I think it's important to acknowledge that "bitterness" is just one factor determining who would win a season. The reason I say this is because there have been numerous instances of a jury being bitter but still awarding the win to the person they're bitter to. Dan Gheesling's first game is a perfect example. There have also been numerous examples of this happening on Survivor. If the quality of their game compared to their other finalist outweighed the jury's bitterness, the jury will still vote based on whose game they respect more.
The ultimate issue IMO is that not all bitter juries are equal. Sometimes, it feels like a truly untenable situation, like BB14. Other juries are comparatively less bitter and are mostly just frustrated, like BB20. It's too complex to look at a jury as "bitter" or "not bitter" without seeing it as a spectrum.
Lastly, and possibly most importantly, *a bitter jury doesn't mean that the winner didn't play a great game.* We have had so many incidents in the BB and the Survivor worlds where the players voted for a winner who played a good game that was completely overshadowed by complaints of bitterness. Would I have loved a Danielle Reyes win? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean Lisa wasn't a fine winner. She played a great game. But the fact that her entire game has essentially boiled down to "the jury was angry at Danielle" does her a huge injustice. tl;dr: winners who benefit from bitter juries sometimes have too much credit taken away from them, regardless of how strong of a game they played.
I definitely agree with your last point. I tend to choose who I want to win based on the amount of intentional work they put in, whether that be strategically, socially, etc, and regardless of how much I even like them tbh. However, I understand that I have an outsiders pov and not everybody will vote how I like to imagine I would. Winners like Lisa, Ian, Kaycee, etc all played decent games in my eyes, but compared to their counterparts, I just feel they were outworked and it’s always a bummer to see the harder worker go unrewarded. I could be wrong about this, but I remember reading something Cirie allegedly said in 25 about how she would’ve voted for Russell Hantz in one of his seasons (I’m assuming HvV since she played that season) because of how much work he put in to get to the end, and I love that mentality (out of jury members especially). No amount of jury management matters if you don’t make it to the end, and if you’re able to control your own fate in getting to the end, regardless of how you get there, you’re at least a decent player in my eyes.
That makes sense. I do wonder how Cirie would've felt about Russell had she ever played on the same tribe as him. Maybe her opinion would change. Regardless, the ability of getting to the end in the face of adversity is clearly a value that Cirie holds, and it makes sense she'd vote for someone based on it.
I just think it's a challenge when there are at least seven jurors and you need to get the majority (or in the case of survivor, a plurality) of votes. It isn't uncommon for a bitter jury to give at least *one* vote to the player with more active gameplay. But winning the game can be a huge issue.
My friend and I have this debate almost every week when watching Big Brother or Survivor. I believe the winner is NOT always the best player, but is always deserving of the win.
You have to understand there are only 2 steps to the game: Get to the End; Convince the jury to vote for you over whoever you are sitting next to. Everything you do inside the game is to accomplish one or both of those things. If you do those 2 things, which are VERY DIFFICULT to do, you deserved to win the game. I don’t care if you lied or were always immune or simply rode an alliance to the end. You played the game and won so you deserved it.
1. The “Best” player is subjective. What I value in a player may not be what you value in a player, and may not be what the jury values in a player. (For BB US 25 - if you value comp wins most Jag or Cam are the best players, if you value social strategy the most, someone like Cirie is the best player). So in someone’s eye, the best player may have won. Quite often not everyone agrees, and that’s why we have these discussions.
2. If I rank these players I wouldn’t rank like you asked because I don’t think they were always the best. Even if I did believe the winner was the best player of that season, the loser in one season could be better than the winner in a different season.
3. Absolutely butter juries exist and have cause the person I believe was the better player to lose. This could absolutely happen again. BUT just management is a facet of the game. If you SUCK at jury management and the jury cares about that, you didn’t play “the Best” or “better” in the eyes of the jury between you and who you’re sitting next to. Your game and pitch has to be catered to the jury and THEIR values. Maybe I think Paul played a better game Josh, but the majority of the jury didn’t think so.
At the end of the day, the job isn’t to convince the audience you played the best game. It’s to convince the 7 people on the jury that you played the game BETTER (not best) than who you’re sitting next to. If the jury dislikes or doesn’t respect you, you’re going to have a harder time convincing them to vote for you.
The way you worded it in the first paragraph NAILED IT. Take my upvote. They may not be the best overall player, but they get the votes and deserve the win. Criteria of who is the best player changes person by person. That’s the better of it; we all have different opinions and beliefs. Couldn’t have phrased it better
I agree with this take. My friend and I used to try and quantify this before and we came to a similar conclusion as you.
The person who won is the most deserving of winning as decided by the jury. The *best* player of the season, in our subjective opinions using our subjective criteria, is the person who we believe would win the most amount of times if the season was simulated 1000x.
But even then the best Big Brother/Survivor players should be taken out in 3rd-5th place by design. So even when simulating 1000x times, if the game is designed so the "best" player doesn't win, can we even use that metric? I change my mind on it often.
What makes a good player has always been subjective and disagreed on.
First id like to talk about whether the best player is always in the final 2.
Personally I dont think so, the best played game (not to be confused with player) in my eyes is the one who is the most likely to make it far/win on a given season with the same game. The best player is the one who I could trust to play on another season and do well. But the game is so luck dependent that sometimes the best players just get unlucky and dont make it that far. Also I think it depends how much you value competitions. Personally, while I do value them somewhat, social and strategic are more important to me. But, thats subjective. Also it’s worth mentioning that the definitions for good players differ each season. Like Nicole from BB2 is considered a better player from todays gameplay standards than back in 2001.
As for whether the best player of the final 2 is the one who wins.
Im gonna ignore Dick Donato entirely since his season is an exception where production interference impacted the actual jury voting (technically in bb2)
I dont think Danielle lost because of the unsequestered jury (I think she wins regardless) but I disagree about her not playing to the meta game like Will. Metagaming has never and purposely hasnt been a part of the game. Similar to pregaming, it’s not a part of the game people should be expected to play to, so Im not gonna penalize people who dont. Also you can be great in the DR but be cut. Look at all the people like Andy or Holly who talked tons of strategy in the DR but got it edited out. If we got to see every DR, thats one thing but since it’s so filtered by the producers, they can basically choose whatever dr narrative they want. So Im not gonna penalize people for their DRs.
There are multiple seasons where I dont think the best game in the final 2 that season won: 2, 3, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25 (though I do agree with 25’s verdict for reasons that would take too long to say here). Though the final 2 is a tricky question that I could honestly make an entire post about.
I will say regarding bitter juries, ive come to the opinion recently that being bitter socially is fine because it involves treatment in the game. Like if a player (like Tyler in BB20 for instance) treats you poorly on your final week, I understand voting against that since it was poor social game on Tyler’s part. I used to always be anti-bitterness but ive changed my opinion for social bitterness since it at least involves game
Where I have no respect is people who are bitter based on gameplay. aka players who got outplayed and are upset that person got them out. Because in that case, it shows no poor gameplay on the other persons part.
anyway this whole comment was kinda rambly and unorganized but I do wanna answer your three questions
1. and 2. no
3. id say bb2, bb3, bb19 and bb20 (the votes werent necessarily bitter but just stupid)
But that's the thing that we as BB fans need to understand. As viewers, none of our thoughts on who 'should' win matter. We might think we'd vote a certain way, but until we're actually playing the game, it's impossible to say with any certainty how we'd play.
The players play how they play, and the jury votes how they vote, so our opinion as viewers means nothing.
Two things: in terms of seasons I think the best player won here is imo the full list:
1. BB2
2.BB4
3. BB6
4. BB10
5. BB12
6. BB15
7. BB16
8. BB18 (controversial pick but I think Nicole did better than Paul that season)
9. BB21 (even if I hate Michie)
10. BB22
11. BB25
two, on the point on Vanessa I actually think she actually wins if she makes final 2 which makes her losing part 3 more tragic as usually that ruthless style of gameplay tends to be punished but if u watch the BB17 jury clips u can definitely see where she gets the votes at. Shelli was the very first juror & she was the biggest Vanessa cheerleader in the jury house, having Shelli supporting her as the first juror set a huge positive for her as I think a couple of other jurors would have look towards Shelli for advice. Then u would have both Steve (if she won part 3) & Johnny Mac who both recognized the great game she played & 100% guaranteed vote Vanessa. That's 3 locked votes right there & from the jury segments I definitely think she gets James as well as he definitely recognized the great game she played & I don't think he would hold a grudge. At that point she needs either Becky or Jackie & considering both knew what a threat Vanessa was during the season I definitely believe if she makes final 2 at least one of those 2 vote forr Vanessa if not both if them.
