Talk about a random occurrence. While they were in LA for Episode 6, Brandon, Dee, and Kellie met Danielle DiLorenzo. Nice of Danielle to introduce herself and nice of Kellie to post the photo. Is it just me or does Kellie look 15 years younger in that photo?

https://twitter.com/kellienalb/status/1738945872971399287

--
Brian

"Brian Smith" wrote in message
news:df15de59-49dd-46c7-9653-d994e10ab40an@googlegroups.com...
>
>Talk about a random occurrence. While they were in LA for Episode 6,
>Brandon, Dee, and Kellie met Danielle DiLorenzo. Nice of Danielle to
>introduce herself and nice of Kellie to post the photo. Is it just me or
>does Kellie look 15 years younger in that photo?
>
>https://twitter.com/kellienalb/status/1738945872971399287
>
>--
>Brian

Kellie definitely cleans up nicely, as they say.

TBH, I did not recognize Danielle. If she hadn't been identified, I'm not
sure I would have realized who she was. I don't think I've seen her since H
vs. V. In my mind, Danielle will always be the person who kept Terry Dietz
from winning because of that silly floating balance challenge in Panama.
If I'm remembering right, the hoopla over Terry's elimination caused them to
institute their first final three the following season.

--

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:04:16 AM UTC-7, Rick wrote:
> "Brian Smith" wrote in message
> news:df15de59-49dd-46c7...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >Talk about a random occurrence. While they were in LA for Episode 6,
> >Brandon, Dee, and Kellie met Danielle DiLorenzo. Nice of Danielle to
> >introduce herself and nice of Kellie to post the photo. Is it just me or
> >does Kellie look 15 years younger in that photo?
> >
> >https://twitter.com/kellienalb/status/1738945872971399287
> >
> >--
> >Brian
> Kellie definitely cleans up nicely, as they say.

She looked good on the island as well!

> TBH, I did not recognize Danielle. If she hadn't been identified, I'm not
> sure I would have realized who she was. I don't think I've seen her since H
> vs. V. In my mind, Danielle will always be the person who kept Terry Dietz
> from winning because of that silly floating balance challenge in Panama.
> If I'm remembering right, the hoopla over Terry's elimination caused them to
> institute their first final three the following season.
>
> --

Do you recall any articles on them saying why they moved to a F3 for Cook Islands? I had always assumed it was to change things up and doing it that season where they started with four tribes made it look like they were really trying to throw the players off.

Concerning Kellie's post, did Brandon last in the game until Episode 6? I'm trying to figure out why they were in LA for that particular episode.

--
Brian

"Brian Smith" wrote in message
news:c05ec8c5-a9e7-44d7-8fbb-083cc603a283n@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:04:16 AM UTC-7, Rick wrote:
>> "Brian Smith" wrote in message
>> news:df15de59-49dd-46c7...@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >Talk about a random occurrence. While they were in LA for Episode 6,
>> >Brandon, Dee, and Kellie met Danielle DiLorenzo. Nice of Danielle to
>> >introduce herself and nice of Kellie to post the photo. Is it just me or
>> >does Kellie look 15 years younger in that photo?
>> >
>> >https://twitter.com/kellienalb/status/1738945872971399287
>> >
>> >--
>> >Brian
>> Kellie definitely cleans up nicely, as they say.
>
>She looked good on the island as well!
>
>> TBH, I did not recognize Danielle. If she hadn't been identified, I'm not
>> sure I would have realized who she was. I don't think I've seen her since
>> H
>> vs. V. In my mind, Danielle will always be the person who kept Terry
>> Dietz
>> from winning because of that silly floating balance challenge in Panama.
>> If I'm remembering right, the hoopla over Terry's elimination caused them
>> to
>> institute their first final three the following season.
>>
>> --
>
>Do you recall any articles on them saying why they moved to a F3 for Cook
>Islands? I had always assumed it was to change things up and doing it that
>season where they started with four tribes made it look like they were
>really trying to throw the players off.
>

The handling of Final 3 had been a problem almost from the start because the
winner of the F3 immunity got sole power to decide who was leaving since the
two non-winners could only vote for one another. This was all right if the
F3 winner was a major or well-liked player in the game, but it became a
problem when lesser players happened to stumble to a victory in F3.

This first became a problem in S3, where the dominant/popular players
throughout the end stage of the game were Ethan, Tom and Lex. Somehow a
minor player in the game named Kim Johnson managed to win the last two
immunities (one of which was tainted by its own controversy) and she got to
final two with Ethan. Ethan, of course, won pretty convincingly.

In S4 Marquesas, the somewhat unpopular Neleh won the F3 immunity and voted
out the highly popular and dominant Kathy Vavrick O'Brien, who many had
thought would win the game. This resulted in two very unpopular players -
Neleh and Vecepia - getting to final two, which is one of the reasons many
people don't like that season. I'm an exception - I actually think
Marquesas was pretty good.

In S6 The Amazon, Jenna Morasca won F3 and singe-handedly voted out Rob
Cesternino, who is widely regarded as the first really strategic and
analytical player in the game and who is now a well-known podcaster. Jenna
wasn't a bad player, but she was hardly in Rob's class, and she forced the
lesser player Matt into the final two where she beat him handily.

