Don't let my tone fool you. What Ed is alluding to in the study of games of this nature is a very complicated type of game theory. I just want to see it put into practice. If he can win all the games, perhaps the game will stop being played. Or, maybe we don't want fencer posting all the bets or what order they were placed in and just leave how it is now. After Ed has played a few games, we'll see the results of his spreadsheet system. Though I'm willing to bet that Ed won't even enter three pond games, let alone enough of them to prove that his system works. Wining every game seems preposterous on the face of it. Winning just a little more than your share of the amount of people entered would make you a pretty good player in my eyes. Say you enter 16 different games and each of those games has 16 people in it. If you're able to win more than four of them consistantly, you must be on to something and know how to play good. That's better then luck alone would explain after enough games have been played.