SURVIVOR STRATEGY GUIDE – 2.4
By:
I love strategy games. When I think about the games and sports I
enjoy most - chess, sailing, Monopoly, curling, baseball, Diplomacy - they all
have strong strategic elements to them.
Many of these games also balance the strategy with physical challenges
(sailing, curling, baseball), elements of chance (Monopoly), or social dynamics
(Diplomacy). The other thing I find
these games have in common is that, at heart, the basic concept of the game is
very simple, but from this simple core a complex and interweaving tapestry of
strategies and game situations evolves to the point that everyone one of them
deservedly has literature (some far more then others) devoted to how these
games are played.
To me, Survivor is
remarkably similar these other games. At
heart a remarkably simple concept that evolves into a game combining strategy,
physical ability, social dynamics and luck in a complex, dynamic and very exciting
way. While these other games have books
devoted to analyzing their play, Survivor, at least to my knowledge, does
not. The purpose of this document is to
provide the beginning of such a guide.
This is the second version
of my Survivor strategy guide, the first version of which I began writing
during Survivor’s second installment in
Finally, I know I’ll be
accused of being an armchair quarterback and I suppose, in a sense, I am. People that have played the game say that
there is no way you can know what it’s like until you are actually there, and
that is very likely it true. What I would
say to these people is this. I would
love to play this game and if given the opportunity I would, and definitely the
experience I would gain would greatly enhance my ability to write pieces like
this. The thing is, the chance of this
ever happening is remote, to say the least, so in the meantime I will continue
to write about the game using as much information as I have at my
disposal. Besides, many of the
strategies that I write about here were inspired from watching the players of
this game. I learn from them.
Players in this game come
from every possible background and range from the naïve to the crafty, from the
reckless to the wimpy. Before I get into
talking about all these types of people, I want to make one general statement
regarding the players of Survivor. This
is such an important statement, that I think it can be put down as a rule.
1st Law of Survivor: Half the players can
be trusted only as far as to act in their own best interest. The rest cannot be trusted that far.
Never forget that everyone
else is there to win the game too, and any smart player will always act in
their own best interest. Given that,
there are always a significant number of players that don’t seem to be able to
realize when they are not acting in their own best interest. These players range from under-achieving
marshmallows that simply ride on the coat tails of others to overaggressive and
reckless players that will likely not only bring themselves down, but all those
around them as well. Marshmallows aren’t
hard to work with as they are predictable and can be taken advantage of, while
reckless players need to be handled with extra caution. This brings us to our next rule.
2nd Law of Survivor: Know your players.
This is an important skill
that can’t really be taught. Players
that can “read” the personalities right from start are at a great
advantage. Knowing whom you can trust,
when you can trust them and how you can use them is a huge part of the game.
There are three broad skills
that are required in order to be successful in Survivor: strategic sense,
social skills and physical ability. I
would place the first two on roughly equal footing as far as importance. Physical ability varies in importance
throughout the game. It has importance
in the early stages and at the end but is less important, and actually can be a
hindrance, in the middle stages of the game.
Let’s summarize each of these abilities below.
Strategic Sense: This is what this document is all about. Someone who comes into the game without an overall
strategy has very little chance to win in the end. “Flying below the radar” is not a strategy,
though it seems to be the primary strategy employed by close to half the
players that play this game, hence why anyone with any strategic sense has already
doubled their chances of winning. I
think proponents of flying below the radar are mislead by how far
non-aggressive players can sometimes get.
Just because a player makes their way into the final four, or even the
final two, doesn’t mean they have a realistic shot at winning. Juries have demonstrated (though the first
one was close) that they tend to vote for the player that controlled the game
as opposed to the one that got to the end just because they were not
threatening to anyone.
In Survivor –
Also, don’t confuse
aggression with strategic sense.
Although being strategic may require aggression at times, it also
requires discretion at others.
In Survivor – Marquesas, Rob Mariano was an overaggressive player who played himself, and almost his entire tribe right out of the game, though certainly there were many others that share in the blame in the destruction of the Maraamu tribe.
As I mentioned earlier, this
document is devoted almost entirely to this one aspect of Survivor so it’s hard
for me to summarize it all into just one statement. If, however, I were to put down what I felt
was the most important idea that players must constantly keep in mind, it would
be this.
0th Law of Survivor: Never, ever forget it
is a game.
The biggest mistake players
make is to start taking what goes on in the game personally. Targeting and allying with players based upon
personal likes and dislikes is an almost sure way to play your self right out
of the game. At the same time, players
shouldn’t be ashamed of wanting to win and doing the things that are required
to win. Being ruthless in a game is not
the same as being ruthless in life. This
doesn’t equate to immorality. In
baseball, should a man on second refrain from trying to read the catcher’s
signs? In poker, is someone who gives
off the impression they have a better hand then they do immoral, of course not
to both. Players that feel voting off
someone that you are friends with is wrong, has no business being in this game.
Social Skills: It seems funny that, for something I consider of
roughly equal importance to strategic strength, I’m giving this skill such
short attention. The reason for that is
simple. Players largely have control
over the strategies that they use, but usually have very little control over
their social skills. A player can do
their best to get along with everyone but in the pressure cooker that is this
game, if you don’t have the ability to work well with people, you won’t win. People that are whining or abusive in their
relationships with others might as well not sign up. Survivor places sixteen people of widely
divergent backgrounds into an isolating and exclusive environment for over a
month, and players must have the ability to develop quick relationships with
almost anyone. I’ve always felt that
older players had the greatest advantage with this. Players whose circle of acquaintances
includes a wide variety of people from different age groups and social
backgrounds really have an edge. With
certainly some exceptions, players in their low twenties, especially those that
are still in school, tend to only have to work with other people of the same
demographic as themselves. For this
reason, I would rarely put my money on anyone under the age of twenty-five
winning this game unless they balance this off with a lot of life experience.
Leadership is also a skill
that comes naturally to some people.
Leadership is a double-edged sword in this game though. Being the leader allows you to steer the
tribe but at the same time will make you the target for votes from your
opponents and even criticism from your own alliance. Players that earn the mantle of leadership
from their tribe-mates and demonstrate quiet leadership, facilitating the
social function of their tribe, are likely not putting themselves at a
disadvantage. A top-down style of
leadership likely will not work. Richard
Hatch did get away with this in the first Survivor, but likely this style of
play will not work in the future, as more people become students of the game.
Social skills are not just
about leadership and working together however.
Being able to read people is an important social skill. Being able to judge whom you can trust and
whom you can’t, who’s predictable and who is not and who’s a threat are all
very important. Successfully being
duplicitous is a social skill. The
ability to manipulate others is a social skill.
Lying well is a social skill. All
of these abilities should never be ignored or marginalized.
In the end though, players
cannot be anyone but themselves and need to try and find a role in the tribe
that emphasizes their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses.
Physical Ability: The importance of this attribute varies at different
stages of the game. First off, there is
a minimum physical level that is required.
Players that have difficulty even getting through the reward and
immunity challenges are more then likely to exit the game early. Even beyond this, the two players that are
athletically the weakest in their tribe at the onset of the game, need to play
very carefully to avoid being targeted in an attempt to strengthen the
tribe. Being strong physically at this
stage is important, as your value to the tribe is immeasurable as they try to
win immunity challenges and minimize the number of people they have to vote out
before the merge. That being said, being
physically imposing can be a detriment as a player can be so intimidating
athletically, that players may target them for being cast-off as the merge gets
closer.
After the merge, the most
athletic players not in the dominant tribe are the likely ones to be targeted,
so here it is clearly a disadvantage to be a strong, physical player. Even the most athletic players cannot
continue to win the wide variety of immunity challenges when there are over a
half a dozen other players all trying to do the same. Even athletic players in the dominant
alliance need to be careful after the merge, as they will be the likely targets
if other players attempt a coup. I don’t
subscribe to the view of many, that players should throw some of the challenges
so as to not appear a threat. A player
throwing a challenge and then being voted out would feel pretty foolish. Sometimes there are strategic reasons to
throw challenges, but just laying low is not one of them.
Once into the final four,
however, the ability to win challenges becomes big again. The people that win the last two immunity
challenges largely control the players that get voted out. People need to remember though that
typically, the last two challenges has been fallen comrades, testing how well
you knew previous tribe members, and hands on the idol, an endurance challenge
that has been won by a woman every time.
One needs to consider more then just pure athleticism in the end. More on this in the topic will come in the
endgame strategy section.
In the end, I don’t think
there is an ideal level of athleticism for Survivor, beyond meeting the minimum
physical ability needed to face the challenges.
It all depends so much on the dynamics of each individual tribe.
Let’s see how these three principles apply to the
final two in the first Survivor, Survivor –
Richard Hatch:
Strategic Sense: Definitely one of the best players
to play the game in this attribute.
