Discussion:
Christian on Andy's probability analysis
(too old to reply)
Brian Smith
2024-11-29 05:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.

https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
--
Brian
shawn
2024-11-29 09:20:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:40:30 -0700, Brian Smith
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
I don't know that Christian is right. I would think Caroline's issue
would be the same one that I raised up in my other post I just made.
Which is that the math is correct, Andy doesn't take into account that
each player is different. So while the math said Kyle has 1/16th of a
chance of getting through the next 4 TCs that doesn't take into
account that this is a physical and mental game. Kyle has proven to be
great at challenges and so I would put his chances at maybe 50% of
winning out if they didn't vote him out at the last TC. Not because of
the math but because he's proven himself to be great at the challenges
from the physical aspect and that seems to be a major component of
every immunity challenge.
Rick
2024-11-29 13:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:40:30 -0700, Brian Smith
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
I don't know that Christian is right. I would think Caroline's issue
would be the same one that I raised up in my other post I just made.
Which is that the math is correct, Andy doesn't take into account that
each player is different. So while the math said Kyle has 1/16th of a
chance of getting through the next 4 TCs that doesn't take into
account that this is a physical and mental game. Kyle has proven to be
great at challenges and so I would put his chances at maybe 50% of
winning out if they didn't vote him out at the last TC. Not because of
the math but because he's proven himself to be great at the challenges
from the physical aspect and that seems to be a major component of
every immunity challenge.
The math isn't necessarily right for various reasons (Lyle having a 1 in
2 chance each time is kind of pulled out of the air), but I do give Andy
credit for trying to sell the idea that Lyle is not an inevitable IC
winner for four more tribal councils. No one has ever really "won out"
quite like that, especially not in the new era, and especially when you
consider that many of the IC challenges aren't strictly strength or
endurance-based but require balance, puzzle skills and other factors
that don't necessarily favo0r Kyle. So I give Andy credit for
recognizing that the inevitability of Kyle winning immunities is a myth,
and it might make more sense to pick off more strategic and manipulative
players like Gen first.

But I do fault Andy for not reading the room and seeing that everyone
else wanted Kyle out. Andy is a smart guy in his way (and as someone
who supposedly works in AI research, you'd think he can't be as dumb as
he acts), but he is a terrible Survivor player, and the fact that he's
the only one who voted for Gen is kind of a bad look. I'm convinced
he's F3 zero-votes.
Brian Smith
2024-11-29 19:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by shawn
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:40:30 -0700, Brian Smith
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
I don't know that Christian is right. I would think Caroline's issue
would be the same one that I raised up in my other post I just made.
Which is that the math is correct, Andy doesn't take into account that
each player is different. So while the math said Kyle has 1/16th of a
chance of getting through the next 4 TCs that doesn't take into
account that this is a physical and mental game. Kyle has proven to be
great at challenges and so I would put his chances at maybe 50% of
winning out if they didn't vote him out at the last TC. Not because of
the math but because he's proven himself to be great at the challenges
from the physical aspect and that seems to be a major component of
every immunity challenge.
The math isn't necessarily right for various reasons (Lyle having a 1 in
2 chance each time is kind of pulled out of the air), but I do give Andy
credit for trying to sell the idea that Lyle is not an inevitable IC
winner for four more tribal councils.  No one has ever really "won out"
quite like that, especially not in the new era, and especially when you
consider that many of the IC challenges aren't strictly strength or
endurance-based but require balance, puzzle skills and other factors
that don't necessarily favo0r Kyle.  So I give Andy credit for
recognizing that the inevitability of Kyle winning immunities is a myth,
and it might make more sense to pick off more strategic and manipulative
players like Gen first.
But would Kyle go on a losing streak? Say he won immunity at F7, F6, and
F5 and then lost again at F4. Would Kyle lose at fire? Kyle winning out
to the end was far from a given but the odds he might win his way to the
end were high enough to make taking him out now the right move.
Post by Rick
But I do fault Andy for not reading the room and seeing that everyone
else wanted Kyle out.  Andy is a smart guy in his way (and as someone
who supposedly works in AI research, you'd think he can't be as dumb as
he acts), but he is a terrible Survivor player, and the fact that he's
the only one who voted for Gen is kind of a bad look.  I'm convinced
he's F3 zero-votes.
The only other player I see getting no votes at the end is Sam but he
hasn't been getting a F3 edit.
--
Brian
Rick
2024-11-29 21:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Smith
Post by Rick
Post by shawn
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:40:30 -0700, Brian Smith
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
I don't know that Christian is right. I would think Caroline's issue
would be the same one that I raised up in my other post I just made.
Which is that the math is correct, Andy doesn't take into account that
each player is different. So while the math said Kyle has 1/16th of a
chance of getting through the next 4 TCs that doesn't take into
account that this is a physical and mental game. Kyle has proven to be
great at challenges and so I would put his chances at maybe 50% of
winning out if they didn't vote him out at the last TC. Not because of
the math but because he's proven himself to be great at the challenges
from the physical aspect and that seems to be a major component of
every immunity challenge.
The math isn't necessarily right for various reasons (Lyle having a 1
in 2 chance each time is kind of pulled out of the air), but I do give
Andy credit for trying to sell the idea that Lyle is not an inevitable
IC winner for four more tribal councils.  No one has ever really "won
out" quite like that, especially not in the new era, and especially
when you consider that many of the IC challenges aren't strictly
strength or endurance-based but require balance, puzzle skills and
other factors that don't necessarily favo0r Kyle.  So I give Andy
credit for recognizing that the inevitability of Kyle winning
immunities is a myth, and it might make more sense to pick off more
strategic and manipulative players like Gen first.
But would Kyle go on a losing streak? Say he won immunity at F7, F6, and
F5 and then lost again at F4. Would Kyle lose at fire? Kyle winning out
to the end was far from a given but the odds he might win his way to the
end were high enough to make taking him out now the right move.
Let's not overlook the more important issue which is - could Kyle
actually win if he made final three. He was undeniably well-liked, but
would that be enough to win? He was not strategic, and he certainly
didn't make any of what you might call "moves". I'm also not sure he
really presents himself all that well. If Kyle goes to final three and
has to compete against a Rachel or a Genevieve, I don't think it's a
given that he wins.

