Conditions 3 and 4 make it clear it is a competition based on maths skills. A low percentage of winners are expected to remaining the game after the first couple of rounds (each of which cost you). The claim is that th questions get progressively more difficult - quite quickly.
Soooooo the implication is that if you are d**n good at maths (especially things like multidimensional modeling, game theory and all that stuff), you could win. You would need to be a graduate student probably with a strong theoretical leaning towards maths.
That makes it a whole lot more plausible, and someone that good (don't look at me), could walk away with the prize. It isn't random but skill-based - as made very clear. A small group could handle this perhaps?
Has anyone read Diamond Dogs by Alistair Reynolds? Do so, and if you think you can handle the stuff in that story, go for it.
How many of you guys read the Official Rules I wonder?
Post by Kevin Harrington on Aug 20, 2010 10:16:49 GMT
Does the prize actually exist, or is it merely a scheme to extract entry fees from hopeful and/or desperate people.
If it is a genuine competition run by a reputable organisation, why do they use a PO box to collect the entries.
If, as you say, only a maths graduate would be able to complete the series of questions, why is the mailshot addressed to people on a mailing list, not of maths experts, but of people who merely need money.
I'm not sure; I suspect that it is actually gambling where the chance of you winning is zero (if that can be called gambling).
My mum got dragged into one of these scams - the first round was a fairly easy competition with a £10 entrance fee. The people who got this correct went forward to round 2 which was another fairly easy(ish) competition with a £10 entrance processing fee. The people who got this correct then went forward to round three...and so on.
IIRC, it was a "get the highest score possible" game whereby you couldn't know if you were one of the highest or not; but it also meant that the "operator" could keep everyone in regardless of their scores for any number of rounds before randomly picking a winner (or just creating a fictitious winner) at the end and giving them the prize (and "sorry you weren't lucky this time, here's the next competition" to the non winners).
As the rounds went on, you began to suspect, but after pumping £10 per round entrance fees into it, you felt you had to continue to get some return on the investment (especially if you felt you were getting the "highest scores"). There may have been a prize worth more than the entrance fees you put in available to one lucky winner but she never got that far - I can't remember if my mum stopped entering or lost a round (but I suspect the former).
I suspect that the conditions are only there to give the whole thing (a) some credence, or (b) an escape mechanism if their bluff is called.
(a) credence - by saying it is a test of maths skills, it makes everyone who get through feel good about themselves (even if they are bad at maths and actually didn't make the grade - who knows what the grade really is?) and as such more likely to enter the next round; (b) bluff calling - upon investigation you may find that they haven't kept any of the round replies, just that each person who has replied (had a winning entry for that round and so) is on the list of those to receive the next round.
A proper perspective would be to see the "competition" as a rather expensive £10 for a (single) puzzle which has no way to know if you were right or not with the answer you get (after an initial "loss-leader" puzzle for free).
The question to really ask is;
Why the entry processing fee is £10?
ie what do they do that is going to cost £10 to process the entry? I would suspect that the actual processing cost per entry is much lower than this.