Your argument is imcompatible with "The Mole" because each game is self contained. It cannot be compared to poker or football because those games are based on clearly identifiable rules and strategys. In other words, the players participating in those games are proving themselves to be "good" at it. To be "good" at the Mole in my eyes means that you simply survive every quiz and win the final one. That is it. It would be nice if the person who first discovered The Mole should be rewarded, but that clearly isn't the case. If 10 games were played, and we had 10 different winners with the same cast, than yes, you might have a point about averages. However, credit should be given to Mark and every winner because in my opinion, "good play" is determined byt your proximity to the win.