I understand that he has won a few immunities and there was a fear he
could win out. But I don't think that was really likely, especially if
they start popping some puzzles into the final challenges. More
importantly, I'm not sure that would be enough to actually convince the
jury to vote for him.

Have we ever actually had a player like Kyle with his type of
personality and skill set actually win the game? People sometimes
compare Kyle to JT, but Stephen F. (who played with JT) says they are
not alike at all. Fishbach says JT was actually quite strategic and
smart, and he thinks Kyle is very different and playing a much simpler,
more straightforward game.
Post by Brian Smith
Post by Rick
But I do fault Andy for not reading the room and seeing that everyone
else wanted Kyle out.  Andy is a smart guy in his way (and as someone
who supposedly works in AI research, you'd think he can't be as dumb
as he acts), but he is a terrible Survivor player, and the fact that
he's the only one who voted for Gen is kind of a bad look.  I'm
convinced he's F3 zero-votes.
The only other player I see getting no votes at the end is Sam but he
hasn't been getting a F3 edit.
If Sam actually makes it to the end, I think he can make a good case for
himself. He's a professional reporter, so he surely can speak
articulately, and I imagine he can fashion a case for how he survived to
the end despite being a physical threat, and despite having his primary
alliance with Sierra exposed to early on. The players I don't see
getting any votes at the end are Andy and Sue.
Brian Smith
2024-11-29 21:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by Brian Smith
Post by Rick
Post by shawn
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:40:30 -0700, Brian Smith
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
I don't know that Christian is right. I would think Caroline's issue
would be the same one that I raised up in my other post I just made.
Which is that the math is correct, Andy doesn't take into account that
each player is different. So while the math said Kyle has 1/16th of a
chance of getting through the next 4 TCs that doesn't take into
account that this is a physical and mental game. Kyle has proven to be
great at challenges and so I would put his chances at maybe 50% of
winning out if they didn't vote him out at the last TC. Not because of
the math but because he's proven himself to be great at the challenges
from the physical aspect and that seems to be a major component of
every immunity challenge.
The math isn't necessarily right for various reasons (Lyle having a 1
in 2 chance each time is kind of pulled out of the air), but I do
give Andy credit for trying to sell the idea that Lyle is not an
inevitable IC winner for four more tribal councils.  No one has ever
really "won out" quite like that, especially not in the new era, and
especially when you consider that many of the IC challenges aren't
strictly strength or endurance-based but require balance, puzzle
skills and other factors that don't necessarily favo0r Kyle.  So I
give Andy credit for recognizing that the inevitability of Kyle
winning immunities is a myth, and it might make more sense to pick
off more strategic and manipulative players like Gen first.
But would Kyle go on a losing streak? Say he won immunity at F7, F6,
and F5 and then lost again at F4. Would Kyle lose at fire? Kyle
winning out to the end was far from a given but the odds he might win
his way to the end were high enough to make taking him out now the
right move.
Let's not overlook the more important issue which is - could Kyle
actually win if he made final three.  He was undeniably well-liked, but
would that be enough to win?  He was not strategic, and he certainly
didn't make any of what you might call "moves".  I'm also not sure he
really presents himself all that well.  If Kyle goes to final three and
has to compete against a Rachel or a Genevieve, I don't think it's a
given that he wins.
Kyle would have easily lost to Rachel or Gen.
Post by Rick
I understand that he has won a few immunities and there was a fear he
could win out.  But I don't think that was really likely, especially if
they start popping some puzzles into the final challenges.  More
