Ultimate Survivor Strategy

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by tetspa, Nov 15, 2007.

  1. tetspa

    tetspa New Member

    Mar 17, 2005


    Alliances usually fall apart because only 2 (or 3) can make it to the last round...when someone figures out they would be 4'th, 5'th, or 6'th in an alliance they bolt. The ultimate alliance would therefore be one where every person believes that if they continue with the alliance they will make the top 2 (or 3), therefore they have no incentive to jump ship. Theoretically each person would have no idea they are being voted off until the votes were read. Also, the top 2 (or 3) should all have "plausible deniability" (i.e. I never voted for you and any of the council's) so that the eliminated members of the alliance that are on the jury would not have bad feelings.

    Given all that, here is the ultimate strategy to get you to the top 2 (when I originally wrote it there was not a final 3 but only a final 2):

    Players 1 and 2 make a blood oath. They agree to form the alliance that will take them to the final 2. They also agree that no matter what they do or say publicly, the alliance will stand. After the initial oath they will never be seen talking together, so none of the other members will ever suspect they have alligned.

    Player 2 offers to allign with Player 3 with the false promise of taking them to the final 2.
    Player 2 tells Player 3 to 'invite" Player 4 to join in with a false promise of taking them to the final 2.
    Player 2 tells Player 3 to tell Player 4 to invite Player 5 to join in with a false promise that 4 and 5 will make it to the final 2.
    Player 2 tells Player 3 tell Player 4 to tell Player 5 to invite Player 6 to join in witha false promise that 5 and 6 will make it to the final 2.

    At this point, you have the following alliance breakdown:

    Player 1 brought in Player 2 who brought in Player 3 who brought in Player 4 who brought in Player 5 who brought in Player 6.

    Each person is convinced that they will make it to the final 2 with the person who "brought them in", so none of them will be tempted to jump ship. If necessary, a Player 7 could be brought in, but usually 6 will be enough to block vote their way to the finals.

    Now the play begins. As long as there is a "non-alliance" player in the game who doesn't have immunity, the alliance holds and keeps block-voting. Once the game is at a point where an alliance member MUST be eliminated, one of the "lowest" level members (either member 5 or 6) will be voted out. Let's say member 6 will be voted out. 1
    tells 2 to vote for 6. 2 tells 3 to vote for 6. 3 tells 4 to vote for 6. 4 tells 5 to vote for 6, but not to tell him. 5 tells 6 to vote for 4. In the voting booth, #6 and #1 vote for 4, the other 4 vote for 6. That way when the votes are read and 6 is eliminated, since he was only eliminated 4-2 intead of 5-1, he will have an element of doubt as to who "double crossed" him. And Player 5 has plausible deniability that he never voted for 6.

    Similarly, next week player 5 is elimated by a vote of 3-2, with player 5 and player 1 voting for player 4.
    Next week, either player 4 (or player 3 if 4 wins immunity) will be voted off 3-1 - plausible deniability is impossible, but at that point it won't matter.
    If there is another council after that, if Player 1 or Player 2 won immunity, the blood oath would dictate they vote Player 3 out, leaving 1 and 2 as the final 2.

    Either way, the final round will have either 2 or 3 finalists who can tell every jury member (with the possible exception of Player 3 or 4 if they are on the jury) that they either never voted for them, or if they had an alliance with them never broke it. As far as the jury make up, Player 6 may be mad at Player 5, and Player 5 may be mad at Player 4, but they would all be on the jury anyway.
  2. JFriday

    JFriday "Just The Facts"

    Mar 20, 2002
    Bay Area
    So does player 6 really think he's in a 2 man alliance that will get him to the final 2?
  3. Johnny Dancing

    Johnny Dancing Closet Rebel

    Sep 3, 2000
    Too much depends on no one talking. Somebody always bonds with the wrong person or opens their big mouth. It could work in a 3 day survivor but over a month of starving and hardship the plan fails and people get called out.
  4. Ruth

    Ruth Well-Known Member

    Jul 31, 2001
    You really think the guys at the bottom of your multi-level marketing Survivor scheme will just do what they are told, not talk to anybody about it, and have ZERO idea that they are near the bottom of the totem pole? Is this like Survivor for trusting idiots?
  5. Mikkel_Knight

    Mikkel_Knight New Member

    Aug 6, 2002
    Rochester, MN


    This is practically what Brian did... it worked perfectly for him because nobody else talked to each other...

    While on paper, it's quite sound, after day 24, extreme paranoia sets in and it gets awfully hard to resist running through dozens upon dozens of scenarios...

    I also think that the only way your "blood-oath" pact would work is if you go into the game knowing someone. Else, you're the 6th man to the person you swore to be the final 2 with...

    Paper, yes - reality, no.
  6. jerobi

    jerobi News/Deal Junkie

    Sep 28, 2000
    Another play you didn't see enough of for the first ten or so seasons is to vote alongside a majority without being in it. People often get themselves in trouble by using their vote to make a point, when in reality their outlier vote gets read and the person you voted for goes on the warpath after TC. There can be a lot of value for the fringe players to just slide their votes alongside whoever is already clearly getting voted out that week.

    Granted, this doesn't work well when the tribes have merged and there is a strong 6+ person majority team. In seasons where the merge is just several little 2-4 person squads it can work well. Don't make yourself a target just to cast a meaningless vote.

Share This Page

spam firewall