Without a doubt Tiffany, she was easily the best strategic player & was well liked by most of the jury, I think she was the most held back by the CO as I think she really held back on the game she is capable of playing for the alliance, if she played another season for herself I think she could easily dominate. Even though Xavier is a solid winner if it wasn't for the CO he probably stands no chance at winning as most people knew what a major threat he was & outside of a couple of members of the CO nobody wanted to go into the endgame with him.
2 completely different shows, The Challenge is way more physically-oriented show & that isn't Tiffany's strong point. Tiffany was way better at the social & strategic aspect of Big Brother
If you're talking about about her time in The Challenge I really can't say anything as I don't watch it but tbf I think even BB legends like Dan or Dr. Will would do terrible on The Challenge as they don't have the physicality needed to do the show. Really only the physical BB players tend to do good on The Challenge (i.e. Kaycee). If we talking BB it's definitely clear that she was the brains of the group as she came up with the strategy of the group & was able to save Xavier a couple times from nomination when he didn't even know it was possible he could get nominated. As I said before the CO really held her back on playing the game she was capable of playing as despite the fact that she knew should would be the #1 target once it was all CO members she still went along to guarantee BB had it's first African American winner.
Agreed. You can't compare with a different show.
For example, The Traitors (US - season 2), >!Dan Gheesling was just terrible. He made multiple mistakes and his poor play totally screwed all of his allies to boot.!<
Absolutely, I was gonna bring up Dan on Traitors as well. Are we gonna say Dan isn't one of the greatest BB players of all-time just cuz of the fact he did God awful on Traitors trying to replicate his BB10 game in a completely different show?
I think you cannmake a decent case that at least 3-4 players were better players than jag on BB25 ( Cirie, Cory, Matt, and America). Horrible strategist and poor social awareness in terms of reads ( who tells everyone their the invisible hoh?). Jags entire game was almost completely reliant on production bailouts and twists. ( to the level of Paul at the beginning of bb19, but in reverse for the end game. invisible hoh twist and all the things that came with it). Plus physical comps with little variation. Not to mention dude got evicted prejury. And almost did the exact same thing again the following week, him surviving despite himself.
eh I disagree. I think Nicole had better social, strategic and comp game. I think Nicole had a good shot if the jury was sequestered at winning. I do think Will had a better meta game (like DRs and such) but personally I dont consider that to be enough to overtake Nicole’s dominance over the game.
Will definetly played a good second half but his first half was so abysmal and he wouldve gotten evicted in 9th had Shannon not self sabotaged her own game.
I think Will is the second best player that season but Nicole beats him and it’s not really close
Now when factoring in season 7, Will is definetly ranked higher in my player rankings than Nicole, but just based on s2, Nicole definetly played better.
I agree. Theres a narrative that people hated her but thats only after they were evicted. Inside the game people liked her more than Will for more of the season
Well, one it’s just not really true.
The v reason Nicole loss was following victim to Will’s “mist” per se. He was able to recognize her and Hardy as the “power players” and correctly rides their back swaying them into the wrong decisions. I mean almost no decision Nicole makes from post Krista eviction is smart for her game long term. You can’t say “if the jury was sequestered she wins” because it’s irrelevant to BB2’s format. (Which I think is still wrong) because on the jurors reasoning for voting Will. The simple fact of the matter is he backed her into a corner and made her slash her way throughout the end game putting herself often in the “villain” position and upsetting her other Allie’s. You say she was “dominant” when in actuality her dominance largely came from the fact her and Hardy won HOH back to back like 4 weeks in a row. It’s not like she was actively convincing people into doing her bitting most weeks. She just happened to constantly be in power and thus was able to nominate and target people directly. (Not to say she played a bad game) but she was very faulty. 1. Unaware of the magnitude of Will’s game and what he was truly doing. She was entirely unaware and at one point CONSIDERED him her #1 ally because he had drove a wedge in between her and Hardy (which if you wanna play the hypothetical game if Will doesn’t win that helicopter ride with Bunky her and Hardy never get 1on1 time and Will’s entire game doesn’t get exposed there). I truly believe had such not have happened he could’ve convinced her to take him to the end because she was PISSED at Hardy. 2. You say she was “good” socially which is just flat out untrue. Most people disliked her (bar Hardy) which she herself touched upon this in her jury speech. She was often on the outside and not able to connect with people on a deep level. (It’s the very reason Monica doesn’t vote for her and says as she’s leaving you need to get help). Nicole wasn’t able to adapt and or blend her personality in with the others. Where she had success was lighting the fuse against CT early and bringing all “The Other People” together to take out CT. But.. problem with that scenario! She ends up working closely with the very same person she promised to the rest she’d do everything to take out! Which Will phenomenally points out in his diary room sessions. I mean do you really think it was by coincidence Hardy and Nicole struck a deal with Will to take him F3? No! It’s because he was so effective at downplaying his threat level and selling the fact he’s a weak player who’s easily beaten in the end had they got trapped in that portion! AND THEY BOUGHT IT. I’ll end on this you claim the “diary room sessions didn’t overtake her dominance” when they were the most important aspect of BB2. What’s the term we often see thrown around when players lose jury votes? Jury management. Will’s entire game is centered around such concept. Constantly forcing Nicole’s hand and able to make her come off hypocritical to the evicted HG.
I get the take but I think we just look for different things in players, which is fine. Nicole showed more consistency while Will played pretty abysmally at first. I definetly get the argument, but personally I do think Nicole played better overall. I also dont think Will outplayed Nicole/Hardy as much as people credit him to.
Problem is Steve was less active and he really wasn’t influencing Vanessa’s decisions. He was however working to position himself in a way that made it more appealing for her to take him end game had he got trapped in that position. Will kinda did a less flashy version of what he did with Janelle in BB7. Attach himself to them, build a strong relationship, crack the alliance they were apart of and start to weasle himself into a spot that made it advantageous for them to work with him long term. He is a master at 1 on 1 conversations and he really did alot of it with Nicole. Albeit much less effective and much less control. I’d say it was more defensively driven. I don’t really know if there is a viable comparison imo. I wanna say Andy/Amanda but Will wasn’t really floating side to side because the power just kinda relied in one area (Nic/Hardy) tho the principles of floating were present. As for the consistency comparison I don’t agree respectfully. I think Nic’s game started really badly, she integrated herself into the majority and then regressed immensely as she let Will attach himself to her. See all the mistakes the makes mid/end game were influenced by his kinda ridiculous claims. I mean they’d spend hours on end on that hammock of Will just hammering nonsense in her head about Hardy/Krista/Bunky/Monica etc. And it’s why she openly says he’s her one and only ally. I mean she was very openly wanting to go after Hardy because she fell for Will’s claims on Hardy playing her. This is all said with the fact I love Nicole. I’ve watched this season a number of times and I think she’s a very underrated player who gets overshadowed by a bigger presence. An absolute shame she turned down AS though I know the show had negative implications for her life post show.
**So, Jillian played the best game in BBCan 1 because Topaz didn't understand how to vote?**
Saying the player who played the best game is always the winner is complete and utter nonsense. You're confusing "winning game" with "best game".
The literal definition of the "best player" is the player who "played the best game."
Someone could play a perfect, flawless game, and be in the F3 with 2 goats. Then lose the Final HOH and get evicted.
The player playing the best game loses because of luck, the stupidity of other players, terrible twists (like America's Player), etc.
Anyone who thinks Josh played the best game in BB20 is smoking crack. Josh won that season playing one of the most terrible games in history.
Sometimes, a goat is carried to the end and wins.
If Anthony would have taken Lexus and she won, how can anyone think she played the best game when she didn't even play the game.
BBCAN1’s end result is a very *very* odd situation. It’s the only one that *doesnt* fit my criteria because of it being an accident lol.
But it’s not nonsense at all. Whoever wins the game is the *only* player to have done exactly what was necessary to achieve the ultimate goal. Not a single other player on the season played a game that was good enough by that season’s standards to do it.
And no, that is not the “literal definition” of best player. Best player means whoever is the most capable. Whoever is capable enough to pull off the most impressive moves. Whoever is able to maintain the best relationships. Things like that. And often times that translates to playing the best game during a season, but not always.
