Abstract:
The present invention is directed to a pari-mutuel contest in general and a pari-mutuel contest which requires participants to place wagers on a grouping of contestants which have been segregated into subsets from a field of contestants. The segregation is based on a predetermined criteria. The participants are required to select a predetermined quantity of contestants from each respective grouping with the totality of the contestants performance aggregated to determine a participants score. Winnings are calculated on a pari-mutual bases based on the respective scores.

Description:
FIELD OF INVENTION 
       [0001]    The present invention is directed to a pari-mutuel game in general and more particularly to a pari-mutuel game wherein participants make wagers based on the performance of selected individual contestants engaged in a contest who have been grouped into subsets from a field of contestants and pre-ranked according to a predetermined criteria. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    A variety of games are available for individuals to place wagers and compete against others. One format of games include casino type games wherein an individual places a particular wager hoping to beat other contestants or the house with a winner take all format. Other games include the placement of wagers on events involving sporting contests. For such wagers involving sporting contests, calculated fixed odds are commonly used. The fixed odds may be established by the “house” as an indication of the popularity of a given contestant in comparison with others in the contest or by dividing the amount wagered on a given participant into the total amount wagered. Such a format is represented by the wagering conducted for horse racing or on various sporting events such as football. While fixed odds serve their purpose in enticing participants to wager across an entire field of contestants, typically favorites receive the majority of the wagers. Alternative wagering games include pari-mutual contests wherein the amount of wagers are pooled and the winning wagers are paid out from the pool less the amount deducted by the organizing institution and state law. Pari-mutuel betting differs from fixed odds betting in that the final payout is not determined until the pool is closed—in fixed odds betting, the payout is agreed at the time the bet is sold. A drawback with odds based games is that typically a contestant exists who is the predominate favorite and it&#39;s the odds itself which intrigues a person to wager on a contestant other than the favorite. 
         [0003]    Another attempt to facilitate wagering in a contest when one contestant is clearly a stronger competitor involves the inclusion of a handicap on the favorite such as a point spread. A point spread attempts to make the two teams appear even so that wagers will be evenly dispersed between them. The point spread doesn&#39;t effect the perception that a particular team won&#39;t win the event, just that the victory of margin will be less than a perceived range. Both point spreads and odds attempt to make an underdog intriguing enough to place a wager on. 
         [0004]    While the prior games are conducted to place interest in all participants, nonetheless, it is customarily the case wherein only a select few of the contestants realistically have a chance of winning the contest. Hence the drama in the event is limited to the hopes that an underdog may prevail. 
         [0005]    Other wagering formats have been established to include the aggregation of multiple contestants to form a wager. For instance, a common wagering scheme in horse racing includes exactas and trifectas. Exactas require that the first and second place finishers be correctly determined and a trifecta wager requires that the first, second and third place finishers be correctly determined. This creates a wider range of intrigue as the success of more contestants is required to ultimately win the wager. 
         [0006]    Accordingly, to inspire excitement for the performance of all participants, the results of more than a few participants should be considered in a wagering game. 
         [0007]    Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a wagering game which incorporates the performance of various contestants thereby facilitating interest in the totality of participants and their respective performance. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0008]    The present invention contemplates a novel and improved method of conducting a game utilizing a pari-mutuel wagering format. The game incorporate a computer having a database which includes a roster of contestants. From this roster the contestants are grouped into at least two groups based upon a predetermined criteria. Once the contestants are grouped, selections from a plurality of gaming participants of at least one contestant from each group are received. These selections form an entry of the game. Once an entry is created, a wager associated with the entry is received. Upon completion of the contest, a received wager is evaluated based upon a predetermined criteria to determine if it is a winning wager. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0009]      FIG. 1  exhibits a flow chart illustrating an example method of the present invention. 
           [0010]      FIG. 2  illustrates a schematic of a wagering game according to the present invention. 
           [0011]      FIG. 3  illustrates an example of a wagering ticket according to the present invention. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0012]    Referring now in more detail to the drawings, as shown in  FIGS. 1-2 , a method and system for a pari-mutuel game A is disclosed. This system includes a database  10  containing a plurality of contestant records  12  identifying contestants competing in a contest. The contestants are ranked prior to the contest based upon a predetermined criteria at step  14 . The method of ranking may be based on some criteria which identifies contestants as favorites in winning a particular contest. Once the contestants are ranked, the contestants are subsequently grouped into different tiers based on their rankings. Preferably the number of contestants is sufficient for at least two distinct groups. As shown in step  16  the contestants have been ranked and placed into multiple groups “A”, “B”, and “C”. From these groupings participants make selections of at least one contestant from each group forming a team entry for the pari-mutuel game. As shown in steps  20 ,  22  and  24 , multiple contestants have been ranked and designated as Group “A”, Group “B”, and Group “C”. As shown in Step  26 , a team is created by a participant wherein individual contestants from the respective Groups are selected. In this particular arrangement, the game requires that multiple contestants from Group “C” be selected. Once a team is selected the participant enters a wager at Step  28 . The wager will be included in the pari-mutuel pool designating what percentage of the pool the participant&#39;s entry comprises. As shown in Step  30  the completed team and wager is submitted as the participant&#39;s entry into the wagering game. At Step  32  the submitted entry is received at the central processing facility and evaluated for validity. If the entry is deemed valid then the entry and wager is accepted. 
