Win More Giveaways!

So I was thinking a moment ago how to make the giveaways more fair so that those who've never won anything have a better chance to win. "More fair?" you ask. "How can anything be more fair than random chance?"

The problem with chance is that it's not perfect. Here on SteamGifts, there are those who've won 2 or 3 giveaways and those who've entered 500+ without winning anything. (I thought I would be one of those people, but I entered the drawing for 99 copies of Awesomenauts and came out of nearly 12,000 people with a copy. Hurray.)

The solution is one Jagex (creator of Ace of Spades) implemented in Runescape a while ago to spread boss drops equally. Previously, it was based on whoever did the most damage. But that led to problems with one maxed player taking all the loot. So...

...they added LootShare. I was thinking we should do something similar here.

HOW IT WORKS:

It's based around the concept that the more kills you get without receiving a rare drop, the higher your chances next time become. (Kind of opposite of how TF2 works). Likewise, once you do receive a drop, it's time to let someone else have a turn for a while.

Here's how I propose it would work on SteamGifts:

• There is to be a separate pointage known as your GiftPoints or whatever you want to call them. That's how I'll refer to them.
• Each time you enter a giveaway, you add to that total the amount deducted from your Entry Point total. So if I entered 20 5-point giveaways, I'd lose the regular 100 Entry Points, but I'd gain 100 GiftPoints.
• The system weights your chances based on how many points you have. For example, suppose there is a giveaway with only three people (I wish!). We'll say it's Dishonored. PersonA has just joined the site and this giveaway instantly catches their eye. They enter with a total of 100 GiftPoints. PersonB has been on the site a few times and casually enters giveaways when they get the chance, but they've never won. They enter with a total of 7,500 GiftPoints. PersonC has been using SteamGifts for a while but has never won anything either. Nevertheless, they dutifully enter every giveaway the odds are favourable in. They enter with 20,000 GiftPoints.
• The way the above example would work is that PersonA would have a very low chance to win, and that's the point--they've only just joined, should they really take away a game nearly everyone wants? PersonB would have a much better chance than PersonA, but PersonC is almost 3 times as likely to win as PersonB--and that's what I'm hoping to accomplish here. Rewards for those who have invested the most time in this site and may just be unlucky.
• However--in order to prevent people from just spamming every giveaway without truly being interested in the game, there comes the part where you lose points:
• Whenever you do end up winning, your GiftPoints are divided by the number of points the giveaway was worth. Dishonored, being worth 60, would cause the probably winner PersonC to fall to 333 points, and rightly so, because they've just come away with a real prize. I was considering having your points drop to zero, but scratched that idea because winning a simple indie game with thousands of points would make you reconsider entering anything but the big giveaways.
• Keep in mind that there are never going to be 3 people in a giveaway. There are normally 500-2,000 people, so there's sure to be a wide range of points in a giveaway, meaning nobody is "guaranteed" to win like PersonC was in the example. It's just a general balancing tool to weight winning in favour of those who've entered the most and won the least.

I've considered the technical aspect of implementing this idea, and it doesn't seem like too much work for any half decent programmer. They already have a point system in place; they just need to add another one, reverse it, and add a little probability engine that can weight contestants based on big numbers.

I'd really like your opinions on this--please comment! Would you like to see something like this? Let me know if I missed something or if a section is unclear.

Thanks!