Guest Post: Matt Thinks Hayden Winning Immunity Means He Has The Stats On His Side To Make Top 12
How much of a lift does winning an immunity pin mean to a Masterchef Australia contestant? Matt the strategos thinks it is an huge advantage and he is a shoe in to make it Top 12.
Over to you Matt:
Why Masterchef’s Hayden is now a Final 12 favourite
Hayden’s immunity win last night was massive.
What he’s done is all but guarantee his place in the final 12.
In Masterchef, you only have to play immunity if (a) your team loses and (b) you are picked for elimination. At 24 a side, this means that (assuming a baseline cooking standard) you only have a 12.5% chance of having to use your immunity pin in the first elimination.
In fact, statistically you won’t be forced to use your immunity until you’re at 18 contestants. And once that happens, and you’re back in the game, for the next three rounds you have between a 33% and 42% chance of being up for elimination. I say three rounds, because again, adding those statistics up, by the time there’s 14 left you are again statistically certain to be up for elimination.
And even if you’re up for elimination, you still have two other muppets standing beside you who are just as likely to lose – so a one-in-three chance of surviving.
Of course, we have to recognise that this is just the pure math, and doesn’t take into account meltdowns like Marion giving up her immunity last season.
It also assumes everyone is cooking to the same standard, which they’re not. Having won immunity (meaning you’ve aced two challenges in a row), you’d have to say Hayden’s a better chef than a reasonable sample of the contestants, so he’s – both from a statistical and culinary perspective, all but a lock on the final 12.
Two gripes from last night’s episode.
I’d argue that in some respects a Masterchef immunity is much more powerful than the immunity idol in Survivor. Indeed, in many ways, holding an immunity idol in Survivor – or just the mere suspicion that you do – will see you become a target. As I’ve argued above, Hayden’s win means we’ll probably be seeing a silly white hat in the final 12.
So why make it that much easier to win? No disrespect to Alex the Apprentice, but he’s not a top chef. If he was, his name would be on the door. The standard of last year’s celebrity chefs was so high that winning immunity took a herculean effort.
Now, it’s simply follow the recipe and hope the apprentice doesn’t.
I suspect we’re seeing apprentices because some of the top chefs don’t want to be like poor old Frank Camorra, who probably saw patronage drop off after he got his head handed to him by Marion. Man up, I say. It’s great advertising for your restaurant, and the chances of you losing to a Masterchef contestant – based on the number of wins in the last few seasons, are only about one in eight.
The other gripe has bugged me through all three series. Why, when someone is battling for immunity, do other contestants stand around and give advice from above?
We’ve established that immunity is powerful – so why help someone get it? By all means stand around and cheer, but don’t give advice on cooking.
Rule Two of my Masterchef Rules states “Winning isn’t everything”. For you to “win” a week, all you have to do is have someone else lose. Immunity means that at least one person you may be relying on to lose is safe on at least one occasion.
Everyone has the same chance as Hayden to be up for elimination – that is, with 18 contestants left you are a statistical certainty. But if you’re up against Hayden in an immunity challenge, then all of a sudden you’ve gone from a 33% chance of elimination to 50%.
I know Adam wrote the lovely message to the house about how he’s made some of his best friends on the show, but Adam is the one with the $100K and the cookbook deal, so he’s got the right to feel all magnanimous. But until you’re covered in glitter on the final night, everyone else is competition, not a friend.