Vanessa Rousso: Hates Liars…Except Herself.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

I guess you skipped the rest of my post, where I said that the winner came down to answering one question.

 

My point was that nothing Vanessa did strategically cost her the game, other than being too good. Steve didn't take Vanessa because he knew he'd lose to her. Because she was better than him at everything. Vanessa lost the game because she answered a question about John incorrectly. She didn't lose because for 90+ days she played a shitty game. If her game was so shitty, Steve would have stuck with their F2 and taken her with him.

 

The bold. Nope.

 

I didn't miss the rest of your post. Vanessa lost to Steve. She didn't win. It can't be argued IMO.

[Ceeg]

I didn't miss the rest of your post. Vanessa lost to Steve. She didn't win. It can't be argued IMO.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying? I realize Vanessa didn't win the game. I'm saying she played well enough TO  win. Not that she won. Meaning, she did everything she needed to do, other than answering a question wrong. She maneuvered herself as best as possible, given the circumstances. She made it to the last eviction, and had all the jury votes wrapped up. I think that Janelle in BB7 (and actually BB6, if the Nerd Herd were sincere in saying they wouldn't vote for Ivette if she'd scumbagged Maggie) played well enough to win. If she'd won that final HOH, she would have been the BB7 winner IMO. I think Danielle played well enough to win, and if the jury had been sequestered, she probably would have (I know that's subjective, but that's how I feel). I think that any person who makes it to the Final 3, and has a majority of the jury votes locked up, they have played well enough to win. They just weren't able to pull out that final HOH comp. Losing doesn't mean one hasn't played well enough to win. In a closely fought tennis match, someone who loses in a final set tiebreaker played well enough to win, they just couldn't pull out the big point when needed.

 

As for you disagreeing about Vanessa not being evicted because she was "too good", are you saying that if Steve had brought her to F2, you think Steve would have won? Everything I've seen from Steve, both on the feeds, in the DR, and in post-finale interviews, he says that he had no argument against Vanessa in F2 other than hoping to appeal to the jury's 'loyalty' opinion and he'd have to bank on them being bitter. He said to himself in the house, 'Vanessa is better than me at every aspect of this game and I have no argument for the jury if it's us together.'  How does that not translate into him evicting her because she was too good for him to beat?

Btw, FWIW, in Steve's interview with THR, he was asked about his perception of Vanessa and her potentially bullying him, and he said this:

 

 

 

Sometimes the way Vanessa talked to you could be perceived as bullying. Did you think she was ever bullying you?

I never thought that for a minute. When do you think she was bullying me?

 

The way she would raise her voice at you and talk down to you...

I never got that impression. Maybe she did. If that's the case I totally missed it. Morals or ethics don't belong in this game, any sense of right [or] wrong I left at the front door and if other people do that, I can't blame them. Any words that are strategy, that aren't physical threats, are fair game. Evel Dick [Donato], that was strategy. He was bullying, but it didn't bother me on an ethical level because that was his strategy. It bothers me if it's personal and you're doing that for no reason, but if it's your game then you have every right to make it your strategy. Vanessa, that was her strategy. I do admit she did a little bit of intimidation, but that was her game play. Absolutely no hard feelings.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Ceeg

[Joimiaroxeu]

...nothing to see here...wrong group...

Edited September 24, 2015 by Joimiaroxeu

[Cutty]

Jace bullied Steve. That was the only bullying I saw all season.

[Sweets McGee]

Ultimately it was the fault of her alliance structure that she didn't really have a solid F2. Not necessarily her fault, just the way it happened. I can't think of a F3 scenario where two people from her alliance would've both taken her. Maybe F3 with Steve and Austin? I still doubt Steve takes her.

I think the Liztin showmance ended up killing that part of her game. She made a final 2 deal with Austin on Day 2 and had Liztin not happened, they probably would've stuck together a lot more loyally, like Danielle/Jason in season 3. But Liz got in the way of all that. It was pretty clear by the final weeks of the game that Austin was always going to choose Liz over her.