In S11, Danni Boatwright, who had not been a particularly dominant or
memorable player, voted out the much better regarded and strategic Rafe so
she could go up against and ultimately defeat the somewhat unpopular
Stephanie.

In S12, the dominant player was Terry Dietz who won several immunities, was
well-liked by fans, and was widely regarded by many as the likely winner.
Dietz lost the F3 immunity, which involved having to balance on a flotation
device, which gave the little-regarded Danielle the opportunity to vote him
out of the game and force a final two with herself and the somewhat
under-the-radar Aras. Nobody really liked that F2 and it's one of the
reasons' that's not a well-regarded season.

It was only after several seasons like this where an often little known or
little regarded F3 player got to single-handedly define who the F2 would be
that the producers switched to a final three, so that everyone could
effectively vote in F4.

>Concerning Kellie's post, did Brandon last in the game until Episode 6? I'm
>trying to figure out why they were in LA for that particular episode.

Brandon left in episode 2 which was day 5 in the game. But the post was
referring to the airing of episode 6, and I think it just means that they
must have all gotten together for the airing of the episode for some reason.
>--
>Brian

--

Rick wrote:

> The handling of Final 3 had been a problem almost from the
> start because the winner of the F3 immunity got sole power
> to decide who was leaving since the two non-winners could
> only vote for one another. This was all right if the F3
> winner was a major or well-liked player in the game, but it
> became a problem when lesser players happened to stumble to
> a victory in F3 [...]

Well, if that's the game, that's the game, it can be called
a strong finish just as well.

But how is it now, challenge at F4, the winner decides who
follow winner to the FTC, and the reaming two players do fire
for the third spot?

Is it true that since the introduction of the fire, this has
made for more close FTC votes? If so, and if they introduced
to solve the F3 challenge problem as you describe, they did
a good thing.

But weren't there fires before that as well?

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

"Emanuel Berg" wrote in message news:875y0lvhsb.fsf@dataswamp.org...
>
>Rick wrote:
>
>> The handling of Final 3 had been a problem almost from the
>> start because the winner of the F3 immunity got sole power
>> to decide who was leaving since the two non-winners could
>> only vote for one another. This was all right if the F3
>> winner was a major or well-liked player in the game, but it
>> became a problem when lesser players happened to stumble to
>> a victory in F3 [...]
>
>Well, if that's the game, that's the game, it can be called
>a strong finish just as well.
>
>But how is it now, challenge at F4, the winner decides who
>follow winner to the FTC, and the reaming two players do fire
>for the third spot?
>

Yes, it's funny how for years people complained about the F3 winner getting
the sole vote to decide who went to F2, but since S35 they've had a system
where the F4 winner gets to solely decide who goes to F3 by sending the
other two to a fire challenge.

>Is it true that since the introduction of the fire, this has
>made for more close FTC votes? If so, and if they introduced
>to solve the F3 challenge problem as you describe, they did
>a good thing.
>
>But weren't there fires before that as well?
>

Yes, because there were often 2-2 ties at the F4 tribal, so they made the
rule that a 2--2 tie at F4 would be resolved with a fire challenge. This
led to one of the funniest fire challenges I can recall, when Becky and
Sundra were tied 2-2 in Cook Islands and had to make a fire to settle who
would go home. Incredibly, neither one of them could make the fire using
flint, after working on it for a good hour or so. So incredibly, Jeff said
something like "We're going to go to matches." And he handed each a book of
matches to start the fire - and they still couldn't do it! Eventually,
after at least an hour with the matches, Becky managed to start the fire. I
don't think Sundra ever got a fire started.

--

Rick wrote:

>> Is it true that since the introduction of the fire, this
>> has made for more close FTC votes? If so, and if they
>> introduced to solve the F3 challenge problem as you
>> describe, they did a good thing.
>>
>> But weren't there fires before that as well?
>
> Yes, because there were often 2-2 ties at the F4
> tribal [...]

Ah, now I understand! At the F4 TC, there were often 2 strong
players and 2 weak. The winner of immunity would then join the
2 week players to get rid of the other strong player. This led
to FTCs not being exciting as 1 strong player faced 2 weak.

With the new rule, the 1 strong player winning immunity can
only bring 1 weak player to FTC and hope that another weak
player beats the other strong player making fire.

So with these new rules, while there can still be
a strong-weak-weak FTC, there is much higher possibility of
strong-strong-weak at FTC.

It's clear, only why can't all players at F4 be strong?
It doesn't seem to work like that.

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 9:07:58 PM UTC-7, Rick wrote:
> "Emanuel Berg" wrote in message news:875y0lv...@dataswamp.org...
> >
> >Rick wrote:
> >
> >> The handling of Final 3 had been a problem almost from the
> >> start because the winner of the F3 immunity got sole power
> >> to decide who was leaving since the two non-winners could
> >> only vote for one another. This was all right if the F3
> >> winner was a major or well-liked player in the game, but it
> >> became a problem when lesser players happened to stumble to
> >> a victory in F3 [...]
> >
> >Well, if that's the game, that's the game, it can be called
> >a strong finish just as well.
> >
> >But how is it now, challenge at F4, the winner decides who
> >follow winner to the FTC, and the reaming two players do fire
> >for the third spot?
> >
> Yes, it's funny how for years people complained about the F3 winner getting
> the sole vote to decide who went to F2, but since S35 they've had a system
> where the F4 winner gets to solely decide who goes to F3 by sending the
> other two to a fire challenge.