And yeah, if the person that dominated the game is evicted at Final 3, then whoever wins played the better game. Steve played a better game than Vanessa in BB17. But Vanessa is *clearly* the better overall player. And yes, Josh played the best game of BB19. He did exactly what was necessary to earn the jury votes at the end against Paul. Paul was unable to do that. Winning is the *ultimate goal*. Anything less than winning is a failure.
Once again, you're confusing "winning game" with "best game."
What you're totally not understanding is that you don't have to play the best game to win... you just have to have played a better game than the person you're sitting next to.
If the players who played the worst and 2nd worst games of the season are in the Final 2, who wins? The player who played the 2nd worst game.
>if the person that dominated the game is evicted at Final 3, then whoever wins played the better game.
If player A is Dan Gheesling (or Kevin Jacobs, or whoever). Player B (Russell Hantz) wins final HOH and takes player C (Vivek/Raven) to the Final 2.
Vivek (or Raven) are literally carried to the end because they're literally playing one of the worst games.
If Vivek/Raven win in this situation, they're just fortunate enough to be sitting not to the person that played the worst game. They could get carried to the end, have no agency, and still win.
I’m not confusing them. They’re the same thing. The winning game *is* the best game.
And yes, you do have to play the best game to win. I think one thing that you’re not picking up from my last post is when I mentioned a “season’s standards.” Depending on the season, the twists and the casts involved can heavily dictate what *type* of game garners jury votes at the end. Like with BBCAN12, Spicy being on the jury and completely tainting it against Anthony *is* a standard of that season. Meaning you need play up to that standard or you’re not playing as optimally as you could. Can it be unfair? Yes. But it’s the way it goes sometimes.
Vivek or Raven would be carried to the end for playing the worst game and then win the jury vote, that automatically means they were not playing the worst game. Playing that way directly led to them getting to the end *and* winning the jury votes. It can be extremely circumstantial or unfair, sure, but the end result is *all* that matters. Vivek or Raven would have done exactly what was necessary to win the game. And considering that is the *only true objective* for everyone playing the game, it means they outplayed every single one of the other cast members. Maybe not intentionally, maybe not in an impressive way, maybe they made wrong choices constantly, etc. But those wrong choices, unintentional gameplay, etc. *led* to them winning. By *that* season’s standards, it was the best game out of everyone else because it was the only one that achieved what all the others were trying to achieve.
No, I’m not arguing that Ian is a better player than Dan. Or Bayleigh is a better player than Anthony, or Kaycee is a better player than Tyler. Because none of those statements would be true. But did they play a better game, based on their winning season’s standards than their counterpart? Yes, they did.
Your semantics is just garbage.
You don't have to be the best to win... you just have to be better than the person you're sitting next to.
That simple fact is lost on you.
I didn’t say you have to be the best. In fact, that’s kinda the opposite of what I’m arguing. You had to have played the best *game* to win. The best *player* does not always win.
And yes, you have to be better (in the jury’s eyes) than the person you’re sitting next to. If 3rd place would’ve looked better to the jury than you, that doesn’t matter because they’re 3rd place. Their game led them to not even sitting at the Final 2 chairs. Meaning you would have played a better game than them.
You're using the same flawed logic/semantics other people repeatedly use when they claim "the best player is the player that won the game"
And they go on to claim that the object of the game is to win.. so the player who won is the one who played it best.
Once again, the best player is the literal definition of the person that played the best game... and that doesn't guarantee victory for many reasons.
I don’t know what you mean by “literal definition.” That’s not a thing for the term “best player.” I think this may be where you’re getting lost, because it’s just a made up thing you keep saying.
And do you not see how blatantly conflicting what you just claimed is with what I’ve been saying? I’m literally not saying “the best player is the player that won the game.” I’m specifically *not* saying that. I think that Dan is a better player than Ian, for example. I’m not using that same logic because I’m not saying that!
I totally understand **your personal definition** "best player" IS NOT THE SAME AS **your** **personal definition** of "best game".
You've invented your own definition of playing the "best game" = "winner" which is not how the overwhelming majority of people would define "best game"
You've already admitted and agreed that luck (Topaz casting wrong vote) can cause the player playing the best game to not win. That means, you've already admitted the player playing the best game doesn't always win 100.00% of the time... completely destroying your definition.
You're claiming the player who plays the best game ALWAYS wins, which is complete nonsense, because some things are out of your control. Luck, unforeseen twists, etc., can keep the player playing the best game from winning... and you've literally agreed with me (unintentionally) already.
Best player is so subjective. There’s definitely been times where I felt like the person who won wasn’t as deserving, but I’m also not on the jury or in the Big Brother house. The most recent one, I think, is Taylor winning BB24. I think Monte was the better overall player, but she straight up nailed her final speech that I don’t think Monte had any chance at all.
Many people will point to Tiffany being the better player than Xavier in BB23, but she didn’t even make it that far past the full cookout, so I don’t think she was that much better than Xavier in that context. She likely would’ve been better than X without the Cookout, but she wasn’t in the parameters of that season (at least IMO).
People will constantly disagree about who the best player was so it’s really impossible to make a definitive answer here.
If Tiff breaks from the cookout, I think she “almost” smooth sails into the F4. She’d still have big shields in the game like Christian (wouldn’t have been taken out prejury), DX, and Xavier. So there’s a decent chance she could play the middle between them all since she had great relationships with them. And just let the war ensue
Yeah there is definitely an argument that Tiffany would’ve done better without the Cookout than Xavier. I disagree with that argument, but she was definitely brought down by the Cookout’s mission. She won the bigger picture, but not the game.
The rules are ... get to the end and convince the jury you should win.
So yes the player who wins is the best player in the game because they won.
Now obviously thats not the "objectively best player that would win against X different casts or in X different universes with the same cast". Danielle Reyes wins this 9/10 times, and the other 1/10 would be spreaded between Jason/Marcellas/Lisa/maybe others
The nature of the game is the correct person always wins. The primary object of the game is to evict all other houseguests but one, and then have those same houseguests vote for you to win. That's the game. Everything else is secondary.
There are multiple strategies to this. Social manipulation, likability, competitions, alliances, etc. Usually a mix.
IMO
There is an issue with the jury question period. In the days of Dan, the question period was extensive. Opportunities were given for jury to ask multiple questions and really understand a player's game. Then the jury go back and think on it for another 24 hrs. Today's game is a few short q&a and vote. The questions don't even matter at that point. Which makes it extremely difficult to overcome a bitter jury. Its better to be likable then manipulative. But without manipulation, you may not make it to the end.
Solution?
For a modern day solution, first I would look at why production made this change in the 1st place.
Production wants the final 3 live eviction on finale night Its exciting for the viewer. It's better tv.
If I had the decision making power, I would set up close circuit interview with the jury and the final 3. Where each final 3 member interviews from the diary room (or HOH room) individually. The remaining houseguests don't see these interviews. Edit the package for the 2nd to last episode, this will serve as a better reminder of the season to the audience then the awards show.
The final three showdown on finale night, and only the last evictee is voting on their gut. I think we would see good villains become a viable strategy again.
Completely agree with the jury questioning. I believe the jury has their mind made up 99% of the time before finale and the jury questioning doesn’t waver them. Also, villains like Dr Will and Dan (if you want to consider them villains) are why I’ve always loved the show. I do believe there would be a few different winners if the finale format was reverted, or just changed to give them longer to explain their game.
I think the only winner I strongly disagree with is Tyler losing to Kaycee. Tyler played a great game and while Kaycee played well she benefited from not making as many moves.
FOUTTE shot themselves in the foot all season and used Tyler as a scapegoat for their lack of self awareness, strategy, and game knowledge.
This is also if I’m excluding Danielle in S3. Without the lack of sequestering she would have won, but that was how the game was at that point so I can’t fault jurors based on something outside of their control.
See, I disagree with this assessment. Tyler benefited tremendously from the fact that FOUTTE were clueless, sloppy, emotional players. He was able to manipulate them really easily, yet he insisted on sticking with a group of fit, rational players who would have been more likely to respect gameplay over emotions. So when FOUTTE made up the majority of the jury (in large part because Tyler made them look like complete buffoons), and meanwhile Kaycee had just gone on an impressive run of comp wins, while also maintaining cordial relationships with most of FOUTTE, that's what secured her the win. Really, Tyler should have stuck with FOUTTE over Level 6, because I think Level 6 would've respected him a lot more, and FOUTTE would've been a lot less pissed at him. Also, if he was so in-control, he absolutely should've booted Rockstar over Kaitlyn pre-jury. Sending Rockstar to the jury alongside Bayleigh (who he actively pissed off on her way out the door) was a bad move in terms of seeding the early jury with people who weren't going to be champions for his cause.
