Top Chef - S9E8 Last Chance Kitchen

And with that, we have our second Last Chance Kitchen win streak!

I've got to say, however her food turns out, it's a lot of fun to watch Nyesha work. She's intense, but there's a kind of controlled economy in her movements. All business, and then *bam*... enormous grin.

I love these simple challenges! What's more interesting? Three random challenge parameters thrown out on Twitter, or three basic techniques employed in one dish? Since I know some of you don't have access to the online videos (greetings to our international friends!), this week's challenge was for Nyesha and Heather to create dishes that employed (deep) frying, injecting and foaming. Heather did a fried prawn over a chanterelle and corn ragout, the head of which had been injected with a foam made from a quick shrimp stock with porcini powder and pimenton. Head sucking ensued (hooray!). Nyesha did a beignet injected with caramel and paired with a brown butter foam. Heather's dish worked in goat cheese somewhere, and we discover -- surprise -- that Tom's is apparently really against seafood and cheese.

Interesting little side note. The whole Heather/Beverly debacle has, in some corners, once again raised the issue of editing and to what degree the editors may at times misrepresent the chefs' conduct. I'm often less curious about their video selection, and more curious about their audio selection. Give this a listen (it's a short mp3 audio clip). Now, quite often these lines are edited simply to compress a bit for time, make them more concise, remove ums and uhs and that kind of thing. But when you have a line this inflammatory that's almost comical in how poorly it flows, it makes you wonder how often we're subjected to completely manufactured frankenclips. Nyesha said a lot, and this may have been a completely fair representation of her remarks. It may even have been her exact remarks that just happened to sound really bad after editing to remove dead space. But if you listen for them, you'll hear lines like this. A lot. And it makes you wonder how often and to what degree they might misrepresent those who are "saying" them.

Anyway, Nyesha advances, and I find myself hoping she goes on a nice, long run. Well... depending on who's eliminated next episode, of course :-)

Discuss!

Comments

[Bart]

This was deeply satisfying to watch. Bye, Heather.

I like the contrast between Nyesha's style and Heather's, as well. Nyesha seemed like she had a plan, and was focused on executing it, while Heather went about willy-nilly.

Keep up the good work, Nyesha!

[rab01]

I thought it was particularly striking that, in Nyesha's dish, each of the 3 techniques seemed to be obviously useful in creating the dish. None of them felt shoehorned in just to satisfy an arbitrary requirement.

[Redpoint]

Beating a dead horse, but goat cheese and shrimp?

[Libster]

I too love the way Nyesha works. It's dynamite yet controlled. You can almost see what she is thinking in her head play out.

I'm really hope she takes this and runs with it for as long as she can. This may be the perfect playground for her.

[ally]

Holy crap Dom. Was that clip from the actual show? I didn't notice it at all when I was watching. There's no way that wasn't pieced together from different sentences or phrases.

[doktarr]

Unless you are watching their lips move, you don't know when or how something was said. The same goes for reaction shots - if they show the reaction shot of someone's "rival", and they have an odd look on their face, it could just be that they farted 10 minutes earlier. You really don't know.

It's also pretty common for Padma to re-voice her description of a challenge. You'll notice that suddenly it sounds like she's talking into a mike as the camera cuts away to the chefs.

[ally]

Yes, I've noticed the Padma re-voicing, but that is a LOT different than putting other phrases in the contestants' mouths. Especially if they're talking about other contestants. As has been obvious this season, being a jerk can lead to loss of income (bad publicity for Sable). The elves are now potentially messing with the cheftestants' livelihoods.

[Skillet Doux]

Ally... This is nothing new. There have been weirdly cut up sentences like that one on the show as long as I can remember. If you hadn't noticed it before, now you'll notice it all the time. And like I say, there are perfectly innocent explanations as well. Until a chef pops up and claims that she never said that, I think the elves deserve the benefit of the doubt. It just makes you wonder... :-)

[C'est Oui]

The important thing is Heather is gone. I can't recall a contestant ever to demonstrate a package of ego, cruelty and just plain old dumbness. [Ed. - Some pretty lame comments about Heather's appearance removed.]