With the "new" F4 system everyone gets two shots to make it to the end. Winning F4 immunity should count for something so I'm fine with that person getting to choose one person to take to F3.

> >Is it true that since the introduction of the fire, this has
> >made for more close FTC votes? If so, and if they introduced
> >to solve the F3 challenge problem as you describe, they did
> >a good thing.
> >
> >But weren't there fires before that as well?
> >
> Yes, because there were often 2-2 ties at the F4 tribal, so they made the
> rule that a 2--2 tie at F4 would be resolved with a fire challenge. This
> led to one of the funniest fire challenges I can recall, when Becky and
> Sundra were tied 2-2 in Cook Islands and had to make a fire to settle who
> would go home. Incredibly, neither one of them could make the fire using
> flint, after working on it for a good hour or so. So incredibly, Jeff said
> something like "We're going to go to matches." And he handed each a book of
> matches to start the fire - and they still couldn't do it! Eventually,
> after at least an hour with the matches, Becky managed to start the fire. I
> don't think Sundra ever got a fire started.
>
> --

LOL! That was an iconic Survivor moment.

Fire at F4 since S35 hasn't done anything to make the final vote closer. I believe the final vote has always had at least one person get either no votes or just one which is no different than the old F3 days.

It's too bad Survivor can't do what BB does at F3. BB does a three-part final comp which is three different comps held on different days. The first comp involves all three players, the second the two losers, and the third to the winners. The winner of Part 3 gets to decide who to vote out/who to take to F2. It's a pretty good system but the comps are held over a number of days which is why it wouldn't work on Survivor.

--
Brian

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 9:39:08 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>
> >> Is it true that since the introduction of the fire, this
> >> has made for more close FTC votes? If so, and if they
> >> introduced to solve the F3 challenge problem as you
> >> describe, they did a good thing.
> >>
> >> But weren't there fires before that as well?
> >
> > Yes, because there were often 2-2 ties at the F4
> > tribal [...]
>
> Ah, now I understand! At the F4 TC, there were often 2 strong
> players and 2 weak. The winner of immunity would then join the
> 2 week players to get rid of the other strong player. This led
> to FTCs not being exciting as 1 strong player faced 2 weak.
>
> With the new rule, the 1 strong player winning immunity can
> only bring 1 weak player to FTC and hope that another weak
> player beats the other strong player making fire.
>
> So with these new rules, while there can still be
> a strong-weak-weak FTC, there is much higher possibility of
> strong-strong-weak at FTC.
>
> It's clear, only why can't all players at F4 be strong?
> It doesn't seem to work like that.

More often than not it's two weaker players and one strong one at the end. This season was an exception.

We don't get all strong players at F4 because who wants to go to the end against people who might beat you? It's why Julie was taken out at F5. The goal is to be at the end with two weaker players, so you don't have to worry about a close vote and/r a jury member or two voting differently than you expected. Dee took a big gamble taking Austin to F3. Austin beating Jake at fire would have been expected so I doubt it would have helped him with the jury.

--
Brian

Brian Smith wrote:

> With the "new" F4 system everyone gets two shots to make it
> to the end. Winning F4 immunity should count for something
> so I'm fine with that person getting to choose one person to
> take to F3.

Isn't that a good thing? Otherwise winning F4 immunity gives
too much power to that player. Because winning immunity should
only make you safe next TC, not virtually giving you the power
to win the game by setting up FTC.

> Fire at F4 since S35 hasn't done anything to make the final
> vote closer. I believe the final vote has always had at
> least one person get either no votes or just one which is no
> different than the old F3 days.

One could examine the votes at FTC to verify if it gets closer
or not. My impression is they are closer now but I didn't
examine the data.

BTW can't we have a system to get FTC with 2 players?

And 2 strong players, not 1 champ and 1 weak (the so called
goat).

> It's too bad Survivor can't do what BB does at F3. BB does
> a three-part final comp which is three different comps held
> on different days. The first comp involves all three
> players, the second the two losers, and the third to the
> winners. The winner of Part 3 gets to decide who to vote
> out/who to take to F2. It's a pretty good system but the
> comps are held over a number of days which is why it
> wouldn't work on Survivor.

Okay, but why can't it be done over a number of days
on Survivor?

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Brian Smith wrote:

> We don't get all strong players at F4 because who wants to
> go to the end against people who might beat you? It's why
> Julie was taken out at F5. The goal is to be at the end with
> two weaker players [...]

This is the goal from the individual player perspective but
the rules should be set up so this is very hard to accomplish.

Not sure what rules would maximize that but my impression is
the new rules with the fire makes for more even FTCs, at least
between two of the three players.

Optimally it should either be close between all three, or one
should be dropped before FTC so it would be close between the
remaining two.