[Nashville]

It was tricky, but I think she could have and should have put the same amount of...effort into managing her Steve relationship that she put into her Austin relationship. Steve played into her megolomania of being the Renfield to Van's all knowing game Vampire, Best Player in the Universe, and she let that vibe stay in place. Where as she allowed and encouraged Austin to feel like her equal/partner in all three alliances (F2, Scamper, Sixth Sense) they had with each other right up to the minute she booted him. Part of that was a strategic decision to downplay how allied Steve-Van were to each other, but the effect was that weren't that strongly allied to each other! That to me though is not a Strategic failure, but SOCIAL game failure.

Or a strategic success, from Steve's point of view. I firmly believe that was part of Steve's overall strategy - to be the geeky, socially awkward kid everybody underestimates, who nobody considers a threat, who everybody lets slide ONE MORE WEEK because he'll be so easy to get out NEXT week... or maybe the week after next.... :)

I was never as confident about Van's game after she decided Liz was good as Julia to keep around, and didn't effect her long game. I will probably never really get the Skittles math or strategic logic there.

Numbers-wise, Vanessa was probably right; Liz and Julia each represented 1/3 of Austwins, 1 vote in Jury, and would come in 2nd to V in F2. Vanessa could win over either, so which specific Twin didn't matter - so long as Vanessa could win her way to F2.

But remember how V kept playing the "everybody in Jury hates me" card? That was her fallback in case she couldn't win her way to F2 - make herself look like a perfect goat candidate for someone ELSE to drag along to F2.

Which only works, of course, if there are no better-looking goat candidates available.

In other words - bye, Julia.

ETA: fixed typos

Edited September 24, 2015 by Nashville

[Sweets McGee]

In Vanessa's backyard interview, she said she'd definitely play again if they asked her. I think that means we'll certainly see her in the BB house again someday... and probably booted early. :)

[Nashville]

In Vanessa's backyard interview, she said she'd definitely play again if they asked her. I think that means we'll certainly see her in the BB house again someday... and probably booted early. :)

Yep! The mask is off now; Vanessa is a known factor. First time she started crying and speed-talking they'd kick her out the Door so fast you'd hear a sonic boom coming off her ass.

[AbsoluteShower]

In Vanessa's backyard interview, she said she'd definitely play again if they asked her. I think that means we'll certainly see her in the BB house again someday... and probably booted early. :)

Can you imagine the look of constipated bewilderment on Jessie's* face during one of Vanessa's "One hundred reasons why x and y should be on the block" monologues?

 

*Because Grodner, of course!

[Guest]

I loved the way Vanessa weaponized her femininity. She took every single negative stereotype about women (crying, emotional, incessant talking without listening) and used it to her advantage. She didn't play a masculine game, she played a feminine game. Instead of hiding her femininity, she used it. Intentional or not, people stayed away from nominating her until the end because they were seemingly afraid of how she would react. I know she really believed it, but I thought it was outstanding strategy, and hopefully the next step in the evolution of the woman player. I want to see women play on emotion to win money. There's such a stigma attached and it was long past time that stigma was removed.

 

If you ever want to see masterful women playing their feminine strengths (with zero tears or jackhammer-mouths or blaming their periods, thank god), check out Survivor: Micronesia.

[Ceeg]

Vanessa and Mel got engaged last night.

[blixie]

 

That was her fallback in case she couldn't win her way to F2 -

 

I know she thought Julia was a goat, and wanted to get rid of her for that reason, but I still don't know why she wanted to WIN OUT as her PRIMARY strategy, rather than take two people to F3 (Austin/Julia) who would also take her to F2. I literally want to see her MATH, in terms of which option had which odds of playing out: I just can't see doing all the work she did all season long to ultimately decide at GO TIME to say, yeah I'm cool with a 50/50 chance at R3 of HoH in a crapshoot, especially when she spent most of the game having more influence over Austin/Julia than she ever had over Steve/Liz. 

 

So glad she said she'd do it again, I wonder if they've already let her know they want her back for an All Stars season next summer. She would likely go down early, but whatever they're all known quantities that's the point of All Stars, as long as there get some other big gets like Derrick, or someone else who actually WON she could have a chance. 

 

Congrats to her and Mel, it must have been so awesome to find out about the ruling.

[peachmangosteen]

So glad she said she'd do it again, I wonder if they've already let her know they want her back for an All Stars season next summer. She would likely go down early, but whatever they're all known quantities that's the point of All Stars, as long as there get some other big gets like Derrick, or someone else who actually WON she could have a chance. 

