Amusement devices: games – Including means for processing electronic data – Credit/debit monitoring or manipulation
Reexamination Certificate
2000-10-27
2002-08-20
Cheng, Joe H. (Department: 3713)
Amusement devices: games
Including means for processing electronic data
Credit/debit monitoring or manipulation
C463S025000, C463S026000, C463S029000, C463S040000, C463S041000, C463S042000, C273S453000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06435968
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to a computerized control processes executed on one or more central computers and one or more remote computers. The control processes manage progressive gaming in which a plurality of progressive prizes may be linked to a plurality of gaming device's progressive game pay lines. This invention may include Free Play apparatus to allow linkage between the plurality of progressive prizes with gaming devices devoid of progressive game play line logic. The gaming devices may accept wagers using different currencies and different denominations within a particular currency while participating in common prizes.
2. Description of Related Art
Each of the prior art progressive gaming systems and methods have common properties due to the regulatory environment, characteristics of the gaming industry and the events related to progressive processes.
Regulatory agencies have at least four primary concerns related to progressive control systems, in addition to the common and normal regulations concerning gaming activities.
1. The control system must ensure that every game linked to a progressive prize requires the same total wager amount to be made by players over the theoretical life cycle of one prize award. This requirement ensures each player theoretically makes the same monetary investment to win the progressive prize.
2. The portion of wagers contributed to increment the prize value, fund starting prize values, etc. must be the same for each wager made.
3. The controlling system must provide a reasonable degree of protection against system error or tampering resulting in prize awards.
4. Business functionality must be capable of producing reports that provide an audit of the control system processes and ensure wagers made by players have been accounted for correctly.
Prior art gaming devices typically contain one or more games that can be played for various prizes. Each game has a pay table that defines all possible outcomes of one play of the game that can result in awarding a prize to a player. Gaming devices used for wagering are usually approved for play based on theoretical pay out. For example, the REGULATIONS OF THE NEVADA GAMING COMMISION AND STATE GAMING CONTROL BOARD current as of March, 1997, section 14.040 states that “All gaming devices submitted for approval: 1. Must theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device.”.
Theoretical pay out is mathematically demonstrated using the game's pay table to compute the difference between the total monetary amount of wagers made over a theoretically time period and the prizes awarded. In prior art games, each line of the pay table defines the number of coins required to be played, the criteria that defines a win, the odds of the win criteria resulting from one play of the game and the number of coins returned by the gaming device to the player when a win is registered. In addition, a pay line may include the ability to accept a progressive prize value from the system. In prior art progressive gaming systems and methods this is required to allow the game's pay line to be linked to a system controlled progressive prize.
One representation of a prior art game's pay table is illustrated in FIG.
15
. In this representation there are 10 possible combinations of symbols, represented as AAA through JJJ, that will result in awarding a prize to the player. For simplicity pay lines 5 through 9 are not shown. Each pay line will return a number of coins determined by the coins bet, as indicated in
FIG. 15
as win amount for coin required, in which case the coins required are 1, 2 or 3. In the event 3 coins are required, then the pay line may also be linked to a system progressive prize, indicated by SP. In
FIG. 15
pay lines
1
and
2
must be linked to a system progressive prize before the game may be played.
The pay table for one embodiment of a gaming machine with a dynamic pay schedule is illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 5,123,649.
The control processes of most of the prior art progressive gaming systems and methods include games with a single progressive pay line. Each participating game accepts wagers only with coins of the same denomination and of the same currency. For example, if the progressive prize is based on a $1.00 US denomination, all games participating in the opportunity to win the progressive prize can only accept wagers of a specific number of $1.00 US coins. In this instance the odds associated with winning the progressive prize are exactly the same on every participating game's progressive pay line.
The control processes of a system illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 5,116,055 allow gaming devices accepting different coin denominations of the same currency to be played for a common progressive prize. This process is based on a method of translating the coin/pulse information normally generated by each game, into a set of information which results in each game making an approximately equal value of dollars to jackpot amounts that increment the prize value over As the theoretical life cycle of one prize award.
The method of translation is characterized by calculations using a constant value for unit of increment per pulse (a coin of a specific denomination and currency) to apply against the actual denomination of the coins used to play the game, the standard game pay table data of hit frequencies (odds) and coins bet. The calculations result in a computed coins per pulse value and a computed percentage to jackpot factor.
The practical application of this process may be hindered by the fact that all results produced during the process are approximations, not the usually expected exactitudes. A further hindrance is in the complexity of the translation process. This may impact the ability of standard business functionality to verify correctness.
In prior art progressive gaming systems and methods a portion of each wager is used to fund an increment to the current prize value, fund the starting value of the next prize after a win occurs, and other uses. Commonly the portion used, usually known as contributions, is determined by control data related to percentages and the coin denomination.
For example, assume a prize starts at $1,000,000 with a contribution rate of 3.5% to fund the next prize's starting value of $1,000,000 and a 2.5% contribution rate to the growth of the current prize's value. Also assume it is linked to gaming devices requiring a $2.00 wager. This means each wager contributes $0.07 (2.00*0.035=0.07) to the next prize's starting value and $0.05 (2.00*0.025=0.05) to the increment of the current prize value. With these contribution percentages there must be about 14,285,715 handle pulls, or games played, between wins for the prize's $1,000,000 starting amount to be funded. (1,000,000/0.07=14,285,714.29). In essence the total wager amount made over the theoretical life cycle of one prize award would be $28,571,430.00 (14,285,715*2.00=28,571,430.00).
During this theoretical time period the prize value would increase by $714,285 (0.05*14,285,714.29=714,285.7145) to make the average prize value worth $1,714,285 for each theoretical win. Also assume that a marketing study has determined that to sustain player interest the prize should be won on average about once every month. This means there should be about 14,285,715 handle pulls, or games played, over a thirty day time span. If each gaming device were able to average about 5 games played each minute for 10 hours a day it would produce 3000 games played per day. If the prize were to be won every thirty days and each gaming device generates 90,000 handle pulls a month (5 games*60 minute/hour*10 hours*30 days=90,000), there would have to be at least 159 gaming devices attached to the prize (14,285,715/90,000=158.73 . . . ).
In prior art progressive gaming systems and methods the linkage of
Burns Ian F.
Cheng Joe H.
Nguyen Binh-An D.
LandOfFree
Progressive wagering system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Progressive wagering system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Progressive wagering system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2919470