He lost because the jurors were bitter, plain and simple. Ultimately he lost, but not because of poor gameplay or a poor social game, he had both the best overall gameplay and best social game IMO. How the jury votes is virtually out of his control... there's no rules on how to vote, and voting on emotions is just plain wrong IMO. He had almost all of the HGs as allies until he had them evicted... they just couldn't admit defeat. I guess if you think you know more than some of the most experienced BB players to ever play (Mike Boogie and Janelle), then I guess you're right.
If the HG's didn't trust him, why did they constantly take his word? They may not have trusted him, but they fell for every move. I guess we both also have different opinions on what short-sighted gameplay would be. I wouldn't call getting to the F2, winning $50k, outlasting 14(?) other HGs when you were a huge threat since the reset and virtually controlling the house for the second half of the show, short-sighted gameplay by ANY means... I would call that quite the accomplishment.
If Danielle and Dan were F2, even Danielle probably would've beat Dan. Using your logic, Danielle played a better game than Dan, and that's seriously LAUGHABLE because Danielle was essentially Dan's puppet from Day 1.
Agree to disagree...