Someone on reddit thinks the Telegraph comps are rigged.

jeddentad

gallygirl wrote: »

In "the olden day"(80's to 90's) I know some competitions weren't rigged initially but potential winners were vetted to ensure they were 'suitable'. E.g. double glazing comps where the address would be checked out to make sure it would look good in a pic, not a 'scummy council estate' which wouldn't make the sponsors product look good.

I've also heard (and seen the evidence) that the bigger the prize the fewer the entrants. Presumably people feel they can push their luck to win a DVD but would never be lucky enough to win a car.

That part about diminishing entrants for the higher the prize might be an interesting psychological study.

Do people not enter because they think they can't win, or because they're scared about actually winning, or because they don't think they 'deserve' to win. Like when you sabatoge yourself when there's something big deal coming up in your life.

Glamourpuss23

jeddentad wrote: »

That part about diminishing entrants for the higher the prize might be an interesting psychological study.

Do people not enter because they think they can't win, or because they're scared about actually winning, or because they don't think they 'deserve' to win. Like when you sabatoge yourself when there's something big deal coming up in your life.

For me personally, I think "oh its going to have a lot of entries and I'm so unlucky that I'll never have a chance of winning that" so I think I won't bother entering as the odds aren't in my favour. However I do often tell myself to enter anyway because of the cliche that "you've got to be in it to win it".