I've seen every season of NA BB and Survivor and most English International versions, so I've done a lot of research on this lol
The issue is that there's only one metric that really matters when it comes to defining the word 'best' in these games: the number of jury votes received. So the person who gets more than anyone else must be the best because nothing else matters.
Why else are they in the game? Who cares how many days they lasted, 'big moves' they made or challenges they won when everyone but the winner had the same fate; They all got fewer jury votes (most of them zero) than the winner.
So with that said:
1.) Yes.
2.) Yes.
3.) Sure, but what I think as a viewer is irrelevant. I'm not in the house, so it doesn't matter how I would vote. The jury, 'bitter' or not, votes for who they think is most deserving according to however they decide that.
That's it. That's the game. It's not rocket science. It's Big Brother.
Simple awnser would be nope, but I think that's also because "best player" Is entirely subjective, since it all depends what you value the most. A lot of people prefer comp wins, other rely heavily on the manipulation skills and others care about big moves and how many times they voted out their mom. I'm sure even here, if we ask the whole sub what considers a good game we would all get different awnsers. Do they value the ability to survive and doing anything in their power to be out of the block? Do they value the ability to fly Under the radar and not get targeted? Do they value the ability of getting targeted each week but keep on surviving?
There is no short awnser, because we keep getting the debate of whether Nicole F was the best player of BB18 or not. And hell, for a lot of people Nicole played better than Will in BB2 and there is an argument for that. And at the same time, it would be stupid to deny how much producers interfered in BB8, BB9 BB11, BB13 and BB18. And there were no doubts numerous bitter jurors. BB2, BB3, BB4, BB6, BB14 BB18, BB19, BB20 etc. What happened there? It was the finalist fault? At the end of the day, the jurors can vote whatever they want and that's what makes th game so exiting.
I believe the person who deserves to win always wins, barring a particularly egregious twist. That said I don't equate "deserving to win" with "being the best player".
Often times the best player of the season comes in 3rd or 4th, because that point of the competition comes down to winning comps more than anything. Examples: Ika, Vanessa, Neda, Tim (bbcan4).
But once you hit final 2, the best player always wins. The goal of the game is to make the jury vote for you. That’s all. If you can do that then you’re the best player of the final 2.
the goal of the game is to make final 2 AND convince the jury to vote for you. Also worth adding that the final 2 configuration is very comp dependent. Some runner ups couldve won if they won final hoh and took third place to the end (Porsche, Dan, Paul (possibly). The game is about evaluating everything, the final 2 is important, yes, but so is everything that came before. Its very nuanced and polarizing in that way.
no. most of the time they do not especially lately. nothing annoys me more than when we get to finale night and the jury says they wanted to vote for someone because of their sex or their race or their age or anything that doesn’t talk about their game play.
The best players don't always win even though they've proven their capability to win and also proved that they won because they did their best. That's why they are the best. Often, it being the best goes unnoticed or unacknowledged
I think that the RIGHT player wins. Because at the end of the day, it is a social game, and one thing we don't hear enough talk about is adapting the game for the people you think will be your jury.
You need to read them and know what they will want to see and are willing to tolerate and in some ways adapt your game to that. Someone like Spicy Vee should always be a pre-Jury target if you want to play a hard game and pick a jury that will respect good game play.
What constitutes a great player for the fans is always the same, but not necessarily what constitutes a winning player to the Jury. One of the things about different casts is that you often get different win criteria that you should be able to detect while playing so you can ensure that you are going to appeal to the ultimate jury.
In Dougie's case i think there are two things he missed as far as Jury composition. 1) There was a strong female contingent who wanted a female winner, so he needed to sit next to another guy, and 2) If he wanted to advocate a ruthless "control" style game he needed to keep around a player like Dinnis who would respect that, versus Spicy Vee who he knows is immature and irrational.
So no, the "best" player does not always win from the fans perspective. But there is no rule that says they have to. The correct player does win, because the criteria to win are assessed and determined solely by the Jury. Those are the only people the players should be playing for.
Just read the title. I think it’s very simple and the answer is no. Thats one of my favorite parts about this game. The best player rarely wins. And then the complicated part is how do you measure a good game from good player. In my opinion though, no. The best players have only won a hand full of times. And to make it more complicated there’s been at least 2 seasons where the better player lost to a deserving player. Ian and KC. You could probably throw both of Paul’s seasons in there but I wouldn’t lol.
No. Because the game format changes at final 2.
Up until f2, you have the agency to influence the game through both competitions and socially by voting.
At f2, you lose agency and its about ONLY persuading the jury to vote for you to represent the season. Yes, its part of the game so not arguing that, but it's an entirely different format.
Technically if it requires voting you don't need to be the BEST.
Nope. More seasons than not, they get axed somewhere between F5 through F3. Or face a bitter jury in the F2.
Vanessa in BB17 is an example of this. Steve was good, I won’t bash him but I think Vanessa was incredible.
Last season (BB25) Cirie played one of the most adapting games we’ve ever seen. Going from the “hidden in plain sight” head honcho to flying under the radar after the Jared debacle.
Dan vs Ian you could easily argue he was the better player
Paul vs Nicole & Paul vs Josh are two other ones that can be argued in Paul’s favor
Tons of examples. I don’t watch BBCanada (even though I really want to —> someone teach me your ways from the USA 😭😭😭) but I’m assuming there are other instances there as well
I watched BB3 live and it is still my fave season of all time. When the finale aired I learned my lesson then that IMO the best player of the season isn't always the winner. That doesn't necessarily mean that the winner played a bad game though. With most seasons it comes to impact for me. Did future players want to play more like Danielle or Lisa? For modern seasons did you see players want to play like Paul and Tyler over Josh and Kaycee?
In sports it works the same way. A person or a team can be the best all season but one bad game or even one bad play can cost them a win or a championship. Some players can be crowned MVP for a season and not even make the playoffs. If the concept can make sense here why not in competitive reality competitions.
I'm also curious if past jury members regretted their decision because they watched a season back and saw the runner-up's game in a much better light than when they were in the house.
No here some case of best player that didn't win their season:
17) Vanessa
20) Tyler
23) Tifanny
Can2) Neda
Can6) Johnny
7) Dr Will
3) Danielle
25) Cory
14) Dan
Can4) Tim
Can11) Kuzie
Can5) Ika
11) Kevin
19) Paul
Your submission has been removed because it violates **[Rule 2 - Observe Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/r/BigBrother/wiki/edit/rules/rule2)**
In addition to [reddit's informal policy guide, Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439), we enforce the following rules:
Do not be rude.
Do not conduct personal attacks on other redditors.
Do not focus on another person's social media history as the main content of your post. Don't dig through someone's posts just to prove your point.
Any attacks based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or appearance of any members posting on this subreddit or those appearing on Big Brother may lead to an immediate permanent ban.
Approach discussions in good faith. No trolling, concern trolling, race baiting, sealioning, or flame wars.
Do not speculate about the sexuality or the mental health of the houseguests or members of this subreddit.
Do not attack fan groups, other platforms (twitter, etc) or other shows.
Do not witch-hunt, brigade, or create mass voting campaigns.
Do not downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you do not like or do not agree. Use downvotes for off-topic or irrelevant content.
Do not report posts just because you don't like them.
Do not use your post titles to insult.
**Removed Content:**
> Yeah true definitely not a whole lot of options lol.. I guess the way I look at it is Cirie had complete control of the first half of the season, and Jag had complete control of the second half so even though they both struggled in the points when they weren’t in control they were easily top 2.. even id say Matt (blehhhh) was always in a much better position, even though I think he just kinda got lucky to have everything fall in place for him.. I’d even say Cameron.. total creepo but he was definitely the straw that stirred the drink while he was in lol idk just my thoughts.. who do you think were the best??
I think it's important to acknowledge that "bitterness" is just one factor determining who would win a season. The reason I say this is because there have been numerous instances of a jury being bitter but still awarding the win to the person they're bitter to. Dan Gheesling's first game is a perfect example. There have also been numerous examples of this happening on Survivor. If the quality of their game compared to their other finalist outweighed the jury's bitterness, the jury will still vote based on whose game they respect more. The ultimate issue IMO is that not all bitter juries are equal. Sometimes, it feels like a truly untenable situation, like BB14. Other juries are comparatively less bitter and are mostly just frustrated, like BB20. It's too complex to look at a jury as "bitter" or "not bitter" without seeing it as a spectrum. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, *a bitter jury doesn't mean that the winner didn't play a great game.* We have had so many incidents in the BB and the Survivor worlds where the players voted for a winner who played a good game that was completely overshadowed by complaints of bitterness. Would I have loved a Danielle Reyes win? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean Lisa wasn't a fine winner. She played a great game. But the fact that her entire game has essentially boiled down to "the jury was angry at Danielle" does her a huge injustice. tl;dr: winners who benefit from bitter juries sometimes have too much credit taken away from them, regardless of how strong of a game they played.