Though hardly perfect, he was the first to figure out the game and stood
head and shoulders above the others in Survivor –
Social
Skills: Although many players in the game disliked Richard, his ability to read
and manipulate those around him was a tremendous attribute. He recognized the players that were threats
and removed them, and he manipulated his allies in order to work for him.
Physical
Ability: Although by no means an athlete, Richard more then met the minimum
requirements the game asked of him and was competitive in the challenges once
the more athletic players were no longer around.
Kelly
Wigglesworth:
Strategic
Sense: Virtually none. Kelly would not
target players she liked and wasted votes on those she did not. At the final four she seemed to be thinking
strategically, but made the wrong choice.
Kelly’s strategy seemed to be schmoozing with those she liked and voting
for those she didn’t. She tried to play
both sides of the alliance fence and burned herself doing it.
Social
Skills: Kelly got along very well with the younger members of both tribes, but
not with the older members of her own tribe.
Her attempts at trying to have everyone like her, in the end, got
certain people very angry with her. In
many ways she was the antithesis of Richard Hatch.
Physical Ability: Kelly was physically very strong and athletic. It was this ability, and this ability alone, that kept her in the game as long as she was.
Overall strategies will
change depending upon the phase of the game and what role a particular player
falls into. Modeling after chess, I have
split the game into three distinct phases named the opening, middle-game and
endgame. The purpose of each phase is to
leave the player in a good position for the next phase, and ultimately for
winning the game.
One last overall rule before
we get started with the specific phases of the game, and that is this.
3nd Law of Survivor: Rules are made to be
broken.
The rules presented here are
not cast in stone, though sometimes I make them sound like they are. For every rule presented, it is likely there
is a situation in which it should be broken; in fact I mention a number of
them. Players just need to make sure
they think long and hard before going against them.
This is the longest single
phase of Survivor and ends after the seventh player has been voted out. These first seven players voted out do not
form the jury of Survivor and have no further effect on the game. When the seventh player has been voted out,
nine players will be left, and since by this point the tribes will be merged,
one or the other of the old tribes will be in the majority. By the time the opening is over, the players
should want to accomplish two things.
1. Not be booted themselves.
2. Have their tribe be in the majority.
3. Be in a good position to seize control during the
middle game.
Not being booted: Obviously this has to be everyone’s first
priority. Each tribe will do their best
to win immunity challenges, but the likelihood is that a tribe should expect to
kick off at least two players before the merge.
Each player needs to do everything they can to have those two people not
be them. Different types of players have
different things to worry about, but there are some general things to keep in
mind for everyone.
1. Work towards tribe unity.
2. Demonstrate your worth to the tribe.
3. Keep your head down.
4. Don’t be too aggressive.
5. Form alliances.
Work towards tribe unity:
Players need to do their best to fit into the tribe and help the tribe act as a
unit. The socially awkward and players
who’s personalities or backgrounds do not mesh well with the rest of their
tribe are at the greatest risk. More
often then not, the first person booted is the person that least fit in with
the rest of the tribe.
In Survivor –
Demonstrate your worth to
the tribe: Each player needs to find to find a role within the tribe. Early on, athletic players have it the
easiest as their role is obvious, to help win immunity challenges. Early in the game, it is virtually always
a mistake to vote out an athletic player.
Players that are not athletic can still find roles working for the
tribe. This could be anything from
gathering or catching food, making fires, cooking or other practical
skills. Players can also put themselves
in the role of a tribe moderator or councilor, facilitating good relationships
between fellow tribe members. Players
should never make this their game wide strategy however. This is just meant to get a player past the
first couple of tribal councils. After
that, other more strategic factors will come into deciding who gets
booted. Players that think just catching
fish or being able to run faster then everyone else in the challenges will get
them far in the game, are making a serious mistake.
Keep your head down: Players
should not make enemies unnecessarily.
This includes the players that you believe will soon be voted off. At the very least, it may make the player
look like a jerk and alienate them from friends of the booted player. At the worst, booted players can put votes on
you that could come back to haunt you in the situation where votes against determine
the outcome of a tie vote.
Don’t alienate yourself in
voting. Vote with the tribe. Don’t be a top down style of leader, though
being a leader due to the respect of your tribe is not a bad thing at all. Keeping your head down doesn’t mean don’t say
or do anything, as this could also alienate the player from the tribe. It means working and doing your best to
appear as a solid member of the tribe.
Ironically, people with
strong bush-craft skills are particularly vulnerable here. Most of the players will have never camped in
their lives and will have no idea when it comes to making fires or building
shelters. Often a player that is a bit
of a woodsman will think that their knowledge will be invaluable, but often
these people just end up annoying most of the other players. Most people don’t like being continually
corrected on how to do things. These
players need to be careful not to unconsciously appear as if they are taking
control of the tribe. Help with the fire
(emphasis on help, not take control), as getting a fire going is huge that
first night. After that however, step
back. Offer advice and of course
physical assistance, but try not to take control of everything. If you see that the shelter isn’t really
being built right or players are wasting their time building ridiculous animal
traps, so what? There are more important
battles to fight later.
Don’t be too aggressive:
Some players seem to want to be aggressive right from the start. They come on like gangbusters, aggressively
forming alliances and trying to marginalize people they perceive as
threats. Besides drawing attention to
themselves and breaking the rule just mentioned above, they are also running
the risk of drawing lines in the sand and wasting energy having the tribe war with
each other when their chief concern should be winning challenges over the other
tribe. Richard Hatch got away with this
in the first Survivor because the rest of the tribe was still getting a feel
for how they should play the game. This
style of play won’t work again. In every
season since, players have tried the aggressive leader roles and have been
burned everytime.
In Survivor –
In
Survivor –
In
Survivor – Marquesas Rob Mariano and Sean Rector thought they were in an
episode of the Godfather. Rob even said
to the camera that “fear will keep the other players in line”. All they succeeded in doing was painting
targets the size of Zeppelins on themselves.
Form alliances: I use the
word alliance fairly loosely. An
alliance implies a degree of strategic thinking and foresight, but often this
is not the case. Often it is more of a
clique then an alliance, like the kind of social groups people formed in high
school. Here I define an alliance as a
small group of people that have a strong tendency to vote together.
From the previous section,
people might be getting the impression that I think alliances are a bad idea,
far from it. Players that are not in any
form of alliance or friendship are sitting ducks early in the game. In the end, no player is going to go anywhere
without being in a strong alliance.
Alliances just need to be formed subtly, without overly threatening the
other players. Alliances are best kept
under wraps as long as possible.
Alliances need to be picked carefully, because once they are chosen, it
will likely be detrimental to change them.
Below are some principles of picking alliance members.
1.
Have a “second”.
2.
Don’t be in an alliance with nothing but athletic players.
3.
Alliances shouldn’t be more then three players.
4.
Pick players that are predictable.
5.
Don’t be too picky.
Have
a second: Casual viewers of Survivor often say it’s a game where the winner
screws over everyone, but that is not the case.
Because in the end there are two players that are left for the jury to
choose between, a player has the luxury of having one person that they can
remain loyal to throughout. Having a
good second is such a major advantage that it can almost be said to be a
necessity. A player and the second are
the core of any alliance, and for people trying to guess the outcome of a game;
they must first be able to pick out the seconds. Some people put a lot of emphasis on choosing
a second that is such a jerk that you are almost sure to win against them. I think this is a mistake. Being allied with an abrasive player will
make it difficult to bring in more support and will very likely prevent both
players from ever making it to the endgame.
I think it’s more important to pick someone you can trust to vote with
you and someone that you will enjoy working with as this will be your confidant
for over a month.
Don’t
be in an alliance with nothing but athletic players: If a player is an athletic
player, they shouldn’t surround themselves with more athletic players as they
will be far too intimidating as the game approaches the middle stages and will
have an increased chance of being disposed in a coup. On the other hand, having an athletic player
in the alliance can be an asset in the middle game because winning immunities
gives the alliance greater control over the voting. Just make sure this person doesn’t become a
target himself or herself.
Alliances
shouldn’t be more then three players: Some players may be without a second and
be forced to be a third in an alliance, however players should never allow
themselves to be fourths or fifths in an alliance. These people are far better off forming their
own alliance with the plan of eventually turning on the other alliance in the
middle-game. Certainly you can have
groups of five or more players that will vote and act together, but these should
be two alliances that have allied and should eventually split apart. This being said, there are players that seem
content to play the fourth, or even the fifth, anyway. If an alliance of three has someone that is
content to play the fourth or fifth, these players should be used, but make
sure that they aren’t about to pull a coup later.
Pick
players that are predictable: The players in the game can be put into one of
three groups: marshmallows, aggressive and reckless. Marshmallows seem to think that flying below
the radar is the best strategy and won’t cross anyone. These people are great to have in an alliance
as they almost always vote as they’re told, even when they are sitting fourth
or even fifth in an alliance. These
people also have the advantage of not earning the respect of the jury and are
not likely to garner a lot of votes in the final two. The disadvantage of a marshmallow is that it
may be difficult to get them to play aggressively when it is called for (like
when attempting a coup). Aggressive
players are not necessarily bad either.
