Amusement devices: games – Chance devices
Reexamination Certificate
1999-07-15
2001-02-13
Graham, Mark S. (Department: 3711)
Amusement devices: games
Chance devices
C273S139000, C273S138200, C463S016000, C463S030000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06186502
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of wagering systems in general and in particular to a multi-tiered system for sports wagering to both increase individual payoffs and to discourage illegal activity.
2. Description of Related Art
As can be seen by reference to the following U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,374,060; 4,775,937; 5,743,525; 5,687,968; and 5,791,990, the prior art is replete with myriad and diverse wagering systems.
While all of the aforementioned prior art constructions are more than adequate for the basic purpose and function for which they have been specifically designed, they are uniformly deficient with respect to their failure to provide a simple, efficient, and relatively foolproof method of insuring that the incentive to either “fix” sporting events or “shave points” to alter the outcome of a sporting event for illicit purposes will be virtually eliminated.
As most casual and professional gamblers are all too well aware, sports wagering is a multi-billion dollar a year industry which unfortunately under current wagering systems makes it attractive to organized crime and others to slant the odds of winning a wager in their favor by taking steps to alter or otherwise influence the outcome of sporting events.
As a consequence of the foregoing situation, there has existed a longstanding need for a new and improved method of wagering on competitive events such as sports or athletic contests that adds an independent and random variable to identify the winning wagerer; and, the provision of such a method is a stated objective of the present invention.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Briefly stated, in most jurisdictions in the United States, wagering on events such as athletic contests is illegal. This is in part due to a concern that allowing betting on such contests would lead to attempts to “fix” outcomes to win wagers. Another detriment is that individual betters would need to wager comparatively large amounts of money on a typical “single result” event to approach the payoff of games like the “numbers games” or “lotteries” performed in many states or they would need to bet numerous events with a smaller sum of money risked repeatedly. In both cases, the total amount of money that would have to be risked to even approach the high payoff totals of state lotteries would be enormous. Pursuing the jackpots with illegal vendors has led many individuals to financial ruin, or worse.
By adding another step, in the form of an independent, random number lottery or similar game, both of the detriments to betting on sports can be reduced or eliminated.
First, this “Multi-tier” system reduces the temptation to fix outcomes by adding a step in the form of a random lottery. If a football team is playing, for example, the system would not allow large bets a great likelihood of success since even after “fixing” the outcomes or points of the game, a party would then have to participate in a random number game to hit the “jackpot”. Without a dependable payout on large bets, “fixing” an athletic contest makes no sense as an investment.
In addition, the random second step would allow an individual to earn a chance at a larger payout on a smaller bet. This is similar to the large proportional winnings now available in many of the random number lotteries. Finally, the addition of a second tier would more likely force bettors to recognize that their activities faced a “chance” or “random” possibility of success instead of suggesting that sports betting was prone to handicapping systems or other methods of analysis for outcome prediction. The publication of point spreads, odds and other betting information in the popular media demonstrates the scale of illegal betting and it is a testament to the integrity of owners and sports personnel that the games are not corrupted in the present environment.
This invention is a method of wagering on sports events or other contests and reduces or eliminates the attractiveness of “rigging” or “fixing” the contest. The method is to require the wagerer to select an outcome or outcomes in the event and also to take part in a random contest or contests that are independent of the athletic event to win the wager.
There are numerous sports and competitive events this system may apply to. There are also numerous gaming and lottery systems available to implement this method. The most simple random game would be a “drawing type” contest where those who picked a particular outcome of a competitive event are represented by tickets in a common pile. If the group correctly picked the competition event's outcome, winners would be drawn at random. Another method is to sell tickets identifying an event's outcome and include a chance in a random number drawing like the present state lotteries to determine winners. The actual score totals, performance against “spreads” (which are point numbers added to a weaker team's score or subtracted from a stronger team's score to arrive at a level to determine a win in a bet), order of finish in an event, performance statistics, wins against handicaps or betting spreads can be used to determine the qualifiers from the sports event.
This next component would enable the processor of the bets to keep the economic rewards of betting from becoming a temptation to control game results.
The key to the efficacy of the second tier of the wagering method is to control the investment returns or expected monetary value of the wager so that it does not become economically feasible to attempt to fix the outcome or outcomes of the events. Alternatively, it may be made logistically difficult to buy the number of tickets required to assure a win even if the result or results of the contest are assumed to be a given.
The definition of expected monetary value is the probability of winning applied to the value of the win. For example, if a drawing had a prize of $1,000 and sold 100 tickets, each ticket would have an expected monetary value of $10. ({fraction (1/100)}×1000). If the tickets cost only $1.00 each, this wager would be very attractive. If a payout on a sports event was millions, it might be worth a wagerer's efforts or money to “fix” a sports event and then buy all possible winning tickets. With enough expected monetary value, even the probability of duplicate winners, taxes and other expenses could make it an attractive proposition.
There are specific measures that enable a random game to protect the integrity of the sporting or competitive event. To minimize the risk of corruption, the second game must be designed to reduce the attractiveness of buying every possible combination. Present state lotteries have confronted this issue and have apparently avoided most attempts to win random game jackpots by the sheer number of tickets needed to approach the coverage of 30-100+million possible combinations.
Another way to avoid possible profits in “fixing” the competitive event, the operation of the random game could work with a defined payout like the 500-1 payout on the usual 1,000-1 odds of daily numbers. With a constant comparatively small payout per dollar risked on the random game, “fixing” is not sensible.
To achieve large jackpots and their attractiveness to the wagerer, the number universe in the random game could be increased as the jackpot grew, to make covering every outcome less attainable as discussed above. In addition, sections of the random game could include other elements of the athletic contest or event such as points, stroke totals, hits, official time, uniform number of a player who accomplished a feat identified before the game or any other salient statistic from the contest that would be hard to arrange.
There are numerous items from sports contests that could be included. In baseball, for example, the numerous games played in a season could accommodate a simple, repetitive system. This could consist of the selection of the winner of a game or series and a simple lottery like the three or four digit random number lotteries now present
Collins Dolores R.
Graham Mark S.
Henderson & Sturm LLP
LandOfFree
Multi-tiered system for sports wagering does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Multi-tiered system for sports wagering, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Multi-tiered system for sports wagering will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2607550