Skip to main content

Episode BBAU 2020 - Episode 15 Discussion (7 July)

Will the 'bromance' alliance finally be broken?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 23.7%

  • No

    Votes: 45 76.3%
  • Total voters
    59
Status
Not open for further replies.
epicson said:
Theory: Mat’s a very dangerous player here for sure, if the rumours are true that he gets to the top 4, I can see him potentially pulling a shock power play by switching sides and voting in favour of the majority alliance with Chad & Sophie at the last nomination to each vote Daniel out, in order to secure a position in the finale, effectively ending his bromance with Daniel and exposing himself as the true villain via the blindside. The show is tryna make him seem like just an average bloke from Broken Hill, but deep down he probably had a master game plan up his sleeve all along. :unsure:
Click to expand...

This makes the most strategic sense, splitting the votes between sophie and chad means that the third person would have a clear advantage in the votes. Do I see Mat doing it though? I don't believe so.
 
lowkeymusicc said:
This makes the most strategic sense, splitting the votes between sophie and chad means that the third person would have a clear advantage in the votes. Do I see Mat doing it though? I don't believe so.
Click to expand...

7 are advertising a betrayal, so someone does flip.
 
troynuncdicit said:
To be fair I don't think anyone has really exhibited good gameplay this season.
Click to expand...
to be fair, with an audience vote involved there isn't really a strategic way to overall play or win Big Brother IMO. It's all well and good for a housemate to say "we shall vote X out because X will be popular with the audience and will win, and we will keep Y along because Y won't win". But they don't know what it is being shown of them or how the audience is perceiving them. They have no evidence to go off that a person is popular on the outside, they could take someone to the end expecting them to be a goat and the audience for all they know could love them. They could assume a housemate could be popular and vote them out but the audience may have despised them. That is just my opinion anyway, I personally don't view Big Brother overall as a strategic game whilst the audience vote is involved.
 
Zcsund1234 said:
to be fair, with an audience vote involved there isn't really a strategic way to overall play or win Big Brother IMO. It's all well and good for a housemate to say "we shall vote X out because X will be popular with the audience and will win, and we will keep Y along because Y won't win". But they don't know what it is being shown of them or how the audience is perceiving them. They have no evidence to go off that a person is popular on the outside, they could take someone to the end expecting them to be a goat and the audience for all they know could love them. They could assume a housemate could be popular and vote them out but the audience may have despised them. That is just my opinion anyway, I personally don't view Big Brother overall as a strategic game whilst the audience vote is involved.
Click to expand...
See, this is an interesting topic because I don't believe that's entirely true. There have been a number of HMs over the years from the original format who have both successfully and unsuccessfully "played the game". As much as it is/was a social experiment, the show has also always been a game of strategy too - just in a different way to the version we have at the moment. Direct elements that encouraged this was Friday Night Live/Showdown and the rewards that came along with them.

Both formats require a level of strategy and smarts but with completely different approaches. Former HMs who have openly spoken about their gameplay on the original format include Tim Brunero, Benjamin Norris and Tim Dormer among others. If you consider both Tims, they went in with a clever tactic right from the beginning in which they essentially played the audience throughout their times in the house, whereas somebody like Benjamin played his game the opposite and was strategic with how he nominated (and ultimately evicted) his fellow HMs whilst limiting the number of times he got nominated in return. Funnily enough all three either won the show or came close to it.

Tim Brunero's strategy is almost a textbook example of how to play the original BB.

Check out from 14:38 - 16:14mins, it's worth a listen if you haven't seen this already:

There was definitely a way to do it - it just required a little more difficulty and had to be kept almost completely private.
 
Last edited:
the Theorist said:
See, this is an interesting topic because I'm of the belief that that's not entirely true. There have been a number of HMs over the years from the original format who have both successfully and unsuccessfully "played the game". As much as it is/was a social experiment, the show has also always been a game of strategy too - just in a different way to the version we have at the moment. Direct elements that encouraged this was Friday Night Live/Showdown and the rewards that came along with them.

Both formats require a level of strategy and smarts but with completely different approaches. Former HMs who have openly spoken about their gameplay on the original format is Tim Brunero, Benjamin Norris and Tim Dormer among others. If you consider both Tims, they went in with a clever tactic right from the beginning in which they essentially played the audience throughout their times in the house, whereas somebody like Benjamin played his game the opposite and was strategic with how he nominated (and ultimately evicted) his fellow HMs, whilst limiting the number of times he got nominated in return. Funnily enough all three either won the show or came close to it.