As long as it is in their best interest, they’ll vote with the alliance,
but don’t expect them to keep voting with you from the fourth or fifth
spot. These people need to be seconds or
thirds in order to keep their loyalty.
Reckless players are aggressive to their own detriment. They should be avoided. Their biggest danger is that in their zeal
they can easily bring down the whole tribe.
The good news is that it is often fairly easy to convince other players
they need to go.
Let’s see
how the members of the Ogakor tribe of Survivor –
Marshmallows:
Amber
Aggressive:
Colby, Tina, Keith (I’m giving Keith the benefit of the doubt here)
Reckless:
Jerri, Mitchell
Not
around long enough to tell: Kel, Maralyn
Don’t
be too picky: You can only work with what you’ve got. It’s better to be part of an alliance that is
not perfect then to not be in any alliance at all. Alliances seem to often fall along social lines
and once someone is tight in an alliance, it may be next to impossible to woo
them over so it may be better not to try, as aggressive alliance forming can
easily put your head on the block.
Players shouldn’t be afraid to form alliances with people that normally
may not be part of their social group.
In fact, this is often a very good idea.
Don’t automatically form alliances just with people of the same age, sex
or economic group.
In Survivor – Marquesas, Hunter Ellis
and Gina Crew had Rob Mariano, Sarah Jones (a pair) and Patricia Jackson voting
with them early in the game but didn’t like Sarah and so decided to vote her
out. The result was Rob and Sarah
joining forces with Sean and Vecepia (two outcast players in the tribe) and
taking out Patricia, leaving Hunter and Gina now powerless.
Have
your tribe be in the majority: Coming out in the majority after the merge should
be the overriding concern of every member of the tribe. By the time of the merge the players have
been together for about three weeks and the trials that they’ve been through
have in all likelihood created bonds that will be next to impossible to break,
even with a player swap. For that
reason, players shouldn’t bank on other players crossing the lines in
tribes. Moving from one tribe to the
other is almost always suicide as you are entering that tribe at the bottom of
the totem pole. This underlies the
importance of each player doing everything they can to have their tribe on top
come the merge. The tribe on the bottom
is very likely out of the game unless the dominant tribe makes some blunders.
Vecepia
Towery was the exception to this rule in Survivor – Marquesas where she was
able to work herself into a winning position despite having her tribe
outnumbered at the merge 7 to 3. She had
a number of factors to her advantage however.
First, the dominant alliance was overconfident and made their alliance
an obvious one. This woke up a rather
marshmallowish weaker alliance that decided to take them out. I think the nature of the dominant pair, one
of which was beside her in the final two, helped her as well. They were moralistic but didn’t come across
as strategic. They simply didn’t give
off that air of aggressive gamesmanship that the winners of this game always
seem to have. Second, because the new
dominant alliance was fairly non-aggressive, they weren’t about to deal with
the threat that the weaker tribe represented.
Third, the other two members of her tribe, Rob Mariano and Sean Rector
were very outspoken and were obvious targets before her, but at the same time
stirred the pot and fractured the Rotu tribe.
Finally, she just got damned lucky and won the challenge at four and one
of the dominant pair went creating a very dynamic final three where she
suddenly became the player the other two thought they could win against.
Another
thing to consider is jury votes. The
more fellow tribe members that make the merge, the more of them that will be on
the jury and provide potential support to any fellow tribe member that makes
the final two.
Obviously
the only way to have your tribe on top is to win immunities and the best way to
win immunities is to make the tribe as strong athletically as possible. For this reason the first people voted off the tribe
should be the athletically weakest players on the tribe. Of course, the people who are the weakest two
players in the tribe won’t subscribe to this strategy and they must try to
steer the others in a different direction.
In each of the first four Survivors, there have been a number of players
that were one of the two athletically weakest in their tribe, yet still made it
deep into the game. Roger Bingham (fifth
place), Rudy Boesch (third place), Kim Johnson (second place), Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien
(third place) and Tina Wesson (first place) all fit into this group, so
obviously being a non-athletic player is not necessarily a detriment. This doesn’t change the fact that removing
the weakest player is still in the best interest of the others. Players that are disrupting the unity of the
tribe can also be targets for removal.
Again, it’s the overall function of the tribe that should be the primary
concern, their ability to win challenges.
Situations
can change. The need to take out a weaker
player is less when a tribe is ahead and more if a tribe is behind. As the merge approaches, the need becomes
less as well, though players should be careful not to bank on exactly when the
merge will occur. The producers of the
show have shown that they are fully prepared to move the merge around, though
players can remain reasonably sure that the merge will occur after the fifth,
sixth or seventh player voted out. If
players were very sure the merge is coming after the tribal council they are
in, it would be a good time takes out a strong player.
A
potential player swap also changes things.
If a swap is likely coming, it should be treated in much the same way as
a potential merge. Like when the tribes
merge, if there is a player swap, it is the tribe that is in the majority that
is in the distinct advantage, underscoring even more the importance of those
first few immunity challenges. More on
this is discussed in the section on swaps.
Finally,
while still under the topic of tribe unity, it is important to try and make
everyone in the tribe feel they are still part of the game. Tribes that work well as a unit, are far more
likely to win challenges, while tribes that are divided are more likely to
lose, as many of the challenges are less about strength and more about
teamwork. As well, shunned and isolated
players may feel they have nothing to loose and may become very dangerous if
they make it to the merge or if a player swap is made.
In Survivor – Africa, Frank Garrison
and Teresa Cooper where isolated players in their tribes and wasted no time at
all screwing their tribe over once there was a player swap, even though it
wasn’t in their best interest to do so.
Ironically,
it is possible to have too much of a majority come the merge. A large number of players in dominant tribe
just makes it that much harder for the dominant players to control them. A 6-4 majority at the merge is ideal. This may make it tempting to want to start
booting your own tribe members and perhaps even throwing a challenge to
accomplish this. Never start playing
this kind of game until the tribe is assured the majority after the merge, in
other words, the other tribe has lost four or more players.
In Survivor – Marquesas, seven of the eight members
of the Rotu tribe made the merge. The
dominant players were John Carrol, Tammy Leitner, Robert DeCanio and perhaps
Zoe Zanidakis. Even with this alliance
of four (though Zoe was iffy), there were still three members in the dominant
tribe that would be fools not to merge with the weaker tribe to form another
alliance. If more Rotu’s were gone by
the merge, the dominant players would have had an easier time.
Players have to be thinking ahead from day one in order to see what role they are likely to fall into. Day one friendships often turn into week one alliances. Right from the beginning, players need to try to get a feel for the dynamics of the tribe. Plan that three players will be voted out by the merge (any more then three means the tribe is in the minority so it likely wouldn’t matter anyway) and try to predict who these players would be. Put yourself in the shoes of your opponents and try to guess what they would do. If players see they are falling into a roll that will be unworkable in the middle-game, then they need to do something about it, even if it means breaking previously mentioned strategies like kicking out strong players early.
The merge: Players shouldn’t count on the merge occurring at a
specific moment. In Survivor –
Despite all this, in four
installments of Survivor, the merge has always occurred after the sixth tribal
council. Producers may be reluctant to
move this for a variety of reasons, so players are likely safe counting on the
merge occurring at this time.
The swap: In Survivor –
In Survivor –
A swap should be treated in
the same way as a merge (except there are two merged tribes) – refer to
middle-game strategies. Players should
not abandon their old alliances and tribes, even if they are now split up. In each tribe there will be a dominant
alliance and that alliance will want to strengthen its position. Throwing challenges in order to remove
opponents that are now in your group should definitely be considered. Remember, the most dangerous opponents are
not necessarily those that were formally in the other tribe, though never begin
booting your own tribe-mates until you are sure that you will be in the
majority come the merge. There will also
be a weaker alliance and a weaker tribe (again, refer to middle-game
strategies) and players in these positions should play in much the same way as
if they would in the middle-game. The
one overriding rule for these two groups though is to stick together.
In Survivor-Africa, Frank Garrison and Teresa Cooper were sent over to the other tribe with Silas Gaither, a player that they had been battling with. Instead of sticking together, Frank and Teresa joined forces with the other tribe to remove Silas. This moved gained them nothing as they were never let into the Boran alliance and it removed the chance that together, the three of them could have ended up on top. If Samburu went into the merge ahead, Frank and Teresa could have then used Boran support to remove Silas without much difficulty.
More then anything the swap
underlies the importance of the first three immunity challenges. The tribe that is behind at a swap is in
serious jeopardy.
Tie votes: Most viewers of Survivor are familiar with the rule
that, in the event of a tie vote, it is the player with the most previous votes
against that goes. However, in Surivivor
– Marquesas the rule was dropped and was replaced with having all players,
minus a player that has won an individual immunity, put their hands into a bag
and draw stones. The one that draws the
purple, is the one that goes, whether they were involved in the tie or not.