I'm sure they have had many discussions how to achieve
super-dramatic and close FTCs and this is the best they have
come up with this far. It would be interesting to compare data
of "FTC vote balance" before and after they introduced
compulsory fire at F4 TC.

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

> It would be interesting to compare data of "FTC vote
> balance" before and after they introduced compulsory fire at
> F4 TC.

OK, got some data.

We see that 50% of the first 10 seasons [1] were as close as
it gets at 4-3, which is 57% of the votes for the winner.

S01 4-3 57%
S02 4-3 57%
S03 5-2 71%
S04 4-3 57%
S05 4-3 57%
S06 6-1 86%
S07 6-1 86%
S08 4-3 57%
S09 5-2 71%
S10 6-1 86%

5/10 at 57%
3/10 at 86%
2/10 at 71%

Mean: 68.5%

Conclusion: First 10 seasons had very close FTCs!

[1] https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/survivor-winners-list

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

> S01 4-3 57%
> S02 4-3 57%
> S03 5-2 71%
> S04 4-3 57%
> S05 4-3 57%
> S06 6-1 86%
> S07 6-1 86%
> S08 4-3 57%
> S09 5-2 71%
> S10 6-1 86% [...]
>
> Mean: 68.5%

S11 6-1 86%
S12 5-2 71%
S13 5-4-0 56%
S14 9-0-0 100%
S15 4-2-1 57%
S16 5-3 62%
S17 4-3-0 57%
S18 7-0 100%
S19 7-2-0 78%
S20 7-2-0 78%

Mean S11-S20: 74.5%

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Okay, I was dead wrong. The game has not been getting more
exciting at FTC since its golden days, actually the opposite
has happened.

Here are the number of votes and percentage of them cast for
the winner season by season.

By far the best period was the first five seasons, S01-S05.
Four out of five FTC were close (score 4-3), and the season
that wasn't close (S03) was only a single vote away from
close (5-2).

Why was it so close in the early days? Probably because people
focused more on the survival part, building the shelter, camp
life etc, so strong guys and girls, not weak players, went on
to the FTC. After that period, people realized the game works
the opposite, those strong rivals are the guys you want to
get out, not keep.

Now we haven't had a close season since S36 (6-5-0), and
before that: S21 (5-4-0).

Anyway, here is the data.

this file:
https://dataswamp.org/~incal/data/survivor.txt

source:
https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/survivor-winners-list

compute with:
https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/survivor.el

S01 4-3 57% *close*
S02 4-3 57% *close*
S03 5-2 71%
S04 4-3 57% *close*
S05 4-3 57% *close* [S01-S05 mean: 60%]

S06 6-1 86%
S07 6-1 86%
S08 4-3 57% *close*
S09 5-2 71%
S10 6-1 86% [S06-S10 mean: 77%]

S11 6-1 86%
S12 5-2 71%
S13 5-4-0 56% *close*
S14 9-0-0 100%
S15 4-2-1 57% [S11-S15 mean: 74%]

S16 5-3 62%
S17 4-3-0 57% *close*
S18 7-0 100%
S19 7-2-0 78%
S20 7-2-0 78% [S16-S20 mean: 75%]

S21 5-4-0 56% *close*
S22 8-1-0 89%
S23 6-3-0 67%
S24 7-2-0 78%
S25 6-1-1 75% [S21-S25 mean: 73%]

S26 8-0-0 100%
S27 7-1-0 88%
S28 8-1 89%
S29 5-2-1 62%
S30 6-1-1 75% [S26-S30 mean: 83%]

S31 10-0-0 100%
S32 5-2-0 71%
S33 10-0-0 100%
S34 7-3-0 70%
S35 5-2-1 62% [S31-S35 mean: 81%]

S36 6-5-0 55% *close*
S37 7-3-0 70%
S38 9-4-0 69%
S39 8-2-0 80%
S40 12-4-0 75% [S36-S40 mean: 70%]

S41 7-1-0 88%
S42 7-1-0 88%
S43 7-1-0 88%
S44 7-1-0 88%
S45 5-3-0 62% [S41-S45 mean: 83%]

