The weakness of this study is that the only way to get the data was to logging online to Wordament and play a round. The player who wins a round must be logged on and currently playing the English boards of Wordament. Anyone in the world who as internet-access can play Wordament. Unfortunally, people who do not have internet-access or have Wordament downloaded are not part of the data. To eliminate most variables is that I chose to do the word count. The only way to win is have the most points of the round. Only way to get those points is finding words. Each word has its own value that is worth, depending on the round that word can be worth 5 % more points. There are 10 different types of rounds that changes the point value of the word, but not the word count. So, I included all types of rounds to avoid bias associated with word count. Also, it seems that there is no associaton between the total players and the time of day since the time series plot is fairly uniform with some outliers. I would be confortable to present this study to Microsoft since it is about one of their games. This would allow new comers to gage how many words they need to find to win a round. Besides this study, the only way to find the average words to win is to play Wordament. This study can also help player compare their vocabulay and spelling skills against other players around the world. Also, if other studies that includes the word count to win a round in Wordament. The results for other simailar studies should be about the same result as this study. The average mean of the winning word count is 108 for this study, which makes sense since Wordament is a competive, online word finding, game.