This happened for the first time in Survivor – Marquesas when they were down to four players. Paschel English and Neleh Dennis voted Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien while Kathy and Vecepia Towery voted Neleh. The tie held in a revote. The players were explained the new rule and were allowed to converse and decide if they were going to change their votes. All of them decided to hold their votes and Paschel, Neleh and Kathy (Vecepia had won immunity) reached into a bag. Paschel drew the purple rock and was removed from the tribe even though he had no votes against him.
I’m going to deal with both
ways of breaking ties separately. The
thing is there is nothing to stop the producers from changing the rule once
again, so I’ll have some general principles regarding tie votes at the
end. First off, one should consider the
factors that have already been discussed in determining whom to vote for.
If previous votes against
count, then the decision is easy. You
target the opposing player that you think (or know) has the most votes
against. If players are only guessing at
who has previous votes against (for example, if they were from the other
tribe), they should realize that the players with the most votes against tend
to be players that had personality conflicts with other members of their
tribe. The following is a list of who
had the most votes against at the merge.
Survivor –
Survivor –
Survivor –
Survivor – Marquesas: The players with votes against were Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien and Rob Mariano, again personality conflicts. One should also consider Sarah Jones who had seven votes on her by the time of the swap. Without the swap, she could easily have made the merge with a mountain of votes on her. Again, this was due to personality conflicts with other members of her tribe. Are we seeing a pattern?
Now let’s talk about the new
drawing stone rules. The first question
is, should anyone change their votes knowing that they will be drawing stones
and that everyone will have an equal chance of going, whether they have any
votes on them or not? The first thing
that needs to be considered is how flexible the alliances are at that
particular stage of the game. If there
are eight or ten players involved in a potential tie, the players that are
riding fourth or fifth in these alliances really need to ask themselves whether
the risk of going to stones is worth it.
What they should be doing is shopping for a better deal, either final
three or two, and avoiding the tie all together. This kind of deal should not be done during
the tribal council though, but well before as they need to be well
considered. Once such a deal is made, it
will affect the way you play the rest of the game.
But, what if such a deal is
not in cards? Should a player risk the
stones or should they stab their alliance mates in the back to become the
lowest member in the other tribe? This
is a complicated question and depends on a number of factors such as how early
or late in the game the tie occurs, is it before or after a swap or merge and
is playing in the weaker alliance feasible.
I thought perhaps the most instructive thing to do is to look at the
ties and potential ties that have occurred in the game and try to determine
what would be the best strategy in each case if the stone rule were in play.
Survivor
–
Survivor
–
Survivor
–
Survivor –
Survivor –
Survivor –
Survivor
– Marquesas: Tie at four. Paschel
English and Neleh Dennis vote Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien. Kathy and VecepiaTowery vote Neleh. Vecepia has immunity. Paschel is the only one who needs to make a
decision here. Should he stick with his
vote and risk the stones, or should he save himself from the stones and help
take out Neleh? Paschel’s situation is
that if he went into the final three in the minority, he would be the sure
target due to his popularity with the jury and so would have to win immunity in
this situation. If he went into the
final three in the majority, then Neleh would be the target if Vecepia won
immunity. A probability analysis has his
probability of making the final two if he stuck with the stones is only 4 in
9. The probability of him making the
final two if he sold out Neleh are only 1 in 3.
You can see how important the immunity win has become. Add to this the negative effect screwing over
his second might have on any jury vote and it is clear to see Paschel’s best
option is to stick with Neleh and draw stones.
So what do we have? In the seven scenarios I presented above, in
only one of them was it clearly better to avoid the stones and in two it was a
bit of a wash. In four of the seven, it
was to the player’s advantage to take their chances with the stones.
So, we see that changing
votes in order to avoid drawing stones is a mistake in most circumstances. How does this method of breaking ties affect
who should be targeted in a tie vote?
First, one needs to consider all the other factors that affect who to
vote for. A number of these factors have
already been discussed and more of them are still to come. The best scenario in a tie vote situation
though is that someone on the other side waffles and changes their vote to
favour your alliance and you avoid the stones all together. A marshmallow is unlikely to screw over
anyone and a smart, aggressive player will likely realize their best bet is to
take their chances with the stones. That
means your best candidate to waffle is an egocentric, reckless player who won’t
want to take their chances with the stones and convince themselves they are
being strategic in screwing over their partners. Don’t target his player in you
voting! The players that are involved in
the tie are largely bound to holding their votes, instead target the player
that is least likely to waffle.
A quiz has been used to
break ties. This rule has been scrapped,
but one never knows if it could come back.
If this were the case, one should target the player they feel would likely
do the worst with the quiz (that is if there isn’t a candidate for votes
against if that rule were in effect).
Are there other tie-breaker
options? Certainly, but what the
producers will next pull out of their hats is hard to guess. Personally, I don’t think the votes against
rule will be coming back and the drawing stones seemed popular, so if I were in
this game, I would expect stones, or some variation of it, to be in play. One last piece of advice, I think players
that are in the dominant positions should do their best to avoid ties
period. They have too much to lose if
things go wrong.
Passing Immunity: While on the topic of rule changes, the other big
rule change that was thrown into Survivor – Marquesas was the ability for the
player to pass immunity on to someone else.
The only situation where I can envision passing immunity is if the tie
vote rule were in effect and there was going to be a tie vote and the player
with the most votes against was in your alliance and the player with the next
most votes against was in the other alliance, or there were no other players
with votes against, or a tie in votes against.
Basically, the situation would be that you are saving your alliance from
sure destruction.
This basically was the situation in
Survivor –
The thing is, with the vote
against rule apparently gone, I would say you should never pass away immunity,
period. The amount of deal talking
during council revolving around the immunity necklace in Marquesas astounded
me. Make your deals before hand folks
and the necklace shouldn’t be a part of it.
This ain’t Monopoly.
Survivor – Marquesas: Sean Rector, Vecepia Towery, Kathy Vavrick-O’Brein, Neleh Dennis and Paschel English were left in the game. Sean and Vecepia were a pair, as were Neleh and Paschel. Kathy wins immunity and plays lets make a deal at council. Although the episode made a big deal of the negotiating, the fact that Kathy has the immunity necklace around her neck means nothing. If Kathy felt she was better off with Sean and Vecepia, she should join with them, if she felt she was better off with Neleh and Paschel she should join with them and that’s it. The thing is, this decision was obviously coming since the moment John Carrol was voted off four immunity councils previously, which gave these players almost two weeks to think about what they were going to do here. The fact that Kathy didn’t start talking deals until literally minutes before the voting was to go down underscores how weak a player she was. These agreements require thought and pondering. They’re not to be made lightly and players should be going into council already knowing exactly what they are going to do.
Throwing challenges: It is certainly possible for it to be in the interest
of some members of a tribe to throw a challenge or two as the merge
approaches. If a tribe is guaranteed to
reach the merge in the majority then the dominant alliance in that tribe should
begin considering the possibility of throwing an immunity challenge. If the alliance is in the majority in the
tribe, then there is nothing that can stop them from removing who they choose
from the minority members in the tribe.
It is better to do this before the merge, as after their target could
find potential allies in the other tribe and prepare a counter-offensive. Obviously the target should be either the
most athletic or the most aggressive player in the minority alliance.
In Survivor –
Never forget who the
opposition is: A final note before
we move into the middle-game. With so
many factors that can pull players in different directions it can get confusing
what to do, so I’m presenting this final rule that should always be kept in
mind. Never forget that the key
opposition is the players in the other tribe.
Sometimes players can get so wrapped up in battles within their own
tribe that they forget who the real enemy is.
Never think that members of the other tribe are your allies, except in
the most extreme of circumstances, they are not. Coming out on top in the middle-game means
that the members of the other tribe have a severely reduced chance of winning
the game. A player that allows the
weaker tribe back into the game is likely decreasing his or hers own chances of
eventually winning. The only exception
to this is if the player is an isolated player in their own tribe and likely to
be being booted out himself or herself before long. In this situation there are no holds barred.
Kathy
Vavrick-O’Brein, Paschel English and Neleh Dennis joining
forces with the weaker tribe in Survivor – Marquesas was discussed about
earlier, but there are other examples of players that likely would have been
better off joining members of the other tribe.
In Survivor –
As soon as the seventh
player has been voted out, we enter the middle-game. This phase ends when there are only four
players left at which point we enter the endgame. Every player voted out from here on in will
become a member of the jury and will have a say on who the eventual winner will
be. Although I’ve set the beginning of
the middle-game at a specific point, the truth is many of the strategies
presented here will actually creep into the closing days of the opening,
especially once a merge or swap has occurred.
Each player will find
themselves in one of three positions.
1. Dominant
2. Weaker
3. Weaker Tribe: The players that are not in the
dominant tribe.
Survivor –
Dominant
Weaker
Weaker Tribe: Alicia, Elizabeth, Nick & Roger.
