How well can game theorists predict the outcomes of Survivor? originally appeared on Quora, the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus.

How well can game theorists predict the outcomes of Survivor?

They can’t even come close, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Survivor constantly changes. As is true with most (all?) cooperative competitive games, there is no stable equilibrium for Survivor. Anything that is a strength in a player is also a weakness (since it’s a reason to target you) and anything that’s a weakness is a strength (since it’s a reason to keep you around longer). For the first couple of seasons, physical strength was an advantage, since it meant you could win challenges and be valuable around camp, but players soon realized they had to target strong competitors early, so it became a disadvantage. A similar transition happened for other positive traits (being in a tight two person alliance (like a showmance), being affable, being strategic, having control of your tribemates). Currently, Survivor is coming off of an era when lots of highly scheme-y players won, so we’re in an era where that is a disadvantage, the ability to put others at ease is an advantage. I imagine soon that will shift.

Survivor is a twenty player RPS game. By that I mean that there is no dominant strategy, so there’s too much randomness to predict well. This is because players are able to learn from so many past seasons and alter their strategy to take out whatever it means to be a threat.

Survivor isn’t rational. Survivor is all about convincing people to act in ways that aren’t in their self-interest. A good player is able to convince others to act out of self-disinterest (and position themselves better) by framing the narrative in different lights. Survivor is complicated enough that a good player can make a bad idea seem good, but that’s a question of ability, not game theory.

Survivors aren’t rational. As much as I love Survivor for the strategy, the human emotion is part of what makes it great. Taking someone away from any positive affirmation or trust for 39 days (while constantly starving them) really changes their mindset, and the emotions Survivors feel are part of the game. Unless game theorists can predict emotional reactions, they’re going to miss some of what will determine the outcome of a Survivor season.

The jury is unpredictable. Even if a game theorist could predict who would make it to final tribal council, the fact remains that there is no predictable victory condition for Survivor, because it’s up to the jury. Juries are free to reward whatever they like. Some choose to reward strategy, some physicality, some likability. Some take a little bit from everything. But at the end of the day, Survivor’s about convincing someone to give you a million dollars, so you have to be able to convince them. Game theorists can’t predict how good anyone will be at that.

This question originally appeared on Quora. More questions on Quora:

* Survivor: How does one get selected for Survivor?

* Predictions: What will classrooms look like in the future?

* Statistics: What are the most subtle ways to deceive people with statistics?

Photo Credit: Candela Foto Art Kreuziger/Getty Images