I hope she is excluded from the peanut gallery. [Ed. - Same here.]

[Skillet Doux]

C'mon, C'est Oui... whatever you think of Heather, can we keep the discussion above a playground level?

[Libster]

bringing it back to the subject here.

If you think about it Nyesha has a good chance of running a big streak.

My bet is that she could beat the following:

Grayson
Malibu Chris
Lindsay
Moto Chris

not that they will be the eliminated but looking at those that are still in and I think she's got a good shot at dominating LCK.

[Kathy from Austin]

I remember Nyesha saying that at the beginning of the LCK. It didn't offend me, quite the opposite. She was cooking on principle and it was motivating for her. Also, she was clearly motivated in an altruistic way. Consequently, I like her even more!

[Skillet Doux]

Libster... I don't know that I'd call it good. The problem is simply the math. There are nine chefs remaining. Let's assume they're going to eliminate five more before bringing back the LCK champion (six seems quite possible as well). Here are two ways to illustrate why that's so difficult:

1) Each challenge is essentially a quickfire, where you don't have time to plan and think about what you're going to do. So Nyesha would have to have five consecutive mistake-free quickfires. That's no easy in and of itself.

2) Let's say you think she's such a dominant chef that she has a 75% chance of beating each individual opponent along the way. That only gives her a 23% chance of beating all five. And if you drop each matchup to a 60/40 split (which I suspect is much closer), that drops to an 8% chance.

[Bart]

Still, I wouldn't put it past her to pick up some steam. Providing she makes no mistakes (and that's the ultimate "if" here), I can see her beating all those contestants Libster mentioned.

[Skillet Doux]

Bart... No, I agree, we're (probably) close enough that it's no longer an insurmountable task. But unless you have somebody who's just completely dominant, I think the odds are still strongly against somebody running the table.

[doktarr]

Agreed on the math, which is exactly why it would have been a really cool idea if they had left two survivors in LCK after the double elimination episode. While it's a stretch to imagine anyone short of a Kevin Gillespie-level quickfire superstar being consistently more than a 65% favorite in these things, advancing two people makes a long run more likely by a quadratic factor. After all, it's not hard to imagine a superior competitor having an 80% chance of not finishing third in a 3-way contest. The difference between 65% and 80% scales up really fast over 4 or 5 challenges.

[Libster]

I agree on the math point - and sure it's great theory but I wanted to throw in another part which is when your betting you are also looking at other factors.

I think Nyesha spent enough time to size up some of her competitors, and notice she didn't even flinch when Heather came out to battle her.

To me this give her some sort of edge over the lower grouping of chefs While any misstep and she's a goner her chances are higher against some than others.

I'm a pretty successful texas hold'em poker player, and it just is more than luck and mathematical odds that come into play. Some of it is a lot about knowing who you are going up against. Sizing up the players. strategy is very important.

So my guess is that as long as the key 3 or 4 players aren't in LCK she has a better chance at winning. She could potential run a 5 or 6 streak win without hitting one of the contestants that are in the top rankings.

Sure I'm not basing this purely on mathematics but
sometimes you have to take a little of each (math, luck, strategy, and gut instinct)and go with it.

[gilmore]

Each elimination is a random act, separate from the prior challenge. Random in terms of the new chef introduced each week and the challenge itself. Does the reigning champ or the challenger have an advantage cooking that particular item/method?

Much like tossing a coin, the current toss is independent of the prior toss. If Nyesha has a 60% chance each week, that does not reduce down to an 8% overall chance as each week is unique unto itself.

The chances of a misstep do not increase each week based on "the odds", but based on the challenge itself and the competitor and how his/her strengths match up against the challenge.

What are the odds of Heather alienating the rest of the eliminated chefs?