These roles are dynamic and
can change as the game progresses. In
Survivor –
Division after the seventh tribal council in Survivor - Africa:
Dominant
Alliance: Ethan, Lex & Tom
Weaker
Weaker
Tribe: Brandon, Frank, Kim P & Teresa
Division
after eighth tribal council:
Dominant
Alliance: Frank, Kim P & Teresa
Weaker
Alliance: Brandon
Weaker
Tribe: Ethan, Kim J, Lex & Tom
Division
after ninth tribal council:
Dominant
Alliance: Ethan, Kim J, Lex & Tom
Weaker
Alliance: None
Weaker
Tribe: Frank, Kim P & Teresa
This definitely represented the most bizarre set of circumstances that have yet occurred in Survivor and I’ll be getting to them eventually.
When there are player swaps
in the opening, tribal lines can often get blurred and deciding which players
are in one tribe and which are in another can get confusing. The roles that each player has in the game
needs to be considered carefully in such situations.
This
was the division after the eighth tribal council in Survivor – Marquesas. I’ve included the name of each player’s
original tribe and then their new tribe in parentheses.
Dominant Alliance: Paschel
(Rotu/Maraamu), Neleh (Rotu/Maraamu) & Kathy (Rotu/Maraamu)
Weaker Alliance: Vecepia
(Maraamu/Rotu) & Sean (Maraamu/Rotu)
Weaker Tribe: Zoe
(Rotu/Rotu), Robert (Rotu/Rotu) & Tammy (Rotu/Rotu)
Although
a little blurry, the tribal lines are still there. The dominant alliance are all original Rotu members
that have no intension of letting the weaker alliance in the door.
Before getting into the
strategies of each of these groups, I want to present one overall rule that
should be kept in mind.
Middle-game Rule: Always have a plan B.
The wrong player winning
immunity can throw a wrench into a team's plans, and players should discuss
before hand what they would do in that eventuality. This discussion should not be left until
after the immunity challenge when players may not have the opportunity to carefully
consider their plans and decisions may be made in haste.
In Survivor – Australia the two tribes were tied going into the merge and the Kucha tribe was planning on voting for Keith Famie whom they were pretty sure had previous votes against. When Keith won the immunity challenge, they were forced to vote for someone else and made the poor choice of picking Colby Donaldson, a choice they may have made differently if they had given it more thought.
Coming up are the strategies
that need to be followed by the players in each of the previously defined
groups.
Dominant Alliance: The goal is a simple one, to get the members of your
alliance into the final four and the endgame.
The biggest threat to this goal is not the members of the weaker tribe,
but the members of the weaker alliance within your own tribe! The first two or three tribal councils after
the beginning of the middle-game are the most volatile and need to be handled
with the greatest of delicacy. With each
council, the players of the dominant alliance need to make a decision, whether
to vote out a member of the other tribe or whether to vote out a member of the
weaker alliance in their own tribe.
Voting
out members of the other tribe: This call is a relatively simple one. If the dominant tribe (the dominant and
weaker alliances added together) is only ahead by one, a member of the weaker
tribe should be removed. The reason for
this is a simple one, allowing the weaker tribe to become tied in numbers opens
the opportunity for them to seize control of the game. The two biggest risks to the dominant
alliance are, in order, the possibility of a coup and the possibility of an
enemy player winning some key immunity challenges towards the end. The possibility of a coup should be dealt
with first, so the first players taken out should be the players that are most
likely to attract the weaker alliance members from your own tribe. Factors like intelligence, charisma,
aggressiveness and how well liked they are by players of the weaker alliance should
factor into these decisions. Another
factor is support from the weaker alliance.
The dominant alliance likely cannot remove anyone without support so
targeting someone that you are unlikely to get support for is pretty
foolish. If the weaker alliance is
sleepily riding out the game, the last thing the dominant alliance wants to do
is wake them up with overly aggressive game play. When it comes to the weaker alliance,
sometimes it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie.
In Survivor – Marquesas the weaker
alliance appeared to be prepared to just ride out the rest of the game but a
couple of events changed their mind. One
was when a quiet and popular member of their own tribe (Gabriel Cade) being
removed by the forming dominant alliance and the other was an immunity
challenge where the dominant alliance let it be clearly known who was in and
who was out. The weaker alliance ended
up pulling a coup on the dominant alliance and seized control of the game. Subtlety and humility may stay the course
here.
Strong
immunity contenders are the next players that need to be dealt with. Ideally, the dominant alliance will want no
strong immunity contenders that are not in their alliance left when they are
down to six players in the game. They
shouldn’t discount the possibility of players putting together immunity winning
streaks toward the end of the game; however early in middle-game there are so
many good targets, that the wrong player winning immunity is not a big deal.
In
Survivor –
In Survivor – Australia, Ogakor was ahead of the weaker tribe five players to four and targeted the smart, aggressive and athletic Alicia Calaway from the other tribe.
Voting out members of your
own tribe: This is a far more delicate procedure and timing is the key. If the dominant tribe is ahead by two or more
players, then there may be an opportunity to take out one of the weaker
alliance. The more players in the
dominant tribe the more they need to remove one of your own because the larger
the tribe the larger the threat of it splitting into opposing factions. Again, the biggest threat to the dominant
alliance is the possibility of a coup and that needs to be at the forefront of
the players’ minds. The dominant
alliance shouldn’t wait too long either, because as the weaker tribe gets
smaller in number, the chances of the weaker alliance joining with them become
higher. For example, if there were three
members in the dominant alliance, two members in the weaker alliance and one
(or even two) members of the weaker tribe, the weaker alliance would be foolish
not to join forces with the weaker tribe to take a run at controlling the
game. If there were more members in the
weaker tribe, then the weaker alliance can’t control them and joining with them
is not so obvious an advantage.
In Survivor – Africa, the dominant alliance jumped the gun and removed a member of the weaker alliance too early and brought the two tribes into a tie in the removal of Kelly Goldsmith. It was only the completely dysfunctional nature of the weaker tribe that allowed the dominant alliance to remain in the game.
The dominant alliance likely
cannot take out a member of their own tribe without help of the weaker tribe
and they need to consider very carefully whether they can get it. If the weaker tribe is more then likely to join
with the weaker alliance, then it is better for the dominant tribe to continue
to take out weaker tribe members. As
always, players need to put themselves in the position of their opponents and
try to guess what it is they would do.
After the eighth tribal council In Survivor – Borneo the dominant alliance really consisted of only Richard Hatch and Rudy Boesch with Kelly Goldsmith, Sean Kenniff and Susan Hawk in the weaker alliance and Colleen Haskill, Gervase Peterson and Jenna Lewis in the weaker tribe. Richard and Rudy are obviously in a difficult position and it is only the ineptitude of players like Sean and Kelly that are keeping them in the game. Remember that this is the first Survivor and players are inventing strategies on the go. Richard would likely love to make a move on Kelly, but is unlikely to get support from the weaker tribe as they are more likely to side with Kelly and take out Richard or Rudy, so he takes the safer path of continuing to take out members of the weaker tribe.
If the dominant alliance
feels they can get the support of the weaker tribe then they need to consider
who to target. Usually this will be the
person who is the least popular with the weaker tribe (though this may not be
the player in the weaker tribe’s best interest). The dominant alliance may love to remove a
more popular or athletic player, but if they have the support of the weaker
tribe, they shouldn’t look the gift horse in the mouth.
The best example of this strategy put to action was in Survivor – Australia. The dominant alliance was Colby Donaldson, Tina Wesson and Keith Famie, the weaker alliance Jerri Manthey and Amber Brkich and the weaker tribe Elizabeth Filarski, Nick Brown and Roger Bingham. Jerri was an abrasive and aggressive player and it didn’t take too much to convince the weaker tribe to vote with the dominant alliance to remove her, even though it wasn’t in the weaker tribe’s best interest to do so. See below.
When there are only four
players left in the dominant tribe, the dominant pair (the two players calling
the shots) needs to make a decision on whether to take the fourth member into
the endgame or instead, take a member of the weaker tribe. The biggest concern is, as always, the
possibility of a coup. What the dominant
pair needs to ask themselves is, what is the likelihood that the third and
fourth person in the final four will join forces and take on the dominant
pair. The dominant pair should have the
player that is least likely to join with the third as the fourth in their
alliance. Barring this concern, the next
one is athletic ability. Although
immunity is not of great importance in the middle-game, in the endgame it can
be of overriding importance. At the
final four, the person who wins immunity could easily control who goes, while
at three, the person who wins immunity completely controls who is in the final
two. The final consideration is
popularity with the potential jury.
Barring everything else, the most popular player not in the dominant
alliance should be taken out.
In Survivor – Africa, Kim Johnson moved from the weaker alliance into the fourth in the dominant alliance. She was a better choice then anyone in the weaker tribe as she was not as aggressive, disliked by the third, a weaker immunity contender and less popular to the jury.