importantly, I'm not sure that would be enough to actually convince the
jury to vote for him.
His challenge wins might get people like Sam and Gabe to vote for him
but not up against Rachel or Gen. Rachel's resume is extremely
well-rounded. Like you said, what has Kyle done other than win challenges?
Post by Rick
Have we ever actually had a player like Kyle with his type of
personality and skill set actually win the game?  People sometimes
compare Kyle to JT, but Stephen F. (who played with JT) says they are
not alike at all.  Fishbach says JT was actually quite strategic and
smart, and he thinks Kyle is very different and playing a much simpler,
more straightforward game.
Fishbach's correct in his assessment. Kyle's very well-liked but have we
seen him go to people to form alliances or spearhead big moves? I don't
think we have.
Post by Rick
Post by Brian Smith
Post by Rick
But I do fault Andy for not reading the room and seeing that everyone
else wanted Kyle out.  Andy is a smart guy in his way (and as someone
who supposedly works in AI research, you'd think he can't be as dumb
as he acts), but he is a terrible Survivor player, and the fact that
he's the only one who voted for Gen is kind of a bad look.  I'm
convinced he's F3 zero-votes.
The only other player I see getting no votes at the end is Sam but he
hasn't been getting a F3 edit.
If Sam actually makes it to the end, I think he can make a good case for
himself.  He's a professional reporter, so he surely can speak
articulately, and I imagine he can fashion a case for how he survived to
the end despite being a physical threat, and despite having his primary
alliance with Sierra exposed to early on.  The players I don't see
getting any votes at the end are Andy and Sue.
He's survived because he's a big shield. I don't see people voting for
that unless he's up against Andy and Sue at the end. lol
--
Brian
Brian Smith
2024-11-29 19:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:40:30 -0700, Brian Smith
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
I don't know that Christian is right. I would think Caroline's issue
would be the same one that I raised up in my other post I just made.
Which is that the math is correct, Andy doesn't take into account that
each player is different. So while the math said Kyle has 1/16th of a
chance of getting through the next 4 TCs that doesn't take into
account that this is a physical and mental game. Kyle has proven to be
great at challenges and so I would put his chances at maybe 50% of
winning out if they didn't vote him out at the last TC. Not because of
the math but because he's proven himself to be great at the challenges
from the physical aspect and that seems to be a major component of
every immunity challenge.
Kyle had close to a 70% win record in challenges from what I've seen. If
we assume the odds of him winning any future challenge are 0.7 the odds
of him winning out to F3 are ~24%. That's a pretty high percentage. I
could see it being higher based on psychology. The other players
appeared to have convinced themselves that Kyle's just about unbeatable.
As long as Kyle didn't get cocky the odds of him winning out probably
were 50%. Caroline was right to be worried and they made the right move
voting Kyle out.
--
Brian
Brian Smith
2024-11-30 01:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Smith
Thread of tweets from Christian on Andy's probability analysis of Kyle
winning his way to the end. He agrees with the numbers based on Andy's
assumptions but faults him for poor communication and being too precise.
Christian thinks Andy presenting such a high degree of confidence with
his 6.25% figure is why Caroline didn't buy his analysis.
https://x.com/chubicki/status/1862214023384793415
A very interesting addition to this analysis by Gabby from a
psychological standpoint. She brings up some great points.

Christian is the GOAT of scicomm!!! So this will pale in comparison but
I wanted to add my 2c as a psych researcher because the pushback Andy
got from his alliance is also a fascinating study of psychological
heuristics!

Tweet thread link:

https://x.com/gabbypascuzzi/status/1862630914821423588
--
Brian
Loading...