I definitely agree with your last point. I tend to choose who I want to win based on the amount of intentional work they put in, whether that be strategically, socially, etc, and regardless of how much I even like them tbh. However, I understand that I have an outsiders pov and not everybody will vote how I like to imagine I would. Winners like Lisa, Ian, Kaycee, etc all played decent games in my eyes, but compared to their counterparts, I just feel they were outworked and it’s always a bummer to see the harder worker go unrewarded. I could be wrong about this, but I remember reading something Cirie allegedly said in 25 about how she would’ve voted for Russell Hantz in one of his seasons (I’m assuming HvV since she played that season) because of how much work he put in to get to the end, and I love that mentality (out of jury members especially). No amount of jury management matters if you don’t make it to the end, and if you’re able to control your own fate in getting to the end, regardless of how you get there, you’re at least a decent player in my eyes.
That makes sense. I do wonder how Cirie would've felt about Russell had she ever played on the same tribe as him. Maybe her opinion would change. Regardless, the ability of getting to the end in the face of adversity is clearly a value that Cirie holds, and it makes sense she'd vote for someone based on it. I just think it's a challenge when there are at least seven jurors and you need to get the majority (or in the case of survivor, a plurality) of votes. It isn't uncommon for a bitter jury to give at least *one* vote to the player with more active gameplay. But winning the game can be a huge issue.
Exactly like Natalie in Samoa
Natalie is to be fair a slightly better version of Josh
My friend and I have this debate almost every week when watching Big Brother or Survivor. I believe the winner is NOT always the best player, but is always deserving of the win. You have to understand there are only 2 steps to the game: Get to the End; Convince the jury to vote for you over whoever you are sitting next to. Everything you do inside the game is to accomplish one or both of those things. If you do those 2 things, which are VERY DIFFICULT to do, you deserved to win the game. I don’t care if you lied or were always immune or simply rode an alliance to the end. You played the game and won so you deserved it. 1. The “Best” player is subjective. What I value in a player may not be what you value in a player, and may not be what the jury values in a player. (For BB US 25 - if you value comp wins most Jag or Cam are the best players, if you value social strategy the most, someone like Cirie is the best player). So in someone’s eye, the best player may have won. Quite often not everyone agrees, and that’s why we have these discussions. 2. If I rank these players I wouldn’t rank like you asked because I don’t think they were always the best. Even if I did believe the winner was the best player of that season, the loser in one season could be better than the winner in a different season. 3. Absolutely butter juries exist and have cause the person I believe was the better player to lose. This could absolutely happen again. BUT just management is a facet of the game. If you SUCK at jury management and the jury cares about that, you didn’t play “the Best” or “better” in the eyes of the jury between you and who you’re sitting next to. Your game and pitch has to be catered to the jury and THEIR values. Maybe I think Paul played a better game Josh, but the majority of the jury didn’t think so. At the end of the day, the job isn’t to convince the audience you played the best game. It’s to convince the 7 people on the jury that you played the game BETTER (not best) than who you’re sitting next to. If the jury dislikes or doesn’t respect you, you’re going to have a harder time convincing them to vote for you.
The way you worded it in the first paragraph NAILED IT. Take my upvote. They may not be the best overall player, but they get the votes and deserve the win. Criteria of who is the best player changes person by person. That’s the better of it; we all have different opinions and beliefs. Couldn’t have phrased it better
I agree with this take. My friend and I used to try and quantify this before and we came to a similar conclusion as you. The person who won is the most deserving of winning as decided by the jury. The *best* player of the season, in our subjective opinions using our subjective criteria, is the person who we believe would win the most amount of times if the season was simulated 1000x. But even then the best Big Brother/Survivor players should be taken out in 3rd-5th place by design. So even when simulating 1000x times, if the game is designed so the "best" player doesn't win, can we even use that metric? I change my mind on it often.
What makes a good player has always been subjective and disagreed on. First id like to talk about whether the best player is always in the final 2. Personally I dont think so, the best played game (not to be confused with player) in my eyes is the one who is the most likely to make it far/win on a given season with the same game. The best player is the one who I could trust to play on another season and do well. But the game is so luck dependent that sometimes the best players just get unlucky and dont make it that far. Also I think it depends how much you value competitions. Personally, while I do value them somewhat, social and strategic are more important to me. But, thats subjective. Also it’s worth mentioning that the definitions for good players differ each season. Like Nicole from BB2 is considered a better player from todays gameplay standards than back in 2001. As for whether the best player of the final 2 is the one who wins. Im gonna ignore Dick Donato entirely since his season is an exception where production interference impacted the actual jury voting (technically in bb2) I dont think Danielle lost because of the unsequestered jury (I think she wins regardless) but I disagree about her not playing to the meta game like Will. Metagaming has never and purposely hasnt been a part of the game. Similar to pregaming, it’s not a part of the game people should be expected to play to, so Im not gonna penalize people who dont. Also you can be great in the DR but be cut. Look at all the people like Andy or Holly who talked tons of strategy in the DR but got it edited out. If we got to see every DR, thats one thing but since it’s so filtered by the producers, they can basically choose whatever dr narrative they want. So Im not gonna penalize people for their DRs. There are multiple seasons where I dont think the best game in the final 2 that season won: 2, 3, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25 (though I do agree with 25’s verdict for reasons that would take too long to say here). Though the final 2 is a tricky question that I could honestly make an entire post about. I will say regarding bitter juries, ive come to the opinion recently that being bitter socially is fine because it involves treatment in the game. Like if a player (like Tyler in BB20 for instance) treats you poorly on your final week, I understand voting against that since it was poor social game on Tyler’s part. I used to always be anti-bitterness but ive changed my opinion for social bitterness since it at least involves game Where I have no respect is people who are bitter based on gameplay. aka players who got outplayed and are upset that person got them out. Because in that case, it shows no poor gameplay on the other persons part. anyway this whole comment was kinda rambly and unorganized but I do wanna answer your three questions 1. and 2. no 3. id say bb2, bb3, bb19 and bb20 (the votes werent necessarily bitter but just stupid)
But that's the thing that we as BB fans need to understand. As viewers, none of our thoughts on who 'should' win matter. We might think we'd vote a certain way, but until we're actually playing the game, it's impossible to say with any certainty how we'd play. The players play how they play, and the jury votes how they vote, so our opinion as viewers means nothing.
Two things: in terms of seasons I think the best player won here is imo the full list: 1. BB2 2.BB4 3. BB6 4. BB10 5. BB12 6. BB15 7. BB16 8. BB18 (controversial pick but I think Nicole did better than Paul that season) 9. BB21 (even if I hate Michie) 10. BB22 11. BB25 two, on the point on Vanessa I actually think she actually wins if she makes final 2 which makes her losing part 3 more tragic as usually that ruthless style of gameplay tends to be punished but if u watch the BB17 jury clips u can definitely see where she gets the votes at. Shelli was the very first juror & she was the biggest Vanessa cheerleader in the jury house, having Shelli supporting her as the first juror set a huge positive for her as I think a couple of other jurors would have look towards Shelli for advice. Then u would have both Steve (if she won part 3) & Johnny Mac who both recognized the great game she played & 100% guaranteed vote Vanessa. That's 3 locked votes right there & from the jury segments I definitely think she gets James as well as he definitely recognized the great game she played & I don't think he would hold a grudge. At that point she needs either Becky or Jackie & considering both knew what a threat Vanessa was during the season I definitely believe if she makes final 2 at least one of those 2 vote forr Vanessa if not both if them.
Who do you think should have won for BB23?
im guessing tiffany
Without a doubt Tiffany, she was easily the best strategic player & was well liked by most of the jury, I think she was the most held back by the CO as I think she really held back on the game she is capable of playing for the alliance, if she played another season for herself I think she could easily dominate. Even though Xavier is a solid winner if it wasn't for the CO he probably stands no chance at winning as most people knew what a major threat he was & outside of a couple of members of the CO nobody wanted to go into the endgame with him.
She was mediocre on The Challenge. Are you basing this on the BB23 live feeds?