 

I think everyone knows I hated Vanessa and Derrick, but I would love to see them on the same season. They would drive each other nuts and I think it'd be entertaining.

[Ceeg]

I think it would be interesting to see how she adjusts her game in an All Stars season. A lot of her strategy this season was convincing people that their best interests were also her best interests. That sort of thing probably wouldn't float in All Stars, because all of the HGs should be relatively intelligent and well-versed in the game.

 

The downside of an All Stars cast is that most, if not all, alliances are pre-entry. So if you can get into a majority alliance before even entering the house, your shot at staying longer increases.

[peachmangosteen]

I think it would be interesting to see how she adjusts her game in an All Stars season. A lot of her strategy this season was convincing people that their best interests were also her best interests. That sort of thing probably wouldn't float in All Stars, because all of the HGs should be relatively intelligent and well-versed in the game.

Yea, she would have to really change up her game, which interests me. I don't think she'd be able to do it. Same for Derrick.

 

The downside of an All Stars cast is that most, if not all, alliances are pre-entry. So if you can get into a majority alliance before even entering the house, your shot at staying longer increases.

So true. And I feel like Vanessa is pretty unlikely to become a part of the BB family, so she'd probably be pretty screwed in an All Stars situation.

Edited September 25, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[Eolivet]

If you ever want to see masterful women playing their feminine strengths (with zero tears or jackhammer-mouths or blaming their periods, thank god), check out Survivor: Micronesia.

 

I've seen Survivor. To me, that was cutthroat "masculine" gameplay combined with sexuality. Not the same as taking stereotypes of weak women (such as crying and being emotional) and using them to manipulate others. Parvati, Amanda and Cirie (if I recall correctly) didn't pretend to be weak and helpless as strategy -- they were friendly...until they weren't. Other than Parvati and Amanda's sexuality, they may as well have been men.

 

I know Vanessa's crying wasn't strategy, but I'm talking about a woman one day who uses "weak woman" as strategy. Being Vanessa as a conscious strategy rather than just...being Vanessa.

[Guest]

It might be hard to get a lot traction playing the stereotype of a weak, weepy woman.  It's not generally someone other players respect and choose to align with or take far in these games, don't you think?  

[Stinamaia]

Vanessa and Mel got engaged last night.

Poor Mel.

[Cutty]

In Vanessa's interview with Cesternino she admitted that she had no idea Steve had such a high opinion of her game. She credited him for hiding that well. Said if she had known that Steve saw her as such a threat her play would've been to reveal the poker background to him and try to play up that the jury would never vote for her.

 

Here's a link for those that wanna listen:

http://robhasawebsite.com/big-brother-2015-exit-interview-final-3-steve-moses-winner-bb17-vanessa-rousso/

[AbsoluteShower]

Vanessa and Mel got engaged last night.

That's great news for them both, but I can't help wondering if Vanessa's proposal involved a three hour monologue accompanied by an insanely complicated skittles diagram...

[Ceeg]

I'm pretty sure Mel is the one who proposed.

[Ceeg]

In Vanessa's interview with Cesternino she admitted that she had no idea Steve had such a high opinion of her game. She credited him for hiding that well. Said if she had known that Steve saw her as such a threat her play would've been to reveal the poker background to him and try to play up that the jury would never vote for her.

I also thought it was interesting that she said Steve outplayed her with regards to him not letting her know how threatened he was by her game, and if she hadn't had that deal in place with Liz to give her the vote, and if she knew Steve actually was onto her the whole time toward the end, she would have probably voted for him. Basically, she's giving a lot of credit to Steve, as a gamer and his ability to keep his true feelings about her under wraps. She sounded like she views that as a very big move, on Steve's part.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Ceeg

[blixie]

 

Said if she had known that Steve saw her as such a threat her play would've been to reveal the poker background to him and try to play up that the jury would never vote for her.

