Yes another Survivor post, that quick after the other one. But the previous thread got me thinking of this one. Many people don't like coattail riders, in the game and call them undeserving winners. I disagree.
While they do not make for great TV, it does however take a lot of skill, to do it right. Yes some just stumble onto the right one, others do it with specific idea's in mind.
Now the best example of this is Natalie from Somoa, clear as day she explains her strategy for the rest of the game. She is going to align with this guy who is playing this game controlling but is also a prick to everyone else, she says she knows if she goes to the end with him she will beat him. The first thing she does is recognize someone she can beat in the jury. Good jury management and we have not even gotten to the jury yet. But she is also a great player and when the tribes merge, it is her that saves the back of her "mark" getting the entire tribe to vote off one of their own instead of the obvious. Could she have won without him? Who knows, but I would think she would still be up there.
Now people have also been calling Sandra the two time winner a coattail rider, and this is just wrong. She is incredibly smart and starts the game with a simple strategy, as long as it is not me. Even when she is aligned with people she does not need anyone. She knows how to talk to people with an ease and make her point without seeming pushy. She puts herself into position to win. That is all that matters.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Survivor Question
So I hoped the whole argument of how good a player is Russel Krantz would have died down by now. I mean it has been a a while plus a entire new season has finished airing. But people still want to compare and talk about it. So here it goes one more time. He is somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Yes he is great at getting himself to the final, but no he is terrible, at well everything else about the game. Let's break everything down here for a second. Most people use this logic, being in the top 3 or two gives you a 33.3% or 50% of winning. Versus going out somewhere before gives you a 0% chance of winning. Although the second half of the statement is true, the first is not. The most important part of the game is not getting to the end, but jury management. If you can't win you might as well have been voted off first.
Let's look at it like this, why did people vote out Boston Rob in HvV? Well besides Russell who wanted to be in charge of the tribe they all that he could win. Ok, don't believe me, two girls went this year at 6 and 4 strictly because people new they would lose to them in the end. They were taken out before people had the chance to award them with the money.
What this tells us is often people who have the best chance of winning don't make it to the final. Now when this happens for the most part it is good jury management, depending on how you vote them out. Here is the most important part of jury management, getting people you vote out to still want to vote for you.
How is this done, many ways, but it all depends on the person. Everyone you vote out will take it differently. It is up to the person who votes them out to try and figure out if they will be glad you back stabbed them, or if they went down and you stayed loyal.
If we look at that the most important part of the games, Russell was terrible at. He had no clue of how to vote people out and still get them to vote for him, or how to read a jury. It was a huge mistake of his to take Sandra with him to the finals, it gave the jury an out instead of voting for him or someone in his alliance. If he had read the jury he would know none of the people there respected his game play. They all were looking for someone, anyone else to vote for.
Yes he is great at getting himself to the final, but no he is terrible, at well everything else about the game. Let's break everything down here for a second. Most people use this logic, being in the top 3 or two gives you a 33.3% or 50% of winning. Versus going out somewhere before gives you a 0% chance of winning. Although the second half of the statement is true, the first is not. The most important part of the game is not getting to the end, but jury management. If you can't win you might as well have been voted off first.
Let's look at it like this, why did people vote out Boston Rob in HvV? Well besides Russell who wanted to be in charge of the tribe they all that he could win. Ok, don't believe me, two girls went this year at 6 and 4 strictly because people new they would lose to them in the end. They were taken out before people had the chance to award them with the money.
What this tells us is often people who have the best chance of winning don't make it to the final. Now when this happens for the most part it is good jury management, depending on how you vote them out. Here is the most important part of jury management, getting people you vote out to still want to vote for you.
How is this done, many ways, but it all depends on the person. Everyone you vote out will take it differently. It is up to the person who votes them out to try and figure out if they will be glad you back stabbed them, or if they went down and you stayed loyal.
If we look at that the most important part of the games, Russell was terrible at. He had no clue of how to vote people out and still get them to vote for him, or how to read a jury. It was a huge mistake of his to take Sandra with him to the finals, it gave the jury an out instead of voting for him or someone in his alliance. If he had read the jury he would know none of the people there respected his game play. They all were looking for someone, anyone else to vote for.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Harry Potter and Hermione
So I have been watching Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on TV, and it has been making me think of what I was thinking when I first read the books. In this book one of the big themes is the relationships between the main characters and their feeling for each other.
Now I always liked the idea of Harry and Hermione together, yes I understood the reasons for them not being together being the theme of family for Harry, as he becomes a part of the Weasley family. Something he was always missing in his life.
But for me I always liked Harry and Hermione. Maybe because it was and I guess is what I always picture a good relationship as. Two people that are great friends at the core of their relationship. You go back and you see what both was willing to do for each other, and what they said when one of them needed someone. It was whet love should be.
Now I always liked the idea of Harry and Hermione together, yes I understood the reasons for them not being together being the theme of family for Harry, as he becomes a part of the Weasley family. Something he was always missing in his life.
But for me I always liked Harry and Hermione. Maybe because it was and I guess is what I always picture a good relationship as. Two people that are great friends at the core of their relationship. You go back and you see what both was willing to do for each other, and what they said when one of them needed someone. It was whet love should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)