Ozzy/Sundra



While knowing that Raro would be pissed, he might've thought there was a chance to keep his Raro alliances (since they'd need him):

Candice/Jonathan
Adam/Candice/Jonathan
Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati
Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati/Nate



And ended up empowering:

Yul/Becky
Yul/Sundra
Yul/Becky/Sundra
Yul/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy




In summary, his flip gained him 2 alliances, lost him 4 alliances, eliminated 7 enemy alliances, and strengthened 4 enemy alliances for a net-gain of +1 alliances. This was obviously a game-ending decision in retrospect, since Raro cut off all strategic ties with Jonathan, whereas, had he been able to keep them he'd be up +5 alliances



Had he sided with Raro and flushed the idol out then:

He keeps:
Candice/Jonathan
Adam/Candice/Jonathan
Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati



He loses:
Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati/Nate
Yul/Jonathan
Yul/Jonathan/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy





The following are eliminated due to idol deflection:
Adam/Nate
Parvati/Nate
Adam/Parvati/Nate
Adam/Candice/Parvati/Nate
Nate/Ozzy
Nate/Sundra
Nate/Ozzy/Sundra




The following still remain in play or are strengthened:
Adam/Candice
Adam/Parvati
Adam/Candice/Parvati
Yul/Becky
Yul/Sundra
Yul/Becky/Sundra
Yul/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy




This gives him net gain of 0 alliances, while also having the idol re-played, and he also shoots up to the top of Aitu 4's hit-list, while only moving up 1 spot on the Raro ladder. Additionally, it leaves room for UTR Raro puppet masters like Parvati and Adam (who pissed off nobody with a mutiny) to start working with the Aitu 4 who are already not working with Candice and would be doubly livid at Jonathan. Then you could very well have ended up with Micronesia having Parvati run the game with Becky and Sundra as her girls. Right after Nate's boot, Parvati was already trying to work them over, and if Yul wasn't around, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd tried out their options with her