What may be an effective way
of preventing a coup is to promise the least aggressive member of the weaker
alliance a place in the final four and then to vote out the more aggressive
one. This is not a risk free attack
either, as it is very likely that this player would be better off sticking with
the weaker alliance and attempting a coup, and a feeling you might take out
their partner could be the match that starts the fire.
The coup: Despite their best
efforts, the dominant alliance may not be able to avoid a coup and may see
their position toppled. Although the
natural impulse would be to be angry, players should never forget the zeroth
law of Survivor – never forget it is a game.
The players in the weaker alliance are simply trying to do the same
thing the players in the dominant alliance are trying to do, win the game. Personal feelings should always take a back
seat to strategy and the surviving members of the former dominant alliance need
to remember that. Like it or not, they
are now in the weaker alliance (or even the weaker tribe) but it may not be a
complete disaster as that position may still be workable and there is still a
chance they can get themselves into the endgame. What they need to do is adapt their strategies
to their new position.
The
first coup finally occurred in the fourth installment, Survivor –
Marquesas. Here is how the players stood
after the seventh tribal council.
Dominant
Alliance: John, Tammy, Robert & Zoe
Weaker
Alliance: Neleh, Paschel & Kathy
Weaker
Tribe: Sean & Vecepia
The
weaker alliance and weaker tribe did the smart thing, joined forces and
dethroned the leader of the dominant tribe.
After the next council the players now stood as follows.
Dominant
Alliance: Neleh, Paschel & Kathy
Weaker
Alliance: Sean & Vecepia
Weaker
Tribe: Tammy, Robert & Zoe
Weaker Alliance: If the weaker alliance consists of two people or
more, they should ally, regardless of any personal ill feelings they may have
for each other. Trying to fly below the
radar to try to make it as far as you can is the wrong way to go. If you’re not in the dominant alliance, then
you are not slotted to make it into the final four and you should do something
about it. Counting on winning a number
of consecutive immunity challenges is a foolish strategy. Although Kelly Wigglesworth pulled this off
in Survivor – Borneo, your chances are better trying to seize control of the
game yourself. You run the risk of
actually getting booted out sooner, but the potential gain is winning the game,
and isn’t this why the players are there?
If the weaker alliance has
any chance of getting the support of the weaker tribe, they should attempt a
coup. The players shouldn’t wait too
long and shouldn’t feel guilty about doing it either. Again, the Zeroth Law of Survivor
applies. The timing of a coup needs to
be considered carefully and the aggressiveness of the dominant alliance factors
into this decision. If the weaker tribe
is fairly sure that the dominant tribe is not planning on voting any of their
own tribe off until all of the weaker tribe is gone, then they should wait
until the weaker tribe is reduced to the point that their numbers are fewer
then the weaker alliance. At this point,
the weaker alliance can join them out right and control the new alliance. Players need to be very careful with this
course though, because you are banking on the foolishness of the dominant
alliance and underestimating opponents can be a dangerous business.
Survivor – Marquesas: Once the number in the weaker tribe fell below the number in the weaker alliance (see above) the weaker alliance would have been foolish not to join forces with them. Here was the division of the players at the merge.
Dominant
Alliance: John, Tammy, Robert & Zoe
Weaker
Alliance: Neleh, Paschel & Kathy
Weaker
Tribe: Rob, Sean and Vecepia
Even
if the dominant alliance had wanted to take out a member of the weaker alliance
(Neleh would have been the best choice), they would have had a tough time
getting support from the weaker tribe.
See what an aggressive weaker tribe can do.
If there is a chance the
dominant alliance may start taking out members of the weaker alliance, then a
coup should be considered as soon as the weaker tribe has two fewer players
then the dominant tribe (weaker and dominant alliance added together). At this point the weaker tribe will almost
certainly have more members then the weaker alliance, so the weaker alliance
would be better off rejoining with the dominant alliance after the coup. If the weaker alliance feels that bad
feelings on the part of the dominant tribe may make reunification impossible
(don’t forget, the largest barrier to reunification can always be the target of
the coup), then they may have to put off the coup. If the weaker alliance feels that one of them
is on the verge of being voted off but reunification may be impossible, then
they might was well go for it, as they have nothing to loose.
The target in the dominant
alliance needs to be chosen carefully.
If the coup is late in the middle-game, then the target should be the
most athletic of the dominant alliance to reduce the chance of unexpected
immunity wins throwing wrenches into plans.
If the coup is early in the middle-game and the weaker alliance doesn’t
outnumber the weaker tribe, the weaker alliance is likely better off rejoining
with the former dominant alliance rather then let the weaker tribe back into
the game. For this reason, if there is a
player that would likely be a barrier to the reunification of the tribe, then
that should be the player targeted. If
the tribe is reunified, players shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that
everyone is happy. Play will likely be
far more aggressive now and a further reducing of the players in the former
dominant tribe may be required later.
There is, of course, always a good chance that the tribe cannot be
reunified, in which case the weaker alliance is forced to ally with the weaker
tribe. This can be a less then ideal
situation, in fact the players of the weaker alliance may actually be worse off
then they were before the coup but no risk, no gain. If reunification doesn’t occur, players
shouldn’t give up on it. After another
member of the dominant alliance is booted, reunification can be attempted
again.
Survivor –
Weaker Tribe: Rule one: stick together. These players are in a very weak position and
their best shot hinges on their ability to put any ill feelings aside and to
act as a team. The first thing these
players need to realize is that, barring a major mistake on the part of the
dominant tribe, the best any of them are likely to do is to get one of them
into the final four where they can take a shot at winning the last two immunity
challenges and making it to the end.
That being said, I still feel the flying below the radar strategy is not
the best bet. Mistakes can, and have,
been made by dominant tribes, but they are more likely to happen if the weaker
tribe can find a way to facilitate them.
The first thing weaker tribe would want to do is begin quietly and
subtly working on the weaker alliance, trying to see if there is the potential
for a coup there. Isolated and reckless players are the best
candidates for crossing tribal lines.
Players need to be careful in whom they pick and how obvious their moves
are. If the dominant alliance catches
wind of what is going on, it may hasten the weaker tribes extinction. Again, this is not a reason to just fly below
the radar. As with the weaker alliance,
if there is no risk there is no gain.
In Survivor
– Marquesas, Rob Mariano made the right move in targeting Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien
as a potential turncoat immediately after the merge, but he made the mistake of
making his maneuverings painfully obvious.
He certainly stirred up a hornets’ nest, but in the end he was the one
that got stung and was the first person booted after the tribes merged.
If
a coup is not going to happen, then the weaker tribe can still put votes on members of the dominant alliance
starting with the player the weaker alliance is most likely to vote for. This could be the leader, the most athletic
player, or the most abrasive player so reading the dominant tribe is
important. Once this person has the most
votes against, the weaker tribe should move to putting votes on the next member
of the dominant alliance. One should
note that this later strategy is rendered completely mute if votes against do
not count.
Where the weaker tribe
suddenly does have some power is when someone in the dominant tribe wants to
remove one of their own tribe mates.
This is when the weaker tribe needs to make a decision. Should the weaker tribe play along or should
they fink on the would-be traitors and turn the tribe on itself the other
way? There is a good rule that should
help in making this decision.
The more chaos the better as
far as the weaker tribe is concerned. It
increases the likelihood of a major mistake being made, of feelings to be hurt
and alliances to break down, and all of this works to the advantage of the
weaker tribe. Leaders and athletic
players should be booted. Reckless,
abrasive and foolish players should be left in.
In Survivor – Australia, when the dominant tribe was down to five players the decision was made by the dominant three to boot their most reckless and abrasive player in Jerri Manthey. The three members of the weaker tribe played along and Jerri was gone, but in reality their best move would have been to target the most athletic player in the dominant alliance in Colby Donaldson.
As I mentioned earlier, the
only way for the weaker tribe to get back into the game is in members of the
dominant tribe making a mistake. This
mistake could be in the form of not recognizing the threat of an isolated
player or in the form of one or more members of the dominant tribe wanting to
remove one of their tribe-mates and bringing their numbers down far enough for
the weaker tribe to take control. If
this should happen, the weaker tribe needs to make a decision as to what player
in the dominant tribe should go. First
off, they need to be sure they don’t play this too cute. Someone is handing them a gift and they need
to make sure they don’t look that horse in the mouth and blow the opportunity
entirely. If the defector(s) is adamant
on removing a particular player, it may be in the weaker tribe’s best advantage
to just go with it, even if strategically they may want a different player. If the tribe has some flexibility on whom to
take out, they play it in much the same way as they would if they were the
dominant alliance, worrying about players that might facilitate a coup and
players that are athletic.
Unfortunately these players forgot the first rule of the weaker tribe, stick together. Frank, Teresa and especially Kim were so angry with Brandon in going against the plan that they helped the formally dominant tribe in removing Brandon and handed the game right back to them.