Libster makes good points about sizing up her opponents and there may be an advantage thinking about her next challenge, although not knowing what it will be is limiting.

[missingflops]

gilmore -

The independence of the events means that you can't use the existence of the past events to predict the specific outcome of the next event. However, even with independent events, the chances of a given outcome occurring a certain number of times in a row are affected by the cumulative probability. The difference is this. Due to independence, if I plan to flip a coin three times and the first two times come up heads, then that has no affect on the probability that the very next flip will be heads. It is still 50%. However, before I ever flipped the coin once, I could calculate the probability that I would flip three heads in a row. To calculate that probability I have to multiply the probability of each result together. So, I multiply .5 (chance of heads on flip 1) times .5 (chance of heads on flip 2) times .5 (chance of heads on flip 3).

Each individual toss is an independent event, so the probability of a heads on any specific flip is the same. However, before I start flipping, I can say the chance of flipping 3 heads in a row is .125. If I've already started the flips though, I can use the past results to predict future events.

Yes Libster, knowing how to play poker does come in handy eh? I think Nyesha may have "alligator blood"!

[missingflops]

~If I've already started the flips though, I can use the past results to predict future events.~

That should say, "I can't use the past results."

[doktarr]

gilmore is making one of my favorite errors of probability, which is overapplying the lessons of the "gambler's fallacy". For those who read Marilyn vos Savant's increasingly terrible "ask Marilyn" column in Parade, she made the same mistake:

http://www.parade.com/askmarilyn/2011/12/Sundays-Column-12-25-11.html

The real probability is 1 - .75^4 = 68%.

[Anon Man]

Of course, you're all making a logical error by assuming that strict probability theory can be applied to an event that isn't actually random, but rather based on personal performances. ;)

Regarding the LCK itself, I liked the injection into the head. Sure, a head suck is great, but a head suck taken to 11 sounds even better. I missed in the preperation that there was cheese. The minute Tom mentioned it, I knew she was gone.

[Skillet Doux]

Anon Man... Reluctant as I am to chase this rabbit any further down the hole, yes, of course we're not discussing random events. When I say 70%, I'm saying considering all factors, on average, best guess is seven times out of ten that person wins.

I was simply trying to illustrate how difficult it is to string together a long series of victories.

And yes, I know you're just giving me a hard time. I still can't help it.

[ally]

By the way, some of the sceptics here may think a long run is likely because two out of two times the "Survivor" equivalent of LCK has shown a shut-out winner. However, in Survivor they often vote out the strong, while the judges of TC vote out the weak.

During the %chance discussion I was thinking "where is M. Vos Savant when you need her?" I'm surprised at the link doktarr gave us because I think in the past she gave the correct answer (probably with the same "goes against logic doesn't it?"). But I haven't read Parade Magazine since the arrival of the intertubes.

But anyway, the idea that a 50% chance in each challenge is the same as 50% chance of being the winner overall in 5 challenges defies logic. It's fun to wish and handicap in advance though :)

Speaking of handicaps, seeing Tom suck the head of an enormous crustacean is worth the price of admission. !!!

[doktarr]

ally - I used to read "Ask Marilyn" when I was a kid and enjoyed it. When we got a Sunday newspaper subscription a few years ago, I started reading it again. It's sort of jarring how often her answers are off - I'm left wondering whether I wasn't able to see the mistakes when I was younger, or whether she's just started to slip (she is only in her 60s, though). That particular column (from this week) was the worst I've ever seen, but far from the only bad answer she's given. She also does a lot fewer tricky puzzle questions than she used to (which was my favorite part of the column as a kid).

[nm]

We don't even know whether the LCK challenges are filmed right after each elimination or in batches later on. If we don't know something that basic, how can we possibly handicap in advance? I'm glad to see Nyesha with a mini winning streak, and I hope it lasts, but speculating beyond that is beyond me.