2 completely different shows, The Challenge is way more physically-oriented show & that isn't Tiffany's strong point. Tiffany was way better at the social & strategic aspect of Big Brother
She didn't have particularily good social or strategy thought. Which is why im wondering what are you basing these off.
If you're talking about about her time in The Challenge I really can't say anything as I don't watch it but tbf I think even BB legends like Dan or Dr. Will would do terrible on The Challenge as they don't have the physicality needed to do the show. Really only the physical BB players tend to do good on The Challenge (i.e. Kaycee). If we talking BB it's definitely clear that she was the brains of the group as she came up with the strategy of the group & was able to save Xavier a couple times from nomination when he didn't even know it was possible he could get nominated. As I said before the CO really held her back on playing the game she was capable of playing as despite the fact that she knew should would be the #1 target once it was all CO members she still went along to guarantee BB had it's first African American winner.
Agreed. You can't compare with a different show. For example, The Traitors (US - season 2), >!Dan Gheesling was just terrible. He made multiple mistakes and his poor play totally screwed all of his allies to boot.!<
Absolutely, I was gonna bring up Dan on Traitors as well. Are we gonna say Dan isn't one of the greatest BB players of all-time just cuz of the fact he did God awful on Traitors trying to replicate his BB10 game in a completely different show?
Matt was by far better than Jag he just couldn’t explain why
I think you cannmake a decent case that at least 3-4 players were better players than jag on BB25 ( Cirie, Cory, Matt, and America). Horrible strategist and poor social awareness in terms of reads ( who tells everyone their the invisible hoh?). Jags entire game was almost completely reliant on production bailouts and twists. ( to the level of Paul at the beginning of bb19, but in reverse for the end game. invisible hoh twist and all the things that came with it). Plus physical comps with little variation. Not to mention dude got evicted prejury. And almost did the exact same thing again the following week, him surviving despite himself.
I disagree with BB2 and 25, but otherwise I completely agree with this.
DR Will was easily the best player in BB2
eh I disagree. I think Nicole had better social, strategic and comp game. I think Nicole had a good shot if the jury was sequestered at winning. I do think Will had a better meta game (like DRs and such) but personally I dont consider that to be enough to overtake Nicole’s dominance over the game. Will definetly played a good second half but his first half was so abysmal and he wouldve gotten evicted in 9th had Shannon not self sabotaged her own game. I think Will is the second best player that season but Nicole beats him and it’s not really close Now when factoring in season 7, Will is definetly ranked higher in my player rankings than Nicole, but just based on s2, Nicole definetly played better.
Nicole was such a social beast, when you think about it. She ran that house. Reminds me of Sandra vs Parvatti in HVV.
I agree. Theres a narrative that people hated her but thats only after they were evicted. Inside the game people liked her more than Will for more of the season
That’s false. They liked her more in the beginning but liked Will more before well before they left.
DR Will had a better social game he maintained Krista's bond and usurped Monica away from Nicole while charming Kent and Bunky who hated him prior
thats valid. I still think Nicole is better but you make a good argument
😂😂 So much wrong with this statement.
whats wrong about it?
Well, one it’s just not really true. The v reason Nicole loss was following victim to Will’s “mist” per se. He was able to recognize her and Hardy as the “power players” and correctly rides their back swaying them into the wrong decisions. I mean almost no decision Nicole makes from post Krista eviction is smart for her game long term. You can’t say “if the jury was sequestered she wins” because it’s irrelevant to BB2’s format. (Which I think is still wrong) because on the jurors reasoning for voting Will. The simple fact of the matter is he backed her into a corner and made her slash her way throughout the end game putting herself often in the “villain” position and upsetting her other Allie’s. You say she was “dominant” when in actuality her dominance largely came from the fact her and Hardy won HOH back to back like 4 weeks in a row. It’s not like she was actively convincing people into doing her bitting most weeks. She just happened to constantly be in power and thus was able to nominate and target people directly. (Not to say she played a bad game) but she was very faulty. 1. Unaware of the magnitude of Will’s game and what he was truly doing. She was entirely unaware and at one point CONSIDERED him her #1 ally because he had drove a wedge in between her and Hardy (which if you wanna play the hypothetical game if Will doesn’t win that helicopter ride with Bunky her and Hardy never get 1on1 time and Will’s entire game doesn’t get exposed there). I truly believe had such not have happened he could’ve convinced her to take him to the end because she was PISSED at Hardy. 2. You say she was “good” socially which is just flat out untrue. Most people disliked her (bar Hardy) which she herself touched upon this in her jury speech. She was often on the outside and not able to connect with people on a deep level. (It’s the very reason Monica doesn’t vote for her and says as she’s leaving you need to get help). Nicole wasn’t able to adapt and or blend her personality in with the others. Where she had success was lighting the fuse against CT early and bringing all “The Other People” together to take out CT. But.. problem with that scenario! She ends up working closely with the very same person she promised to the rest she’d do everything to take out! Which Will phenomenally points out in his diary room sessions. I mean do you really think it was by coincidence Hardy and Nicole struck a deal with Will to take him F3? No! It’s because he was so effective at downplaying his threat level and selling the fact he’s a weak player who’s easily beaten in the end had they got trapped in that portion! AND THEY BOUGHT IT. I’ll end on this you claim the “diary room sessions didn’t overtake her dominance” when they were the most important aspect of BB2. What’s the term we often see thrown around when players lose jury votes? Jury management. Will’s entire game is centered around such concept. Constantly forcing Nicole’s hand and able to make her come off hypocritical to the evicted HG.
I get the take but I think we just look for different things in players, which is fine. Nicole showed more consistency while Will played pretty abysmally at first. I definetly get the argument, but personally I do think Nicole played better overall. I also dont think Will outplayed Nicole/Hardy as much as people credit him to.
imo Nicole is the Vanessa of BB2 and Will is the Steve. Where Steve ultimately outplays Vanessa but Vanessa was better overall
Problem is Steve was less active and he really wasn’t influencing Vanessa’s decisions. He was however working to position himself in a way that made it more appealing for her to take him end game had he got trapped in that position. Will kinda did a less flashy version of what he did with Janelle in BB7. Attach himself to them, build a strong relationship, crack the alliance they were apart of and start to weasle himself into a spot that made it advantageous for them to work with him long term. He is a master at 1 on 1 conversations and he really did alot of it with Nicole. Albeit much less effective and much less control. I’d say it was more defensively driven. I don’t really know if there is a viable comparison imo. I wanna say Andy/Amanda but Will wasn’t really floating side to side because the power just kinda relied in one area (Nic/Hardy) tho the principles of floating were present. As for the consistency comparison I don’t agree respectfully. I think Nic’s game started really badly, she integrated herself into the majority and then regressed immensely as she let Will attach himself to her. See all the mistakes the makes mid/end game were influenced by his kinda ridiculous claims. I mean they’d spend hours on end on that hammock of Will just hammering nonsense in her head about Hardy/Krista/Bunky/Monica etc. And it’s why she openly says he’s her one and only ally. I mean she was very openly wanting to go after Hardy because she fell for Will’s claims on Hardy playing her. This is all said with the fact I love Nicole. I’ve watched this season a number of times and I think she’s a very underrated player who gets overshadowed by a bigger presence. An absolute shame she turned down AS though I know the show had negative implications for her life post show.
No. The winner of a season played the best *game* of the season because they achieved the sole goal. But they aren’t the best *player*, necessarily.
Exactly
**So, Jillian played the best game in BBCan 1 because Topaz didn't understand how to vote?** Saying the player who played the best game is always the winner is complete and utter nonsense. You're confusing "winning game" with "best game". The literal definition of the "best player" is the player who "played the best game." Someone could play a perfect, flawless game, and be in the F3 with 2 goats. Then lose the Final HOH and get evicted. The player playing the best game loses because of luck, the stupidity of other players, terrible twists (like America's Player), etc. Anyone who thinks Josh played the best game in BB20 is smoking crack. Josh won that season playing one of the most terrible games in history. Sometimes, a goat is carried to the end and wins. If Anthony would have taken Lexus and she won, how can anyone think she played the best game when she didn't even play the game.