Tim Brunero's strategy is almost a textbook example of how to play the original BB.

Check out from 14:38mins:

There was definitely a way to do it - it just required a little more difficulty and had to be kept almost completely private.
Click to expand...
I remember Rohan from bb 2013 was another housemate who played the game and was open about it. Didn't get him far 😅
 
Also have a memory of Priya playing the game. I remember the boys were giving her shit in the pool. Then she pulled them all to the side together and told them all off. You could tell she felt uncomfortable doing it, but knew it'd look good on camera and fans would root for her.
 
the Theorist said:
See, this is an interesting topic because I don't believe that's entirely true. There have been a number of HMs over the years from the original format who have both successfully and unsuccessfully "played the game". As much as it is/was a social experiment, the show has also always been a game of strategy too - just in a different way to the version we have at the moment. Direct elements that encouraged this was Friday Night Live/Showdown and the rewards that came along with them.

Both formats require a level of strategy and smarts but with completely different approaches. Former HMs who have openly spoken about their gameplay on the original format include Tim Brunero, Benjamin Norris and Tim Dormer among others. If you consider both Tims, they went in with a clever tactic right from the beginning in which they essentially played the audience throughout their times in the house, whereas somebody like Benjamin played his game the opposite and was strategic with how he nominated (and ultimately evicted) his fellow HMs whilst limiting the number of times he got nominated in return. Funnily enough all three either won the show or came close to it.

Tim Brunero's strategy is almost a textbook example of how to play the original BB.

Check out from 14:38 - 16:14mins, it's worth a listen if you haven't seen this already:

There was definitely a way to do it - it just required a little more difficulty and had to be kept almost completely private.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent. Tim’s strategy is 100% a strategy to win Big Brother with the use of the public vote there’s no doubt you’re right about that. But even so, Tim didn’t win (however there is alleged external circumstances to that which I acknowledge) My argument is in relevance to voting each other out as opposed to portraying a character on TV. It’s great to make big moves and blindside other players, however If the audience doesn’t like you then you’re not winning. If there was a jury then sure making big moves mixed with excellent jury management would assure you a win. But with an audience vote if you’re not in some way entertaining or likeable then you won’t win the vote. Playing the game in big brother is a bit more of a broad topic then most would assume in my opinion. There’s Tim’s style of pretty much putting on a false persona to purposely attract a following is great I agree, but he never targeted anyone to vote them out or get them evicted because ultimately he didn’t have that power, the audience did. My point I’m trying to make is that the audience chooses people they either relate to or enjoying watching. I bet in any final 3 combination someone like Angela or Ian wins this series. In this specific season of big brother making a move can either be the smartest thing someone does or the dumbest, the housemates just don’t know if the housemate genuinely is a threat because they have no idea what’s being shown or how the audience is reacting. I’d say 10/11 winners of BBAU didn’t really employ much strategy to their big brother experience and won either by being non offensive/relatable or won at due to other housemate’s own self destruction. I however am just one of an opinion, I’m sure there are many who view Big Brother as a strategic games show, I will always view it as a social experiment and I do believe 9 times out of 10 the audience can see through housemate’s falseness and will ultimately vote for genuine people.
 
BBantUK07 said:
Also have a memory of Priya playing the game. I remember the boys were giving her shit in the pool. Then she pulled them all to the side together and told them all off. You could tell she felt uncomfortable doing it, but knew it'd look good on camera and fans would root for her.
Click to expand...
oh geez I remember this, 'Defence-gate' Could have maybe had a count going how many times she said it during that daily show while rounded them all up and giving them a talking to.
 
Will McDougle said:
In my own opinion I believe the show got better once Angela left, I could not stand her.
Click to expand...
I think whether you like them or not the show always suffers when it is built around one housemate and somewhat is able to return to being "Big Brother" and about the collective mix of housemates when they are evicted. In addition quieter, or so called "boring" housemates usually get chance to shine when a dominating character leaves.
 
Brekkie said:
I think whether you like them or not the show always suffers when it is built around one housemate and somewhat is able to return to being "Big Brother" and about the collective mix of housemates when they are evicted. In addition quieter, or so called "boring" housemates usually get chance to shine when a dominating character leaves.
Click to expand...
100. I loved Angela, but enjoyed watching other hm's like Xavier, Casey once she left
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top