[Skillet Doux]

"We don't even know whether the LCK challenges are filmed right after each elimination or in batches later on. If we don't know something that basic, how can we possibly handicap in advance?"

Speculative handicapping is one of the bedrock cornerstones of the entire site... it's what we *do* here! :-)

[nm]

Speculative handicapping is one of the bedrock cornerstones of the entire site... it's what we *do* here! :-)

Oh, I know. I just said it's beyond me so far as LCK is concerned.

[Bob]

I was wondering the same thing - the producers want you to believe the LCK's are done in "real time" as a chef is eliminated (snarky letter in the suitcase and all that), but it would make the logistics challenging - especially with three different venues this season. They'd need to find alternative lodging for the eliminated chefs, and keep them "under wraps" for fear of being discovered by someone remaining in the competition and thereby ruining the surprise (no cruising the River Walk at night - stay in your rooms!)

But, of course, in past seasons they have often brought back eliminated chefs in different ways, most commonly to act as sous chef for the finale, but to keep all these people on ice for a couple weeks strikes me as, well, a bit weird. I suppose when the season's over, we'll find out how they actually managed it. Having them all in the "peanut gallery" watching and commenting on the challengers suggests to me that they have something more in store for them at some point than a plane ticket home as soon as the ultimate winner of LCK is re-inserted into the competition. Might be a fun "side bet" as to when that will be: I'm guessing it will be at the final four, but I have a feeling they have something more devious planned.

[Skillet Doux]

I'm not sure I understand the impression that this is difficult logistically. There's always (well, almost always) been a sequester house for eliminated contestants. And as the show has gotten more and more high profile, they've kept the eliminated contestants more cooped up, so there's no issue there. That's S.O.P.

As for the location, it's clear that they're all shot in the Top Chef Kitchen in San Antonio. So if the road show is in Austin, whoever's eliminated is headed back to San Antonio to the sequester house anyway. They're not moving the sequester house from city to city, just the active chefs. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me to send one person back to San Antonio every few days.

[doktarr]

The only person who LCK seems like it would be hard on, logistically, is Tom, because he (presumably) had to go from Dallas to San Antonio and back to Dallas to shoot the LCK segment, twice.

[Skillet Doux]

Doktarr... Ahhh, that's true, and a good point. Though there haven't been more than two consecutive episodes in another city yet, so just a few day trips over the course of the shoot doesn't seem too onerous. Or perhaps they do a couple back-to-back when everybody gets back to San Antonio. Though it still doesn't seem like it'd be a big deal, to me.

[gilmore]

I figure Tom does LCK on the days they are filming the quickfires as he is usually not part of them.

[rab01]

Dom - why wouldn't they move the sequester house from city to city? That way if they need a full complement of chefs for a public event (or to make off-camera chaos at Whole foods), the extra chefs are there. The Magic Elves use eliminated contestants as decoys in their other programs so why not this one too?

The simplest thing logistically would be real time letters in their suitcases, then sequester house, then LCKs run back-to-back, then re-entry of the last chef standing.

On the math question, these cook-offs are also not independent in that Tom is judging all of them. He may try to judge each one separately but it's human to be affected by one's memories of prior performances.

[Lon]

Austin & San Antonio are only about 1.5 hours apart. Dallas is another 3-plus hours north of Austin. Not that difficult for someone like Tom to be driven, especially if, as gilmore suggests, the LCK's are shot on Quickfire days.

[Kathy from Austin]

Actually, San Antonio is about an hour or less. 65 miles from my home. Easily a commute by many standards.

[doktarr]

@rab01 - all the "opening the letter" shots have been from the San Antonio house, and all the LCKs have been shot in the San Antonio kitchen. It seems clear that eliminated chefs are shipped back to San Antonio.

@Dom - yeah, you're right, Tom only needed to do one extra run from Dallas to San Antonio and back.

[Duffy]

Do the chefs get paid anything other than the prize money and their expenses? Is there some sort of stipend the eliminated chefs get to hang around to the end?