Lee,

I will post a response from our Controller regarding your comment about
 
Outwit:


What incentive would we have to rig the contestants in Outwit? If we
 had 
any incentive, it would be to allow for more people to win. No matter 
who plays and how they do, each round costs us $10. Many of the people 
that have played more than once are people with weak Vitals. If we were
 
going to rig it, we would want to reward people who have made many JF 
purchases. Anyone who has had even an entry level stats class should 
know that the odds of having a repeat winner are actually very high.
 One 
of the oldest examples of probability is described in this link - 
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/coincidence.shtml

Essentially what this is saying is that, there is a better than 50% 
chance that in a group of 23 people at least two people will share the 
same birthday. At first glance, the odds of this happening seem much 
lower than 50%. The article does a great job of explaining how it
 works. 
Our Outwit game works much the same way. Let’s compare this to the 
birthday example. Assume we have 365 contestants (to match 365 days in
 a 
year) playing outwit. If the same people played 23 times (which we play
 
about 35 in a day), there would be a more than 50% chance that at least
 
one person would be picked twice. Obviously we do not have the same 
people playing every time but we do have a large group that play at 
least 15 times per day. I would be more surprised if we went a couple 
days without having a repeat winner. There are many other examples I 
could provide that show in many cases the odds of something occurring 
are much greater than one would think. However, I believe the birthday 
example is the easiest to understand.

One answer to this “problem” is to prevent people from winning
 twice in 
a day or week or month. This is commonly done in radio station contests
 
(“only one winner per household per 30 day period”). I do not like
 this 
option at all. It takes away from the integrity of the game. It 
basically is taking a truly random game and forcing it to not be
 random. 
Also, why should someone get punished, by not being able to
 participate, 
just because they won?

In summary, the game is not rigged and is working properly. We would 
have no incentive to do this. It is actually causing us more work by 
explaining to people that the random generator is working properly. We 
could save time and some negative comments in the chat by forcing
 people 
not to win twice in a given period. However, I am not willing to 
sacrifice the integrity of the game to achieve this.


I hope that information helps. If you have further questions or 
concerns, please let us know.

Kindest Regards,
Jake Dressler
Customer Service Manager
Jellyfish.com