LAST EDITED ON 09-21-16 AT 09:35 AM (EST)

Victor was booted three times. His strategy didn't work. I just don't see why it is even arguable that for him, it was blindingly obvious that he needed to change. Not obvious to him, but he did get two extra chances to correct what killed his game, and still it didn't occur to him. There was actually another demonstration in that Da' also played the revenge game, and that's what killed her game also. I think there were others too - Bridgette, Tiffany. I'm not sure if Bridgette would have done any better, but there's a reasonable chance that Tiffany would have.

Rachael Reilly was an outlier in several respects, an anomaly. Even so, none of your examples received second or third chances after using their respective strategies (and I agree with your descriptions) in the same game. Their game strategies (if you can call them that, I'm doubtful whether Rachael actually thought in those terms) got them to the end and (amazing to me) actually won it for them. So not only did they not get 'in their face' demonstrations that their game didn't work as Victor did THREE times with two second chances, they didn't need to.

I understand your contention, but that's really irrelevant. If 'who they are' aren't suited to win, they won't usually win. It's just those who happen to be a 'who they are' that can change and adapt their game on the run that do well. And even then they need the luck factor, but with out that ability, they need a ton of luck plus the ability to win key challenges. And for all the challenge strength that Victor has, he couldn't win enough key challenges to offset his glaring strategic adaptability weakness, even after having had it shoved in his face.