So 10 different players win, we should give credit to all 10's "good play", yes? If you're conceding that point, you then see why only giving just 1 player credit for having something all 10 have makes no sense.

And I'm stunned to hear you say the Mole doesn't have rules. Of course it does. As for strategies, the number of strategies in the Mole are as varied as there are in poker and football, it's no different. Only players/teams with repeatable success should warrant the label "good". Certainly, just play one hand of poker or one football game, and you're in the same boat as playing one session of the Mole: you have a winner, but not enough data to determine who's the "best".

And don't get hung up on having to have the same players... the best poker players/football teams would still be "good" against any group of opponents. They're playing the game the best they know how. They adapt their play, as they learn more about their opponents. A "good" Mole player should be able to do this as well. Really, if they can't, it's just more evidence pointing to how lucky they were they got stuck playing against that particular group.

Paul was rewarded... with a 3rd place finish. Having a good nose for the Mole should (repeatably!) get you to the final 4 or 5. Unfortunately, that's about when everyone else knows who the Mole is, so it comes down to the Quiz. If you make it to that point not knowing who the Mole is, you've probably survived by the skin of your teeth and on the incompetence of others. Something not likely to happen consistently in repeated trials.