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:55:29 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Okay, I was dead wrong. The game has not been getting more
> exciting at FTC since its golden days, actually the opposite
> has happened.
>
> Here are the number of votes and percentage of them cast for
> the winner season by season.
>
> By far the best period was the first five seasons, S01-S05.
> Four out of five FTC were close (score 4-3), and the season
> that wasn't close (S03) was only a single vote away from
> close (5-2).
>
> Why was it so close in the early days? Probably because people
> focused more on the survival part, building the shelter, camp
> life etc, so strong guys and girls, not weak players, went on
> to the FTC. After that period, people realized the game works
> the opposite, those strong rivals are the guys you want to
> get out, not keep.
>
> Now we haven't had a close season since S36 (6-5-0), and
> before that: S21 (5-4-0).
>
> Anyway, here is the data.
>
> this file:
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/data/survivor.txt
>
> source:
> https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/survivor-winners-list
>
> compute with:
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/survivor.el
>
> S01 4-3 57% *close*
> S02 4-3 57% *close*
> S03 5-2 71%
> S04 4-3 57% *close*
> S05 4-3 57% *close* [S01-S05 mean: 60%]
> S06 6-1 86%
> S07 6-1 86%
> S08 4-3 57% *close*
> S09 5-2 71%
> S10 6-1 86% [S06-S10 mean: 77%]
> S11 6-1 86%
> S12 5-2 71%
> S13 5-4-0 56% *close*
> S14 9-0-0 100%
> S15 4-2-1 57% [S11-S15 mean: 74%]
>
> S16 5-3 62%
> S17 4-3-0 57% *close*
> S18 7-0 100%
> S19 7-2-0 78%
> S20 7-2-0 78% [S16-S20 mean: 75%]
>
> S21 5-4-0 56% *close*
> S22 8-1-0 89%
> S23 6-3-0 67%
> S24 7-2-0 78%
> S25 6-1-1 75% [S21-S25 mean: 73%]
>
> S26 8-0-0 100%
> S27 7-1-0 88%
> S28 8-1 89%
> S29 5-2-1 62%
> S30 6-1-1 75% [S26-S30 mean: 83%]
>
> S31 10-0-0 100%
> S32 5-2-0 71%
> S33 10-0-0 100%
> S34 7-3-0 70%
> S35 5-2-1 62% [S31-S35 mean: 81%]
>
> S36 6-5-0 55% *close*
> S37 7-3-0 70%
> S38 9-4-0 69%
> S39 8-2-0 80%
> S40 12-4-0 75% [S36-S40 mean: 70%]
>
> S41 7-1-0 88%
> S42 7-1-0 88%
> S43 7-1-0 88%
> S44 7-1-0 88%
> S45 5-3-0 62% [S41-S45 mean: 83%]
> --

This is exactly what I told you. F3 has always had at least one finalist get either no votes or just one. Fire at F4 has not helped to make the final vote closer. They need to go back to F2 at the endif the goal is to have closer votes. S41 to S44 had the exact same 7–1–0 final vote. So predictable!

--
Brian

"Brian Smith" wrote in message
news:ddc3f0cf-41c8-4007-b374-883a9f5633e7n@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:55:29 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
>> Okay, I was dead wrong. The game has not been getting more
>> exciting at FTC since its golden days, actually the opposite
>> has happened.
>>
>> Here are the number of votes and percentage of them cast for
>> the winner season by season.
>>
>> By far the best period was the first five seasons, S01-S05.
>> Four out of five FTC were close (score 4-3), and the season
>> that wasn't close (S03) was only a single vote away from
>> close (5-2).
>>
>> Why was it so close in the early days? Probably because people
>> focused more on the survival part, building the shelter, camp
>> life etc, so strong guys and girls, not weak players, went on
>> to the FTC. After that period, people realized the game works
>> the opposite, those strong rivals are the guys you want to
>> get out, not keep.
>>
>> Now we haven't had a close season since S36 (6-5-0), and
>> before that: S21 (5-4-0).
>>
>> Anyway, here is the data.
>>
>> this file:
>> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/data/survivor.txt
>>
>> source:
>> https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/survivor-winners-list
>>
>> compute with:
>> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/survivor.el
>>
>> S01 4-3 57% *close*
>> S02 4-3 57% *close*
>> S03 5-2 71%
>> S04 4-3 57% *close*
>> S05 4-3 57% *close* [S01-S05 mean: 60%]
>> S06 6-1 86%
>> S07 6-1 86%
>> S08 4-3 57% *close*
>> S09 5-2 71%
>> S10 6-1 86% [S06-S10 mean: 77%]
>> S11 6-1 86%
>> S12 5-2 71%
>> S13 5-4-0 56% *close*
>> S14 9-0-0 100%
>> S15 4-2-1 57% [S11-S15 mean: 74%]
>>
>> S16 5-3 62%
>> S17 4-3-0 57% *close*
>> S18 7-0 100%
>> S19 7-2-0 78%
>> S20 7-2-0 78% [S16-S20 mean: 75%]
>>
>> S21 5-4-0 56% *close*
>> S22 8-1-0 89%
>> S23 6-3-0 67%
>> S24 7-2-0 78%
>> S25 6-1-1 75% [S21-S25 mean: 73%]
>>
>> S26 8-0-0 100%
>> S27 7-1-0 88%
>> S28 8-1 89%
>> S29 5-2-1 62%
>> S30 6-1-1 75% [S26-S30 mean: 83%]
>>
>> S31 10-0-0 100%
>> S32 5-2-0 71%
>> S33 10-0-0 100%
>> S34 7-3-0 70%
>> S35 5-2-1 62% [S31-S35 mean: 81%]
>>
>> S36 6-5-0 55% *close*
>> S37 7-3-0 70%
>> S38 9-4-0 69%
>> S39 8-2-0 80%
>> S40 12-4-0 75% [S36-S40 mean: 70%]
>>
>> S41 7-1-0 88%
>> S42 7-1-0 88%
>> S43 7-1-0 88%
>> S44 7-1-0 88%
>> S45 5-3-0 62% [S41-S45 mean: 83%]
>> --
>
>This is exactly what I told you. F3 has always had at least one finalist
>get either no votes or just one. Fire at F4 has not helped to make the
>final vote closer. They need to go back to F2 at the endif the goal is to
>have closer votes. S41 to S44 had the exact same 7–1–0 final vote. So
>predictable!
>
>--

I agree that an F2 is much better than an F3, and I would love to see the
show return to it.