 

That was nice they were calling for her to do that (as well as threaten the jury vote) last week. Rob was irritating me though, he and some of his contributors seem to forget that just because THEY think Steve played a better game than Liz, it is A) just an opinion, and B) Van doesn't have the same information they do, so her vote for Liz over Steve makes perfect sense for her given what she knew about the two of them, and that given how close their games were, she basically voted for her out of gender solidarity and he breezed right by it. I didn't realize the deal she had made in the last few days was not only to take Liz, but that they would definitely vote for each other if they were booted by Steve. 

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure Mel is the one who proposed.

That's nice for them.  I'm not a Van-fan but I hope it wasn't a consolation proposal to soften the blow of her edit and public reception.  

 

And then the cynic in me wonders if it was timed strategically to do some damage control to her rep.  "New info!  Forget that BB thing!  It's an engagement!  New chapter!"  

[Sweets McGee]

In Vanessa's interview with Cesternino she admitted that she had no idea Steve had such a high opinion of her game. She credited him for hiding that well. Said if she had known that Steve saw her as such a threat her play would've been to reveal the poker background to him and try to play up that the jury would never vote for her.

 

Here's a link for those that wanna listen:

http://robhasawebsite.com/big-brother-2015-exit-interview-final-3-steve-moses-winner-bb17-vanessa-rousso/

Thanks for this. So far I've only listened to the Steve part but he came across really well in that interview and I respect his win a lot more after listening to it. Great stuff.

[Ceeg]

That's nice for them.  I'm not a Van-fan but I hope it wasn't a consolation proposal to soften the blow of her edit and public reception.  

 

And then the cynic in me wonders if it was timed strategically to do some damage control to her rep.  "New info!  Forget that BB thing!  It's an engagement!  New chapter!"  

I think it had been in the works for a while. They had apparently discussed it anyway prior to BB, but also Vanessa talked a lot in the house about proposing to Mel after BB (that if she won, she'd use some of the winnings to buy Mel a ring), and Mel has said on twitter that she wanted to propose too and they'd see who beat whom to the punch. I guess Mel won.

 

They live together, have been together for 2 years, and seem solid, so I don't get the feeling that the engagement is coming from any place other than love and commitment.

 

FWIW, Vanessa wasn't really universally hated, so I don't even see the need for any sort of damage control PR campaign. She certainly wasn't the most loved, but I think in terms of pure gameplay, she was generally speaking the most respected, especially going into the finale. And she was nowhere near as personally hated as Austin and Liz, on a season-long consistent basis. I'd rate Vanessa as somewhere in the middle of the pack, in terms of fan support.

[Nashville]

I'm pretty sure Mel is the one who proposed.

...in which case, I wonder if Vanessa's acceptance involved a three hour monologue accompanied by an insanely complicated skittles diagram... :>

Congratulations to them both!

[Eolivet]

It might be hard to get a lot traction playing the stereotype of a weak, weepy woman.  It's not generally someone other players respect and choose to align with or take far in these games, don't you think?

 

Oh, the irony that all men who "pretend" to be weak (like admittedly Steve did, and Derrick before him and Dan before him) get praise for their brilliant strategy, but if a woman used that as a strategy, she would get no respect.

 

But yes, that's the double standard that exists, and one I thought Vanessa revealed beautifully through her game play (unknowingly, but still). Women are socialized to apologize when they've done something wrong. Women are socialized to be nurturing, and thus, will be more emotional and cognizant of other people's feelings. Women are even socialized in the art of conversation and communication (as evidenced in the period dramas). Vanessa was acting as society teaches her that women should act, and most of the male winners on Twitter thought it made her weak and unworthy of respect. Meaning that to be worthy of respect, she would have to act contrary to how women are socialized. In other words, she'd have to act more masculine (or how men are socialized: to be more emotionless and unapologetic).

 

To me, it's about eliminating stigma and turning people's own prejudices about what strength is and what weakness is against them. It would take a very skilled manipulator, but I would love to see it happen. To prove there is more than one version of strength -- and strength is not just defined by masculine traits. To prove that women don't have to sacrifice their femininity (or use their sexuality, which also caters to men) to be successful.

 

Vanessa was the first player I'd seen that was unapologetically feminine (not sexual, but feminine) and reasonably successful. So yes, I'd love to see more evolved (and more successful) versions of her game play in the future.