When the game is down to
four players we enter the endgame. Like
middle-game each player will find themselves into one of three roles, but unlike
middle-game immunity plays a huge role in the outcome. The roles are as follows.
1. The Dominant Pair: These are the two players in the
driver’s seat that are planning on taking each other into the final two.
2. The Third: The player the dominant pair is planning
on taking to the final three.
3. The Fourth: The player the dominant tribe is planning
on taking out at four.
In Survivor – Australia the dominant pair was Colby Donaldson and Tina Wesson, the third was Keith Famie and the fourth was Elizabeth Filarski.
Each stage of the endgame is
different, so I’ll play this one tribal council at a time.
Four Players Left: As you can tell from above definitions, it is the
dominant pair that decides who is the third and who is the fourth. There are a number of factors to
consider. First off, they may feel
obligated to a third player and this could be a very powerful draw and even
strategically may be strong. If the
third is loyal to the dominant pair, they may not want to take the risk of
targeting that player as this may push him or her to join forces with the
fourth, the worst-case scenario for the dominant pair. Another thing to consider is immunity
strength, as a strong immunity contender should be removed. The third thing to consider is popularity
with the jury. A player that is likely
more popular with the jury then either of the dominant pair should be
removed. Finally, if previous votes
against count and the player with the most votes against happen not to be in
the dominant pair, then the dominant pair should play it safe and target this
player in case a tie vote occurs.
The third needs to make a
decision on whether to vote with the dominant pair or to vote with the fourth
to take out one of the dominant pair. If
it isn’t possible to take out one of the dominant pair in a tie vote (if the
most votes against is on either the third or the fourth, and votes against
count) then the decision is easy and the player should stick with the dominant
pair. If the decision is open, the third
first needs to realize they are unlikely to get support from anyone, so the
idea of an alliance is silly. The first
thing to consider is immunity strength, as this player should go. When talking immunity strength players need
to consider more then just athleticism.
The final challenges in all three Survivors has been Hands On The Idol
(an endurance challenge played in Survivor – Borneo, Africa & Marquesas)
and Fallen Comrades (played last in Survivor Australia) where players are
quizzed on what they know about their tribe-mates that were voted out (this challenge
was played at four in Borneo, Africa & Marquesas). Another factor is jury popularity with again
the most popular player going. The last,
and most important, consideration is the dynamic at three. The third should think about who would take
who in each possible combination of three and vote towards getting the
combination that has the most people picking him or her. This usually means taking out one of the
dominant pair
Immunity is huge at this
stage with the player winning immunity often being the player that will decide
who goes. At the very least if the
fourth wins immunity, they immediately graduate to being a third. In the first four Survivors immunity played a
role in the outcome at four.
Survivor – Borneo: Dominant Pair: Richard & Rudy, Third: Susan, Fourth: Kelly. Kelly wins immunity leaving the other three players with no choice as to how to vote. Richard and Rudy voted Susan while Susan voted Richard. Kelly could decide whether Richard goes (he had the most votes against) or Susan. Popularity with the jury was too close call, but Richard was clearly the stronger immunity contender. More over, the dynamic at three with Sue in the mix favoured Kelly where Sue would have taken Kelly, but with Richard in the mix, neither Richard nor Rudy would have taken Kelly. Kelly made an error and voted Sue.
Survivor – Australia: Dominant Pair: Colby &
Tina, Third: Keith, Fourth: Elizabeth.
Keith had the most votes against, but Colby was second. Tina and Colby were going to target
Survivor – Africa: Dominant Pair: Ethan & Lex, Third: Tom, Fourth: Kim. Kim wins immunity leaving the other three with no options on how to vote. Ethan and Lex vote Tom, while Tom votes Lex. Kim could decide between Tom and Lex (Lex had the most votes against). Lex was the stronger immunity contender, more popular with the jury then Tom and removing him creates a dynamic in which Tom may have taken Kim. Kim made a mistake and voted Tom.
Survivor – Marquesas: Dominant Pair: Neleh & Paschel, Third: Kathy, Fourth: Vecepia. Vecepia wins immunity resulting in all the votes being pretty much forced. Neleh and Paschel vote Kathy, Kathy and Vecepia vote Neleh. As discussed in depth earlier, Paschel is the only player that really has any choice, but he made the right choice in sticking with his second. The tie holds and Neleh, Paschel and Kathy have to draw stones. Paschel draws the coloured stone and is gone.
Three Players Left: Immunity
is everything now as the player that wins immunity goes to the final two and
decides whom is going there with him or her.
Looking at things objectively, one would think that the only strategy
would be for a player to vote out the one that is the most popular with the
jury but often things aren’t quite so simple.
First off, one shouldn’t underestimate the wrath of a jury that just
witnessed a player taking out their second, someone who has been a loyal ally
likely from the very beginning of the game.
Even removing that factor, it is against most people’s nature to vote
out their second, even if it is to their advantage. A player and their second have been together
for more then a month, with the second likely being the only other person that
a player can confide in. The hardships
that these people are forced to endure usually creates ties that bind, so it
shouldn’t be surprising when players take seconds, even when it isn’t in their
best interest when it comes to winning the game.
Survivor – Borneo: Richard knew that no matter who won immunity, they would be taking him along. He also likely figured that he would have been compelled to take his second, Rudy, a person he was very likely to lose against, and so he avoided the whole situation by simply throwing the immunity challenge. Kelly won the challenge and took Richard, the player she had the best chance of winning against.
Survivor – Australia: Colby won the immunity challenge and had to decide between his second, against which the jury vote would have been a coin toss, or the less popular Keith, against whom he would have more then likely won. He went with his second, Tina.
Survivor – Africa: The third, Kim, wins the challenge and was put in an interesting position, as she was almost certain to lose against whomever she picked. Instead of picking the person she felt she had the best chances against, she picked the person she felt most deserved to win in Ethan.
Survivor – Marquesas: This was the first Survivor where the dominant pair did not make it into the final three. As such, loyalties were slim. Neleh was better off in the final two against Vecepia and would take out Kathy. Vecepia is better off without Kathy in the picture as well. Kathy would likely win against either, but stood her best chance against Vecepia. Neleh wins immunity and votes out Kathy.
Two Players Left: The fate
of the two players is now entirely in the hands of the jury. The thing to realize is that most members of
the jury don’t simply vote for the player they happen to like the best, but
rather for the player they felt best played the game. Certainly players that didn’t treat their
tribe-mates with courtesy and respect or didn’t work for the tribe would be at
a disadvantage here, but that doesn’t mean that players who played the game
hard are at a disadvantage either. In
fact, I think that players who never forgot this was a game and played the game
to win while at the same time displayed the greatest degree of sportsmanship
are at the greatest advantage. A player
who simply “flew below the radar” and then won an immunity challenge or two at
the end will be very unlikely to win the game, no matter how a nice person they
happen to be. Players have got to show
that they took control of the game.
Survivor – Borneo: Richard won over Kelly in a close 4 to 3 vote. Most of the people who voted Richard did so because he was upfront with the way he played the game and had a strategy from the onset. This was the first Survivor and many of the players were at odds with how the game should be played. Since that time, the game has evolved in a way that most people follow the model set down by Richard. It is extremely unlikely that someone like Kelly would come this close to winning again.
Survivor – Australia: Tina won over Colby in a close 4 to 3 vote. These two players were a pair since the early stages of the game so separating them strategically is extremely difficult if not impossible. In the end what may have made the difference was Tina’s ability to act as a moderator in the tribe and make almost all the players feel included, while Colby had conflicts with a couple of players. This was definitely the toughest call and one can make convincing arguments for Colby winning as well.
Survivor – Africa: Ethan won over Kim in a 5 to 2 vote that could have easily been 7–0 as the two people that voted Kim claimed to have changed their votes at the last minute. Ethan was in a pair with Lex and definitely had a strategy towards the game while Kim was a coat-tail-rider with no chance of winning.
Survivor – Marquesas: Vecepia won over Neleh in a close 4 to 3 vote. This vote could have gone either way, but what made the difference was that Vecepia was unapologetic for the way she played while Neleh came across with a touch of hypocrisy (likely rubbing off from Paschel) in trying to explain why she played the way she did.
The Rules of Survivor Strategy
The following is a summary of the ideas previously presented boiled
down to a series of numbered rules.
0.
Never, ever
forget it is a game.
1.
Half the players
can be trusted only as far as to act in their own best interest. The rest cannot be trusted that far.
2. Know your players.
3. Players cannot be anyone but themselves and need to
try and find a role in the tribe that emphasizes their strengths and minimizes
their weaknesses.
4. Rules are made to be broken.
5. Flying below the radar in of itself, is not a sound
strategy.
6.
Work towards tribe unity in the opening phase.
7.
Demonstrate your worth to the tribe.
7.1. Players
should never make demonstrating their worth, their game wide strategy however.
7.2. Early
in the game, it is virtually always a mistake to vote out an athletic player.
8.
Keep your head down in the opening phase.