As I said in another post, the original perceived problem with F2 is that
the winner of F3 immunity got to make a unilateral decision on who would go
to the finals. This put a lot of power in the hands of one person who was
often a marginal or under-the radar player who just got lucky in the F3
challenge. They tried to solve this by replacing the F2 with an F3, but
maybe a better solution would be to eliminate the F3 vote and go to a system
where the top two finishers in the F3 immunity challenge go to the final two
and the person who comes in last in the challenge gets eliminated. This
could even be a fire-making challenge where all three players have to make
fire and only the top two finishers go to the finals.

--

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 2:55:51 PM UTC-7, Rick wrote:
> "Brian Smith" wrote in message
> news:ddc3f0cf-41c8-4007...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:55:29 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> >> Okay, I was dead wrong. The game has not been getting more
> >> exciting at FTC since its golden days, actually the opposite
> >> has happened.
> >>
> >> Here are the number of votes and percentage of them cast for
> >> the winner season by season.
> >>
> >> By far the best period was the first five seasons, S01-S05.
> >> Four out of five FTC were close (score 4-3), and the season
> >> that wasn't close (S03) was only a single vote away from
> >> close (5-2).
> >>
> >> Why was it so close in the early days? Probably because people
> >> focused more on the survival part, building the shelter, camp
> >> life etc, so strong guys and girls, not weak players, went on
> >> to the FTC. After that period, people realized the game works
> >> the opposite, those strong rivals are the guys you want to
> >> get out, not keep.
> >>
> >> Now we haven't had a close season since S36 (6-5-0), and
> >> before that: S21 (5-4-0).
> >>
> >> Anyway, here is the data.
> >>
> >> this file:
> >> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/data/survivor.txt
> >>
> >> source:
> >> https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/survivor-winners-list
> >>
> >> compute with:
> >> https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/survivor.el
> >>
> >> S01 4-3 57% *close*
> >> S02 4-3 57% *close*
> >> S03 5-2 71%
> >> S04 4-3 57% *close*
> >> S05 4-3 57% *close* [S01-S05 mean: 60%]
> >> S06 6-1 86%
> >> S07 6-1 86%
> >> S08 4-3 57% *close*
> >> S09 5-2 71%
> >> S10 6-1 86% [S06-S10 mean: 77%]
> >> S11 6-1 86%
> >> S12 5-2 71%
> >> S13 5-4-0 56% *close*
> >> S14 9-0-0 100%
> >> S15 4-2-1 57% [S11-S15 mean: 74%]
> >>
> >> S16 5-3 62%
> >> S17 4-3-0 57% *close*
> >> S18 7-0 100%
> >> S19 7-2-0 78%
> >> S20 7-2-0 78% [S16-S20 mean: 75%]
> >>
> >> S21 5-4-0 56% *close*
> >> S22 8-1-0 89%
> >> S23 6-3-0 67%
> >> S24 7-2-0 78%
> >> S25 6-1-1 75% [S21-S25 mean: 73%]
> >>
> >> S26 8-0-0 100%
> >> S27 7-1-0 88%
> >> S28 8-1 89%
> >> S29 5-2-1 62%
> >> S30 6-1-1 75% [S26-S30 mean: 83%]
> >>
> >> S31 10-0-0 100%
> >> S32 5-2-0 71%
> >> S33 10-0-0 100%
> >> S34 7-3-0 70%
> >> S35 5-2-1 62% [S31-S35 mean: 81%]
> >>
> >> S36 6-5-0 55% *close*
> >> S37 7-3-0 70%
> >> S38 9-4-0 69%
> >> S39 8-2-0 80%
> >> S40 12-4-0 75% [S36-S40 mean: 70%]
> >>
> >> S41 7-1-0 88%
> >> S42 7-1-0 88%
> >> S43 7-1-0 88%
> >> S44 7-1-0 88%
> >> S45 5-3-0 62% [S41-S45 mean: 83%]
> >> --
> >
> >This is exactly what I told you. F3 has always had at least one finalist
> >get either no votes or just one. Fire at F4 has not helped to make the
> >final vote closer. They need to go back to F2 at the endif the goal is to
> >have closer votes. S41 to S44 had the exact same 7–1–0 final vote. So
> >predictable!
> >
> >--
> I agree that an F2 is much better than an F3, and I would love to see the
> show return to it.
>
> As I said in another post, the original perceived problem with F2 is that
> the winner of F3 immunity got to make a unilateral decision on who would go
> to the finals. This put a lot of power in the hands of one person who was
> often a marginal or under-the radar player who just got lucky in the F3
> challenge. They tried to solve this by replacing the F2 with an F3, but
> maybe a better solution would be to eliminate the F3 vote and go to a system
> where the top two finishers in the F3 immunity challenge go to the final two
> and the person who comes in last in the challenge gets eliminated. This
> could even be a fire-making challenge where all three players have to make
> fire and only the top two finishers go to the finals.
> --

Sounds good to me! This is basically what they do premerge where the first two tribes to finish are safe and last place goes to TC. At F3 the loser would go to jury. You should mention this idea to Dalton and ask him to sell it to Jeff. The only issue I see with your idea is that they would need either one extra day in the season or one more cycle where two people get booted. I'd also be in favor of 16 person casts.