[Guest]

Did people praise Steve, Derrick and Dan for crying and call it strategy?  I didn't, I don't even remember Derrick and Dan crying.  Or Steve getting much praise for anything besides winning.  I didn't read most of the threads, though.  

 

I think Steve was pretending to be a social moron for the cameras, and I don't think it really did him much good strategically.  Vanessa did underestimate him but she would've done that regardless because she's convinced she's always the smartest one in the room, if you ask me.

[kikaha]

 

Vanessa was the first player I'd seen that was unapologetically feminine (not sexual, but feminine) and reasonably successful.

 

I see it the opposite.  She succeeded because she was a brilliant strategist/manipulator, who was much smarter than just about everyone out there.  She failed because of many of those qualities you are calling feminine.  Those qualities almost got her booted around mid-way... made her a target for everyone much of the season... and ended up IMO costing her a trip to F2 (where she surely would have won). 

 

I've only seen a few BB seasons.  Based on those, give Vanessa a temperament more like Derrick's or Dan's and she would have mowed down everyone this season, without them even seeing her in the rear-view mirror till they voted her the $500k win. 

[Eolivet]

Did people praise Steve, Derrick and Dan for crying and call it strategy?  I didn't, I don't even remember Derrick and Dan crying.  Or Steve getting much praise for anything besides winning.

 

Dan actually did cry -- it was a part of Dan's Funeral. But weakness for men is conveyed in a different way than weakness for women. Weakness for men is acceptable (and even strategic) -- weakness for women is unacceptable. Just in this thread, there's praise for Steve for staying "in the background" for much of the season. Vanessa won comps, which men have purposely not done for "strategy", and her crying and apologizing were perceived as weakness. That's the double standard.

 

She failed because of many of those qualities you are calling feminine.  Those qualities almost got her booted around mid-way... made her a target for everyone much of the season... and ended up IMO costing her a trip to F2

 

She almost got booted because she was crying and emotional and apologizing? I thought she almost got booted because she was a brilliant strategist/manipulator. Steve certainly didn't boot her at F3 because he was afraid she'd cry her way to $500K -- he thought she'd manipulate her way to $500K. The male winners on Twitter didn't complain about her manipulating, they complained about her crying. They complained about her apologizing and her claims of integrity (not "owning" her game). But there's a reason that the phrase "good boy" exists pretty much for babies and dogs and "good girl" exists for women far into adulthood.

 

From what I saw, many people not in her alliance recognized how good a strategist/manipulator she was, but were afraid of the Category 5 emotional hurricane combined with the 235 deals she would make by talking 24/7 until she wore someone down (weaponizing her femininity). She didn't use the crying and talking as strategy, but I think it worked as strategy (as I said, inadvertently). But as a strategy that very few people respect.

 

Based on those, give Vanessa a temperament more like Derrick's or Dan's and she would have mowed down everyone this season.

 

You're making my point. Make her more masculine, and she would've won. Don't apologize and talk about what a good person you are, because that makes you a hypocrite. Don't cry every time you have a conversation with someone. Stop talking all the time. In other words: suppress your natural feminine instincts and be a man.

 

And yes, there are women who aren't emotional, women who don't apologize when they've done something wrong, women who don't make game moves and try to maintain that they have integrity and are good people. My point is there's nothing inherently wrong with all those things. It's not bad game play -- it's just not male game play. I'm asking why can't it be just as respected if the woman is also a brilliant strategist/manipulator, like Vanessa was? And I believe the answer is society characterizes mostly feminine traits as weakness. So, I'm hopeful that a player like Vanessa is the first step towards changing that narrative.

[Guest]

For the record, I don't categorize crying as a feminine trait or a weakness and I'm not a man.  I don't respect a crying game from any gender.  This is for entertainment, for one thing, and I don't find it entertaining.  You gotta cry, go ahead.  But if you want to use it to manipulate people?  I would rank that about as respectable and entertaining as watching bullying or jackhammering people with words as manipulation.  That's just my preference and feelings on it.  To each their own.  

 

I respect Vanessa's other game traits.  I just don't like her.  If she had won, I would think the right person won.  But she didn't and I liked it.  James was right.  She played too hard.  No subtlety.   