8.1. Don’t
alienate yourself.
8.2. Vote with the tribe.
8.3. Don’t
be a top down style of leader.
9.
Don’t be too aggressive in the opening phase.
10. Form alliances
within the first week.
10.1.
Alliances just need to be formed subtly, without
overly threatening the other players.
10.2.
Have a “second”.
10.2.1.Being allied with a jerk will make it
difficult to bring in more support and will very likely prevent both players
from ever making it to the endgame.
10.2.2.Pick a second you can trust
to vote with you and someone that you will enjoy working with.
10.3.
Don’t be in an alliance with
nothing but athletic players.
10.4.
Alliances
shouldn’t be more then three players.
10.5.
Pick players that are
predictable for your alliance.
10.5.1.Marshmallows are great to have in an
alliance as they almost always vote as they’re told even when they are sitting
fourth or even fifth in an alliance.
10.5.2.Marshmallows also have the advantage of not
earning the respect of the jury and are not likely to garner a lot of votes in
the final two.
10.5.3.The disadvantage of a marshmallow is that it
may be difficult to get them to play aggressively when it is called for (like
when attempting a coup).
10.5.4.Don’t expect aggressive
players to keep voting with you from the fourth or fifth spot. These people need to be seconds or thirds in
order to keep their loyalty.
10.5.5.Reckless players should be avoided.
10.6.
Don’t be too picky in forming your alliance. Work with what you’ve got.
10.6.1.Aggressive alliance forming
can easily put your head on the block.
10.6.2.Don’t automatically form alliances just with
people of the same age, sex or economic group.
11. Do everything you
can to have your tribe be in the majority at the merge or swap.
11.1.
Don’t bank on
players crossing tribal lines after the merge or swap. Don’t rule it out either.
11.2.
The first people voted off
the tribe should be the athletically weakest players on the tribe.
11.3.
Players that are disrupting the
unity of the tribe can also be targets for removal.
11.4.
The need to take out a weaker
player is less when a tribe is ahead or more if a tribe is behind.
11.5.
As the merge or swap approaches,
the need to take out weaker players becomes less, though players should be
careful not to bank on exactly when the merge will occur.
11.6.
Make everyone in the tribe feel
they are still part of the game.
12.
Be in a good position to
seize control during the middle game.
12.1.
Day one
friendships often turn into week one alliances.
12.2.
Players have to
be thinking ahead from day one in order to see what role they are likely to
fall into.
12.2.1. Plan
that three players will be voted out by the merge.
12.2.2. Put yourself
in the shoes of your opponents and try to guess what they would do.
12.2.3. If players
see they are falling into a roll that will be unworkable in the middle-game,
then they need to do something about it, even if it means breaking previous
mentioned strategies like kicking out strong players early.
13.
Players
shouldn’t count on the merge occurring at a specific moment.
13.1.
The merge will
occur after the fifth tribal council and before the eighth.
14.
Surviving the
swap means sticking together, regardless of the situation.
14.1.
Treat a swap as
if the tribes have just merged (see middle-game strategies).
14.2.
Neither old alliances nor
old tribes should be abandoned, even if they are now split up.
14.3.
The dominant alliance in
each tribe should take advantage of the swap to remove opponents before the
merge and may consider throwing challenges.
15.
If players are unsure whether previous votes
against count in a tie, they should vote as if it does.
15.1.
If a tie is possible (and
votes against may count) then target the player with the most votes against.
15.2.
Players with the
most votes against tend to be players that had personality conflicts with other
members of their tribe.
15.3.
If drawing
stones breaks the tie, one should usually not change their vote to avoid the
stones. Take your chances.
15.3.1. If drawing stones, and all other things being
equal, target the player that is least likely to change their vote before the
stones.
15.4.
If you are in the dominant alliance, do what you can
to avoid tie votes
16.
Never pass immunity to another player unless
previous votes against count in a tie vote, there is a tie coming, and the
person with the most votes against is in your alliance.
17.
Avoid negotiating in council. Players should know well ahead of time what
they are going to do in council.
18.
If a
tribe is guaranteed to reach the merge in the majority then the dominant
alliance in that tribe should begin considering the possibility of throwing an
immunity challenge.
19.
Never forget who the opposition is.
19.1.
A player that
allows the weaker tribe back into the game is decreasing his or hers own chances
of eventually winning.
19.2.
The only
exception to not allowing the weaker tribe back into the game is if the player
is on the verge of being booted out himself or herself, in which case there are
no holds barred.
20.
Always have a plan B.
21.
If the dominant tribe (the dominant and
weaker alliances added together) is only ahead by one, a member of the weaker
tribe should be removed.
21.1.
The first
players taken out should be the players that are most likely to attract the
weaker alliance members from your own tribe.
21.2.
Strong immunity
contenders are the next players that need to be dealt with.
21.3.
Ideally, the
dominant alliance will want no strong immunity contenders that are not in their
alliance left when they are down to six players in the game.
22.
If
the dominant tribe is ahead by two or more players, then there may be an
opportunity to take out one of the weaker alliance.
22.1.
The biggest
threat to the dominant alliance is not the members of the weaker tribe, but the
members of the weaker alliance within their own tribe.
22.2.
The more players
in the dominant tribe the more the need to remove one of your own.
22.3.
If the weaker
tribe is more then likely to join with the weaker alliance, then it is better
for the dominant tribe to continue to take out weaker tribe members.
22.4.
Usually the
dominant tribe should target the player that is the least popular with the
weaker tribe that is in the weaker alliance, if they choose to remove one of
their own.
22.5.
When it comes to
a floating weaker alliance, it often better to let sleeping dogs lie.
23.
The dominant pair should have the player
that is least likely to join with the third as the fourth in their alliance.
23.1.
The second
concern as to who should be the fourth is athletic ability. The less likely to win immunity challenges
the better.
23.2.
The third
concern as to who should be the fourth is popularity with the jury. The less popular with the jury the better.
24.
If there is a coup, the former dominant
alliance should still vote with the former weaker alliance and vote out members
of the weaker tribe.
25.
If
the weaker alliance consists of two people or more, they should ally,
regardless of any personal ill feelings they may have for each other.
25.1.
If the weaker
alliance has any chance of getting the support of the weaker tribe, they should
attempt a coup.
25.2.
If the weaker
tribe is fairly sure that the dominant tribe is not planning on voting any of
their own tribe off until all of the weaker tribe is gone, then they should
wait until the weaker tribe is reduced to the point that their numbers are fewer
then the weaker alliance before attempting a coup. At this point, the weaker alliance can join
them out right and control the new alliance.
25.3.
If there is a
chance the dominant alliance may start taking out members of the weaker
alliance, then a coup should be considered as soon as the weaker tribe has two
fewer players then the dominant tribe (weaker and dominant alliance added
together).
25.4.
If the weaker
alliance feels that bad feelings on the part of the dominant tribe may make
reunification impossible (don’t forget, the largest barrier to reunification
can always be the target of the coup), then they may have to put off the
coup.
25.5.
If the weaker
alliance feels that one of them is on the verge of being voted off and that
reunification may be impossible, then they might was well go for it, as they
have nothing to loose.
25.6.
If the coup is
late in the middle-game, then the target should be the most athletic of the
dominant alliance to reduce the chance of unexpected immunity wins throwing
wrenches into plans.
25.7.
If the coup is
early in the middle-game, then the target should be the player that would most
likely be a barrier to the reunification of the tribe.
26.
The weaker tribe should always stick
together, regardless of personal feelings.
26.1.
When there is no
chance of removing a member of the dominant tribe, the weaker tribe should put
votes on the dominant alliance starting with leaders, athletic and abrasive
players.
26.2.
If a member of the dominant alliance already has the
most votes against, the weaker tribe should put votes on a different member of
the dominant alliance.
26.3.
Let chaos reign.
26.4.
When the dominant tribe is
targeting one of their own, the weaker tribe should consider carefully who to
support keeping in mind the above rule.
26.5.
If the dominant tribe is
about to lower it’s numbers down to the point that the weaker tribe can seize
control, they usually shouldn’t look the gift horse in the mouth.
27.
At the final four, the biggest threat to the
dominant pair is the third and fourth voting together.
27.1.
The third in an alliance
should ideally be loyal to the dominant pair, a weak immunity contender, not
popular with the jury and with the most votes against.
27.2.
If the third is in a
situation where they can remove one of the dominant pair in a tie vote at four,
they should consider it.
27.2.1. If voting out a dominant pair
creates a dynamic where the third is more likely to be picked to go into the
final two, they he or she should do it.
27.2.2. Other factors that push
towards the third voting out one of the dominant pair is if one of the dominant
pair is a strong immunity contender and if on of the dominant pair would be
very popular with the jury.
27.3.
If the fourth wins
immunity, then he or she becomes the third.
28.
The winner of the immunity challenge at the
final three should vote out the person whom they would be most likely to lose
against in the final two.