--
Brian

Rick wrote:

> I agree that an F2 is much better than an F3, and I would
> love to see the show return to it.

Yes.

> As I said in another post, the original perceived problem
> with F2 is that the winner of F3 immunity got to make
> a unilateral decision on who would go to the finals.
> This put a lot of power in the hands of one person who was
> often a marginal or under-the radar player who just got
> lucky in the F3 challenge.

Well, the F3 challenge should be designed so you cannot win it
by getting lucky.

> They tried to solve this by replacing the F2 with an F3, but
> maybe a better solution would be to eliminate the F3 vote
> and go to a system where the top two finishers in the F3
> immunity challenge go to the final two and the person who
> comes in last in the challenge gets eliminated. This could
> even be a fire-making challenge where all three players have
> to make fire and only the top two finishers go to
> the finals.

I agree that would be better at F3 but I think the challenge
should be more exciting than just 3 guys making fire.

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Brian Smith wrote:

> F3 has always had at least one finalist get either no votes
> or just one.

There has been 30 seasons with three players at FTC. Of these,
the 3rd finisher has received one vote five times (S15, S25,
S29, S30, and S35). This is the best the 3rd player has ever
fared so I don't know how much sense it makes to include him
or her, since the stats seem to indicate this player will
never play any role at FTC.

That said, 3-player FTCs has seen four close seasons:

S13 (5-4-0)
S17 (4-3-0)
S21 (5-4-0)
S36 (6-5-0)

So 13% of the those seasons have been close.

> Fire at F4 has not helped to make the final vote closer.

Did you say it was introduced at S35?

If so, there has been just one close season (S36, 6-5-0) of
eleven, so 9%.

> They need to go back to F2 at the end if the goal is to have
> closer votes.

There has been 15 seasons with two players at FTC. Of these 5,
or 33%, have been close. So that's much higher than with three
players (again, 13%). However we see that this high percentage
is almost entirely built on the early days - take a look at
this sequence, what such seasons were close:

S01 (4-3)
S02 (4-3)
S04 (4-3)
S05 (4-3)
S08 (4-3)

To further exemplify, the last two seasons with 2-player FTCs
were S18 (7-0) and S28 (8-1).

> S41 to S44 had the exact same 7–1–0 final vote.
> So predictable!

Yes, but this season, S45, is tricky. Votes are 5-3-0 which is
62% of the votes cast for the winner. Since two votes separate
the winner from the 2nd player, we can't say it is close using
that definition. But with just one vote not for Dee but for
Austin, it would have been a tie 4-4-0, i.e. the first
50% ever!

Too bad it didn't happen. Because Dee would have won anyway :)

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

> There has been 30 seasons with three players at FTC.
> Of these, the 3rd finisher has received one vote five times
> (S15, S25, S29, S30, and S35). This is the best the 3rd
> player has ever fared so I don't know how much sense it
> makes to include him or her, since the stats seem to
> indicate this player will never play any role at FTC.

Verified, there isn't a single season where votes cast for the
3rd player would have tied the game if cast for the
2nd player.

It would have made one season, S15 (4-2-1) close tho (a
hypothetical 4-3-0). But then it should be noted that that
season was very close as it was, with only 57% of the votes
cast for the winner.

But in a way this whole reasoning is bogus since obviously and
by definition voting for the 3rd player will never influence
the game since the battle is between the 1st and 2nd player.

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

> Yes, but this season, S45, is tricky. Votes are 5-3-0 which
> is 62% of the votes cast for the winner. Since two votes
> separate the winner from the 2nd player, we can't say it is
> close using that definition. But with just one vote not for
> Dee but for Austin, it would have been a tie 4-4-0, i.e.
> the first 50% ever!

No, we had that, I remember now - "Ghost Island"!

That season is not just close, it is the closest ever with
just 55% of the votes for the winner.

S36 (6-5-0) 55%

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

If anything in the 60s (i.e. less than 70% of the votes cast
for the winner at FTC) is "great", and anything in
the 70s (70-79%) is "good", and then ditto 80s "OK", 90s "bad"
and 100 "awful", then we get this history for mean values
computed with seasons grouped into groups of five:

S01 - S05: 60% great
S06 - S10: 77% good
S11 - S15: 74% good
S16 - S20: 75% good
S21 - S25: 73% good
S26 - S30: 83% OK
S31 - S35: 81% OK
S36 - S40: 70% good
S41 - S45: 83% OK

If you think 69% is generous for a great season, think again,
as a perfect 4-3 season is already at 57%.