[kikaha]

 

You're making my point. Make her more masculine, and she would've won. Don't apologize and talk about what a good person you are, because that makes you a hypocrite. Don't cry every time you have a conversation with someone. Stop talking all the time. In other words: suppress your natural feminine instincts and be a man.

 

Natural feminine instincts are to cry every time you talk to someone?  To fly off the handle at others, in barely-contained rage, when they do what you told them to?  To say how much you hate liars, when you lie repeatedly, to one person after another after another? 

 

Vanessa's erratic flights of manic paranoia drew negative attention to herself.  That's not feminine behavior to me.  It's not masculine behavior.  It's poor game behavior that made her a bigger target.  Anyone who behaves that way -- man or woman -- alienates other HGs. 

 

I'm not asking her to act more like a man, whatever that means in today's world.  I'm asking her to do her manipulations/strategies in ways that don't piss off the others and make them fear her.  More than once I watched her berate one HG or another -- sometimes on spurious grounds -- and thought to myself, "she's absolutely crazy."  What made it such a disconnect was how superbly she played other parts of the game.  

 

Vanessa didn't lose this game because she was too feminine.  She lost due to a) bad luck, and b) poor management of herself and the other HGs.  This was actually more important, because it left her at the mercy of a coin toss. 

[kikaha]

PS: the crying and rapid-fire talking only worked short-term.  It did not build the good will she needed to guarantee F2 for herself.  Actually, of the F5, I think only one other person would have taken her to the end.  Liz.  And even Liz might not have, if Austin still was in the game. 

 

Vanessa's behavior pretty much meant she had to win out.  That is not good game playing, especially when you've been running the show virtually the entire season.  A shame her social game lagged so far behind her strategic game. 

[UniqBlue69]

Yeah but Janelle found herself in the same position in both seasons 6 and 7 and she's considered one of the best. Chew on that!

[kikaha]

She almost got booted because she was crying and emotional and apologizing? I thought she almost got booted because she was a brilliant strategist/manipulator.

 

Vanessa got put on the block because she was a strategic threat.  She almost sealed her own fate there, though -- almost got tossed -- because of how she behaved the next few days.  Shelli saved her, by behaving even more foolishly, and that gave Vanessa the foothold she needed to stay alive in the game.  If Shelli hadn't pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory, Vanessa would have been the first juror. 

 

You see Vanessa as weaponizing femininity and that helping her.  I think she weaponized some of the more paranoid, hypocritical aspects of her personality, and those weapons boomeranged on her.  She never could command the loyalty -- the love -- needed to guarantee her a spot in the F2. 

[Stinamaia]

I don't know enough about professional poker to know how comprehensive these stats are, but you can see that in the last three years, Vanessa hasn't been earning much from poker. She may have had sponsorships that paid her money. She does seem to have put most of her eggs in the DJ basket recently. There is a you tube video about her transition to music, music composition, and The DJ business,

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&n=43135

[Stinamaia]

I was thinking about this after I posted it and after I read a poker message board that got me into that world just a tiny bit. It could be that she plays a lot of online poker and makes money that way, and thus her poker income isn't fully represented by those stats.

However, it does appear that she is not highly ranked on the circuit and that there are other women who are much more highly respected and ranked. There's a bit of film flam in the bio, but clearly Vanessa has a huge home in LV and has lived large.

Apparently, she divorced her husband in 2012 after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. No judgment there because I don't know the details. It does seem clear that she is no longer a force on the poker circuit.

[methodwriter85]

I am rewatching BB2 and realized that Vanessa is the closest I've seen to a modern BB player like BB2 Nicole with the crocodile tears and generally great gameplay.

However being that she's a lesbian she didn't have a Dr. Will that she desperately wanted to hate-fuck. She also didn't backstab a Monica who went ballistic and made sure everyone knew it. Shame she didn't come back but she'd probably be an early boot. Edited to add: Looks like she and her wife Mel recently had a kid. I guess that's why she didn't come back. Good for her.

Edited August 15, 2020 by methodwriter85

[peachmangosteen]

5 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

Edited to add: Looks like she and her wife Mel recently had a kid. I guess that's why she didn't come back. Good for her.

3 babies!

 

[methodwriter85]

I'm glad she's living her best life. Did her sister find a nice girl to settle down with, too?

Edited August 15, 2020 by methodwriter85