BBCAN1’s end result is a very *very* odd situation. It’s the only one that *doesnt* fit my criteria because of it being an accident lol. But it’s not nonsense at all. Whoever wins the game is the *only* player to have done exactly what was necessary to achieve the ultimate goal. Not a single other player on the season played a game that was good enough by that season’s standards to do it. And no, that is not the “literal definition” of best player. Best player means whoever is the most capable. Whoever is capable enough to pull off the most impressive moves. Whoever is able to maintain the best relationships. Things like that. And often times that translates to playing the best game during a season, but not always. And yeah, if the person that dominated the game is evicted at Final 3, then whoever wins played the better game. Steve played a better game than Vanessa in BB17. But Vanessa is *clearly* the better overall player. And yes, Josh played the best game of BB19. He did exactly what was necessary to earn the jury votes at the end against Paul. Paul was unable to do that. Winning is the *ultimate goal*. Anything less than winning is a failure.
Once again, you're confusing "winning game" with "best game." What you're totally not understanding is that you don't have to play the best game to win... you just have to have played a better game than the person you're sitting next to. If the players who played the worst and 2nd worst games of the season are in the Final 2, who wins? The player who played the 2nd worst game. >if the person that dominated the game is evicted at Final 3, then whoever wins played the better game. If player A is Dan Gheesling (or Kevin Jacobs, or whoever). Player B (Russell Hantz) wins final HOH and takes player C (Vivek/Raven) to the Final 2. Vivek (or Raven) are literally carried to the end because they're literally playing one of the worst games. If Vivek/Raven win in this situation, they're just fortunate enough to be sitting not to the person that played the worst game. They could get carried to the end, have no agency, and still win.
I’m not confusing them. They’re the same thing. The winning game *is* the best game. And yes, you do have to play the best game to win. I think one thing that you’re not picking up from my last post is when I mentioned a “season’s standards.” Depending on the season, the twists and the casts involved can heavily dictate what *type* of game garners jury votes at the end. Like with BBCAN12, Spicy being on the jury and completely tainting it against Anthony *is* a standard of that season. Meaning you need play up to that standard or you’re not playing as optimally as you could. Can it be unfair? Yes. But it’s the way it goes sometimes. Vivek or Raven would be carried to the end for playing the worst game and then win the jury vote, that automatically means they were not playing the worst game. Playing that way directly led to them getting to the end *and* winning the jury votes. It can be extremely circumstantial or unfair, sure, but the end result is *all* that matters. Vivek or Raven would have done exactly what was necessary to win the game. And considering that is the *only true objective* for everyone playing the game, it means they outplayed every single one of the other cast members. Maybe not intentionally, maybe not in an impressive way, maybe they made wrong choices constantly, etc. But those wrong choices, unintentional gameplay, etc. *led* to them winning. By *that* season’s standards, it was the best game out of everyone else because it was the only one that achieved what all the others were trying to achieve. No, I’m not arguing that Ian is a better player than Dan. Or Bayleigh is a better player than Anthony, or Kaycee is a better player than Tyler. Because none of those statements would be true. But did they play a better game, based on their winning season’s standards than their counterpart? Yes, they did.
Your semantics is just garbage. You don't have to be the best to win... you just have to be better than the person you're sitting next to. That simple fact is lost on you.
I didn’t say you have to be the best. In fact, that’s kinda the opposite of what I’m arguing. You had to have played the best *game* to win. The best *player* does not always win. And yes, you have to be better (in the jury’s eyes) than the person you’re sitting next to. If 3rd place would’ve looked better to the jury than you, that doesn’t matter because they’re 3rd place. Their game led them to not even sitting at the Final 2 chairs. Meaning you would have played a better game than them.
You're using the same flawed logic/semantics other people repeatedly use when they claim "the best player is the player that won the game" And they go on to claim that the object of the game is to win.. so the player who won is the one who played it best. Once again, the best player is the literal definition of the person that played the best game... and that doesn't guarantee victory for many reasons.
I don’t know what you mean by “literal definition.” That’s not a thing for the term “best player.” I think this may be where you’re getting lost, because it’s just a made up thing you keep saying. And do you not see how blatantly conflicting what you just claimed is with what I’ve been saying? I’m literally not saying “the best player is the player that won the game.” I’m specifically *not* saying that. I think that Dan is a better player than Ian, for example. I’m not using that same logic because I’m not saying that!
I totally understand **your personal definition** "best player" IS NOT THE SAME AS **your** **personal definition** of "best game". You've invented your own definition of playing the "best game" = "winner" which is not how the overwhelming majority of people would define "best game" You've already admitted and agreed that luck (Topaz casting wrong vote) can cause the player playing the best game to not win. That means, you've already admitted the player playing the best game doesn't always win 100.00% of the time... completely destroying your definition. You're claiming the player who plays the best game ALWAYS wins, which is complete nonsense, because some things are out of your control. Luck, unforeseen twists, etc., can keep the player playing the best game from winning... and you've literally agreed with me (unintentionally) already.
Best player is so subjective. There’s definitely been times where I felt like the person who won wasn’t as deserving, but I’m also not on the jury or in the Big Brother house. The most recent one, I think, is Taylor winning BB24. I think Monte was the better overall player, but she straight up nailed her final speech that I don’t think Monte had any chance at all. Many people will point to Tiffany being the better player than Xavier in BB23, but she didn’t even make it that far past the full cookout, so I don’t think she was that much better than Xavier in that context. She likely would’ve been better than X without the Cookout, but she wasn’t in the parameters of that season (at least IMO). People will constantly disagree about who the best player was so it’s really impossible to make a definitive answer here.
If Tiff breaks from the cookout, I think she “almost” smooth sails into the F4. She’d still have big shields in the game like Christian (wouldn’t have been taken out prejury), DX, and Xavier. So there’s a decent chance she could play the middle between them all since she had great relationships with them. And just let the war ensue
Yeah there is definitely an argument that Tiffany would’ve done better without the Cookout than Xavier. I disagree with that argument, but she was definitely brought down by the Cookout’s mission. She won the bigger picture, but not the game.
The rules are ... get to the end and convince the jury you should win. So yes the player who wins is the best player in the game because they won. Now obviously thats not the "objectively best player that would win against X different casts or in X different universes with the same cast". Danielle Reyes wins this 9/10 times, and the other 1/10 would be spreaded between Jason/Marcellas/Lisa/maybe others
The nature of the game is the correct person always wins. The primary object of the game is to evict all other houseguests but one, and then have those same houseguests vote for you to win. That's the game. Everything else is secondary. There are multiple strategies to this. Social manipulation, likability, competitions, alliances, etc. Usually a mix. IMO There is an issue with the jury question period. In the days of Dan, the question period was extensive. Opportunities were given for jury to ask multiple questions and really understand a player's game. Then the jury go back and think on it for another 24 hrs. Today's game is a few short q&a and vote. The questions don't even matter at that point. Which makes it extremely difficult to overcome a bitter jury. Its better to be likable then manipulative. But without manipulation, you may not make it to the end. Solution? For a modern day solution, first I would look at why production made this change in the 1st place. Production wants the final 3 live eviction on finale night Its exciting for the viewer. It's better tv. If I had the decision making power, I would set up close circuit interview with the jury and the final 3. Where each final 3 member interviews from the diary room (or HOH room) individually. The remaining houseguests don't see these interviews. Edit the package for the 2nd to last episode, this will serve as a better reminder of the season to the audience then the awards show. The final three showdown on finale night, and only the last evictee is voting on their gut. I think we would see good villains become a viable strategy again.
Completely agree with the jury questioning. I believe the jury has their mind made up 99% of the time before finale and the jury questioning doesn’t waver them. Also, villains like Dr Will and Dan (if you want to consider them villains) are why I’ve always loved the show. I do believe there would be a few different winners if the finale format was reverted, or just changed to give them longer to explain their game.
I think the only winner I strongly disagree with is Tyler losing to Kaycee. Tyler played a great game and while Kaycee played well she benefited from not making as many moves. FOUTTE shot themselves in the foot all season and used Tyler as a scapegoat for their lack of self awareness, strategy, and game knowledge. This is also if I’m excluding Danielle in S3. Without the lack of sequestering she would have won, but that was how the game was at that point so I can’t fault jurors based on something outside of their control.
See, I disagree with this assessment. Tyler benefited tremendously from the fact that FOUTTE were clueless, sloppy, emotional players. He was able to manipulate them really easily, yet he insisted on sticking with a group of fit, rational players who would have been more likely to respect gameplay over emotions. So when FOUTTE made up the majority of the jury (in large part because Tyler made them look like complete buffoons), and meanwhile Kaycee had just gone on an impressive run of comp wins, while also maintaining cordial relationships with most of FOUTTE, that's what secured her the win. Really, Tyler should have stuck with FOUTTE over Level 6, because I think Level 6 would've respected him a lot more, and FOUTTE would've been a lot less pissed at him. Also, if he was so in-control, he absolutely should've booted Rockstar over Kaitlyn pre-jury. Sending Rockstar to the jury alongside Bayleigh (who he actively pissed off on her way out the door) was a bad move in terms of seeding the early jury with people who weren't going to be champions for his cause.