Here are the 10 best seasons ever according to this method:

1. S36 (6-5-0) 55%
2. S13 (5-4-0) 56%
3. S21 (5-4-0) 56%
4. S01 (4-3) 57%
5. S02 (4-3) 57%
6. S04 (4-3) 57%
7. S05 (4-3) 57%
8. S08 (4-3) 57%
9. S17 (4-3-0) 57%
10. S15 (4-2-1) 57% [not close]

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

"Emanuel Berg" wrote in message news:87jzoysacz.fsf@dataswamp.org...
>
>Rick wrote:
>
>> I agree that an F2 is much better than an F3, and I would
>> love to see the show return to it.
>
>Yes.
>
>> As I said in another post, the original perceived problem
>> with F2 is that the winner of F3 immunity got to make
>> a unilateral decision on who would go to the finals.
>> This put a lot of power in the hands of one person who was
>> often a marginal or under-the radar player who just got
>> lucky in the F3 challenge.
>
>Well, the F3 challenge should be designed so you cannot win it
>by getting lucky.
>

Well a purist might say that nothing is more fair than having to build fire
where everyone has the exact same raw materials to start.

>> They tried to solve this by replacing the F2 with an F3, but
>> maybe a better solution would be to eliminate the F3 vote
>> and go to a system where the top two finishers in the F3
>> immunity challenge go to the final two and the person who
>> comes in last in the challenge gets eliminated. This could
>> even be a fire-making challenge where all three players have
>> to make fire and only the top two finishers go to
>> the finals.
>
>I agree that would be better at F3 but I think the challenge
>should be more exciting than just 3 guys making fire.
>

Australian Survivor (and, more recently, Survivor UK) likes to do the
classic challenge from US Survivor 1 (Borneo) where you have three people
with their hand on a statue and it's strictly longevity, who can keep their
hand on the statue the longest. Whether that's more exciting than three
guys making fire is a matter of opinion, but I don't think either represents
luck. One measures fire-making skills and the other the raw determination
and physical stamina to keep your hand on an idol for several hours. Either
works for me.

--

Rick wrote:

>>> They tried to solve this by replacing the F2 with an F3,
>>> but maybe a better solution would be to eliminate the F3
>>> vote and go to a system where the top two finishers in the
>>> F3 immunity challenge go to the final two and the person
>>> who comes in last in the challenge gets eliminated.
>>> This could even be a fire-making challenge where all three
>>> players have to make fire and only the top two finishers
>>> go to the finals.
>>
>> I agree that would be better at F3 but I think the
>> challenge should be more exciting than just 3 guys
>> making fire.
>
> Australian Survivor (and, more recently, Survivor UK) likes
> to do the classic challenge from US Survivor 1 (Borneo)
> where you have three people with their hand on a statue and
> it's strictly longevity, who can keep their hand on the
> statue the longest. Whether that's more exciting than three
> guys making fire is a matter of opinion, but I don't think
> either represents luck. One measures fire-making skills and
> the other the raw determination and physical stamina to keep
> your hand on an idol for several hours. Either works for me.

Agreed!

In an ideal world, luck should be completely removed from the
game. This isn't hard to do either, as all such instances can
be solved by challenges. If there is no time or imagination to
do a proper Survivor-style, well-thought and original one, one
can always resort to a fire or something up that alley.
That would always be OK IMO.

Also, two players at FTC is also more dramatic, more of
a duel, than three players. It doesn't have to be close every
season, but it should also not be "hero vs goat" too much.

But as we have seen, three players at FTC and the fire-making
twist has not solved the one-sided problem, so the studio
should once again try to come up with modifications to make
the game more fair (less luck) and more exciting (less
one-sided FTCs).

I think the fire making contest at F4 is _perceived_ as making
the FTC more exciting as there are two "strong" ways to enter
it. Either winning the immunity challenge, _or_ making the
fire. So this is probably not a bad idea, even tho the stats
at this point won't support the notion that FTCs have become
more close because of it.

We also saw it in the "Survivor Capitalism" season that some
dude won the challenge, but also took upon himself to do the
fire challenge - and won the game. I.e., a super^2 way to FTC
for him. Din anyone else do that? If so, how did that go?

And, what are the stats now, is it better to make fire at F4
and win, or is it better to win immunity and make it to FTC
that way, i.e. without making the fire?

I now recall, it was you who compiled stats for this a couple
of seasons back, right? Do you still have the file? If not, it
should be in the archives for this group, alt.tv.survivor.

--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 12:47:32 -0500, "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

>Australian Survivor (and, more recently, Survivor UK) likes to do the
>classic challenge from US Survivor 1 (Borneo) where you have three people
>with their hand on a statue and it's strictly longevity, who can keep their
>hand on the statue the longest. Whether that's more exciting than three
>guys making fire is a matter of opinion, but I don't think either represents
>luck. One measures fire-making skills and the other the raw determination
>and physical stamina to keep your hand on an idol for several hours. Either
>works for me.
>
UK Survivor 1 + 2 had the pole standing challenge - one lasted for 23
1/2 the other 24 1/2 hours.

One can readily see why production hated it though they got some VERY
good shots of those who had 'fallen' early arriving back at dawn (with
lots of fruit from breakfast) and being staggered the remaining 3 were
both going strong.

Survivor South Africa (season 1 or 2 can't remember) had an extremely
muscular black fellow with superb social skills who everyone thought
would win but he momentarily blacked out on the F4 challenge and since
the challenge was also F3 (e.g. first off was automatically gone while
the winner of F3 chose who went with him/her to F2. Given how this
fellow had dominated post merge play it was a truly dramatic moment
when he fell.