I find it really frustrating how people are expected to be good at The Traitors because they're good at other strategy gameshows

(Spoilers for US3, US1, UK3 and both Australian versions)

This is something particularly prevalent in the US series, but it comes up in any series that has reality show veterans on it. Because someone has been strong at US-style Big Brother, or at Survivor, it's assumed that they'll be good at The Traitors. I don't think this is true at all, in the same way that someone who always wins at Monopoly will not necessarily be any good at Cluedo. They're different games, with different rules and different ways to win.

In US3 I thought this particularly stood out with Rob. I found his game generally quite poor and he was really overrated as a player. People were saying, 'Wouldn't it be the most badass move to go up against another Traitor and prove that you're a faithful?' Well, not really. Someone does that every series, and it was quite a clever move to start with but people are wise to it now. Rob's game reminds me quite a lot of Sam from AU2, but Rob was actually slightly worse than Sam (I know it's the gravest Traitors insult to be compared negatively to Sam, but I stand by it). Rob's assault on Bob the Drag Queen was quite reminiscent of Sam's assault on Ash - but the first time Sam tried to go against Ash, he aborted the mission at the last minute because he realised that continuing to do so would cast too much suspicion on him. He'd planted enough seeds to get her out at the following banishment, but he was flexible enough to adapt his game to his circumstances and what the other players were doing. Also, to be fair to Sam, his aggressive strategy worked for the specific people he was playing against. With people like Annabel and Luke and also Liam and Sarah, that series stood out for having both the strongest and weakest faithfuls in any series, and Sam used that to his advantage, got out the strong ones and kept the weak ones, and used it to get to the final. I didn't have the impression that Rob was really taking into account what kind of contestants he was playing against - he had a clear strategy in mind from the beginning to go against anyone who was coming for him, and wasn't willing to adapt it even slightly if circumstances dictated he should do so. Still, Sam didn't win. There has never been a Traitor on any English-language version of the show who's won by being openly aggressive, and I find it baffling how these supposedly exceptional gamers have never realised that.

I've noticed this with other contestants too. I know that Sandra and Parvati from US2 are both absolute demons at the shows they became known for - but I haven't seen those shows, and I didn't think either of them were especially interesting to watch on The Traitors. If I compare people like this to UK3's Charlotte, who to the best of my knowledge has never done one of these shows before and employed great strategy in the way she played (pretending to be Welsh because it's a very trusted accent, tricking a recruited Traitor into murdering someone she knew had the shield) - I've never seen any of these veteran reality types do anything like that.

I actually think on The Traitors it may be a serious disadvantage to have done well on other reality shows, because one of the key skills needed is to be able to go under the radar. There's no way Alex Duggan from AU1 could have played the game as she did if she was a Survivor champion - she took control of the game because she was exceptionally good at concealing her own intelligence and making people overlook her. Still, some people have managed to do that in spite of that - Cirie from US1 was overlooked in spite of being a Survivor legend, so it is possible. But I don't think any big gamer has done it other than her.