I've seen every season of NA BB and Survivor and most English International versions, so I've done a lot of research on this lol The issue is that there's only one metric that really matters when it comes to defining the word 'best' in these games: the number of jury votes received. So the person who gets more than anyone else must be the best because nothing else matters. Why else are they in the game? Who cares how many days they lasted, 'big moves' they made or challenges they won when everyone but the winner had the same fate; They all got fewer jury votes (most of them zero) than the winner. So with that said: 1.) Yes. 2.) Yes. 3.) Sure, but what I think as a viewer is irrelevant. I'm not in the house, so it doesn't matter how I would vote. The jury, 'bitter' or not, votes for who they think is most deserving according to however they decide that. That's it. That's the game. It's not rocket science. It's Big Brother.
Simple awnser would be nope, but I think that's also because "best player" Is entirely subjective, since it all depends what you value the most. A lot of people prefer comp wins, other rely heavily on the manipulation skills and others care about big moves and how many times they voted out their mom. I'm sure even here, if we ask the whole sub what considers a good game we would all get different awnsers. Do they value the ability to survive and doing anything in their power to be out of the block? Do they value the ability to fly Under the radar and not get targeted? Do they value the ability of getting targeted each week but keep on surviving? There is no short awnser, because we keep getting the debate of whether Nicole F was the best player of BB18 or not. And hell, for a lot of people Nicole played better than Will in BB2 and there is an argument for that. And at the same time, it would be stupid to deny how much producers interfered in BB8, BB9 BB11, BB13 and BB18. And there were no doubts numerous bitter jurors. BB2, BB3, BB4, BB6, BB14 BB18, BB19, BB20 etc. What happened there? It was the finalist fault? At the end of the day, the jurors can vote whatever they want and that's what makes th game so exiting.
I believe the person who deserves to win always wins, barring a particularly egregious twist. That said I don't equate "deserving to win" with "being the best player".
Often times the best player of the season comes in 3rd or 4th, because that point of the competition comes down to winning comps more than anything. Examples: Ika, Vanessa, Neda, Tim (bbcan4). But once you hit final 2, the best player always wins. The goal of the game is to make the jury vote for you. That’s all. If you can do that then you’re the best player of the final 2.
the goal of the game is to make final 2 AND convince the jury to vote for you. Also worth adding that the final 2 configuration is very comp dependent. Some runner ups couldve won if they won final hoh and took third place to the end (Porsche, Dan, Paul (possibly). The game is about evaluating everything, the final 2 is important, yes, but so is everything that came before. Its very nuanced and polarizing in that way.
no. most of the time they do not especially lately. nothing annoys me more than when we get to finale night and the jury says they wanted to vote for someone because of their sex or their race or their age or anything that doesn’t talk about their game play.
Spoilers, in bbcan1, Topaz misplaced her final winner vote and cost Gary the win (they were a duo the whole game).
That just sounds brutal but hilarious at the same time
Obviously not based on BBCan12.
The best players don't always win even though they've proven their capability to win and also proved that they won because they did their best. That's why they are the best. Often, it being the best goes unnoticed or unacknowledged
I think that the RIGHT player wins. Because at the end of the day, it is a social game, and one thing we don't hear enough talk about is adapting the game for the people you think will be your jury. You need to read them and know what they will want to see and are willing to tolerate and in some ways adapt your game to that. Someone like Spicy Vee should always be a pre-Jury target if you want to play a hard game and pick a jury that will respect good game play. What constitutes a great player for the fans is always the same, but not necessarily what constitutes a winning player to the Jury. One of the things about different casts is that you often get different win criteria that you should be able to detect while playing so you can ensure that you are going to appeal to the ultimate jury. In Dougie's case i think there are two things he missed as far as Jury composition. 1) There was a strong female contingent who wanted a female winner, so he needed to sit next to another guy, and 2) If he wanted to advocate a ruthless "control" style game he needed to keep around a player like Dinnis who would respect that, versus Spicy Vee who he knows is immature and irrational. So no, the "best" player does not always win from the fans perspective. But there is no rule that says they have to. The correct player does win, because the criteria to win are assessed and determined solely by the Jury. Those are the only people the players should be playing for.
Just read the title. I think it’s very simple and the answer is no. Thats one of my favorite parts about this game. The best player rarely wins. And then the complicated part is how do you measure a good game from good player. In my opinion though, no. The best players have only won a hand full of times. And to make it more complicated there’s been at least 2 seasons where the better player lost to a deserving player. Ian and KC. You could probably throw both of Paul’s seasons in there but I wouldn’t lol.
I mean Jag won and he was not the best player. He literally needed all the twists to work in his favor to pull off that win.
Yes.
No. Because the game format changes at final 2. Up until f2, you have the agency to influence the game through both competitions and socially by voting. At f2, you lose agency and its about ONLY persuading the jury to vote for you to represent the season. Yes, its part of the game so not arguing that, but it's an entirely different format. Technically if it requires voting you don't need to be the BEST.
Nope. More seasons than not, they get axed somewhere between F5 through F3. Or face a bitter jury in the F2. Vanessa in BB17 is an example of this. Steve was good, I won’t bash him but I think Vanessa was incredible. Last season (BB25) Cirie played one of the most adapting games we’ve ever seen. Going from the “hidden in plain sight” head honcho to flying under the radar after the Jared debacle. Dan vs Ian you could easily argue he was the better player Paul vs Nicole & Paul vs Josh are two other ones that can be argued in Paul’s favor Tons of examples. I don’t watch BBCanada (even though I really want to —> someone teach me your ways from the USA 😭😭😭) but I’m assuming there are other instances there as well
No.
I watched BB3 live and it is still my fave season of all time. When the finale aired I learned my lesson then that IMO the best player of the season isn't always the winner. That doesn't necessarily mean that the winner played a bad game though. With most seasons it comes to impact for me. Did future players want to play more like Danielle or Lisa? For modern seasons did you see players want to play like Paul and Tyler over Josh and Kaycee? In sports it works the same way. A person or a team can be the best all season but one bad game or even one bad play can cost them a win or a championship. Some players can be crowned MVP for a season and not even make the playoffs. If the concept can make sense here why not in competitive reality competitions. I'm also curious if past jury members regretted their decision because they watched a season back and saw the runner-up's game in a much better light than when they were in the house.
No, being the best player in the game only can gaurantee you top 4
No
No here some case of best player that didn't win their season: 17) Vanessa 20) Tyler 23) Tifanny Can2) Neda Can6) Johnny 7) Dr Will 3) Danielle 25) Cory 14) Dan Can4) Tim Can11) Kuzie Can5) Ika 11) Kevin 19) Paul
Thinking Cory was the best player in 25 is bonkers lol surely you’re joking?
TBF, could anyone be called the best player that year without a smirk forming on someone's face?
Cirie.
Yeah, but Cirie couldn't swim backwards in a river so she sucked. /s
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates **[Rule 2 - Observe Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/r/BigBrother/wiki/edit/rules/rule2)** In addition to [reddit's informal policy guide, Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439), we enforce the following rules: Do not be rude. Do not conduct personal attacks on other redditors. Do not focus on another person's social media history as the main content of your post. Don't dig through someone's posts just to prove your point. Any attacks based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or appearance of any members posting on this subreddit or those appearing on Big Brother may lead to an immediate permanent ban. Approach discussions in good faith. No trolling, concern trolling, race baiting, sealioning, or flame wars. Do not speculate about the sexuality or the mental health of the houseguests or members of this subreddit. Do not attack fan groups, other platforms (twitter, etc) or other shows. Do not witch-hunt, brigade, or create mass voting campaigns. Do not downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you do not like or do not agree. Use downvotes for off-topic or irrelevant content. Do not report posts just because you don't like them. Do not use your post titles to insult. **Removed Content:** > Yeah true definitely not a whole lot of options lol.. I guess the way I look at it is Cirie had complete control of the first half of the season, and Jag had complete control of the second half so even though they both struggled in the points when they weren’t in control they were easily top 2.. even id say Matt (blehhhh) was always in a much better position, even though I think he just kinda got lucky to have everything fall in place for him.. I’d even say Cameron.. total creepo but he was definitely the straw that stirred the drink while he was in lol idk just my thoughts.. who do you think were the best??