         [0013]    At a predetermined time prior to the initiation of the contest the entry of wagers are terminated. Once the wagers have been entered and the contest has been completed the entries are evaluated according to a predetermined criteria. In one embodiment as shown at Step  34  the evaluation criteria is based on the final ranking of the contestants as they finished in the particular contest. The entries are tabulated based on the evaluation criteria at Step  36  to determine winning entries. At Step  38  the winning entries and their associated wagers are utilized for determining the respective payouts for the winning entries. As a pari-mutuel contest the payout is based on the totality of the wager entries less a commission to the house. 
         [0014]      FIG. 2  illustrates an embodiment of a system incorporating the invention. One embodiment includes the provision of a lottery type game utilizing the invention. This system utilizes self-service kiosk  50  and assisted terminal  52 . In this system both kiosk  50  and assisted terminal  52  may utilize an interactive video display  54  for receiving entries and wagers or they may utilize manual systems  56  utilizing cards which are filled out to identify the participant&#39;s respective selections and which are positioned through a card reader for deciphering the selection. Other variations of entry input systems known in the art may also be utilized. 
         [0015]    Both kiosk  50  and assisted terminal  52  include associated administrative programs  58  for administrating the wagering game. Both kiosk  50  and assisted terminal  52  are connected via a network interface  59  to a network and ultimately to a central host B. In some embodiments, remote computers may access central host B via the interne. 
         [0016]    Central host B includes associated administrative programs  60  for administering the wagering game with the affiliated remote entry input devices. Central host B preferably interfaces with a plurality of databases utilized in the wagering game. One such database includes the database of initial contestants  10  containing contestants initially scheduled for involvement in the respective contest. Initial contestants database  10  may be modified to create a second database  62  identifying contestants who are eligible for being utilized in creating a team entry. For example, if the contest being considered consists of a horse racing event certain horses may initially be designated for participation in the event and consequently available for inclusion into a team entry. However, as the race draws closer, a particular horse may be scratched and consequently become ineligible for being included as a contestant in a team entry. An additional scenario arises when the contest may include athletes playing in a professional sport. For instance, should the contest include athletes performing in professional football games, it is common throughout the season to have games played at various days during the week. Accordingly, if a team entry was created utilizing players who were participating in a Thursday game prior to the Thursday game, then those players would be eligible for inclusion in a team entry. However, if a team entry was created on a Saturday, prior to the respective Saturday and Sunday professional football games being played, then those professional football players who had participated in a game prior to the Saturday would not be eligible for inclusion in a team entry. Accordingly, there are times when the contestants contained in the eligible contestants database is different than those originally identified in the database of contestants. 
         [0017]    Once the contestants have been identified they are ranked and grouped based on these rankings. The ranking of the contestants may be done under several different schemes. For instance, the contestants may be ranked based upon their respective odds of winning the event prior to the initiation of the event and groupings of contestants are based on these odds. Alternatively, the contestants may be ranked based on a seeding, and the contestants are grouped into at least two groups depending on their respective seeding. Furthermore, the contestants may be ranked based on a pre-contest qualification event such as a pre-qualifying race if the contest involves a racing event. 
         [0018]    The grouping of contestants is achieved via affiliated programming. The grouping may be done based on various formats. In one embodiment, the contestants are grouped in different tiers wherein a select number of participants form the respective groups such as a Group “A” which includes a certain number of favorites. Additional groups are formed depending on the size of the team to be completed. In an embodiment which utilizes contestants not competing head to head, for instance in a fantasy sports arrangement, certain premier players in different positions may be grouped into different groups. For instance, the top rated quarterback and top rated running back may both be grouped together in a Group “A” and other contestants likewise grouped in Groups “B”, “C”, etc. In such an arrangement, a team entry would consist of a team comprising a quarterback, running back, wide receiver, and the like, however the contestants would be grouped in various groupings such that a contest allowing only one Group “A” contestant and one Group “B” contestant might require a participant to decide if a Group “A” quarterback and a Group “B” running back were more desirable than a Group “A” running back and Group “B” quarterback. Multiple variations of this theme would be available via the various grouping techniques. 
         [0019]    The various Groupings of contestants are provided to the remote terminals via the administrative programs and network. The participant makes a selection of a particular contestant located in a particular grouping. The rationale for the grouping is to require selection of contestants from multiple groups. This method utilizes the performance of multiple contestants including those who, while participating in the contest, aren&#39;t perceived as being likely to win the event. However, by requiring a wager to consist of a team which includes contestants not considered favorites, interest in the performance of the entire field of contestants is created. Thus, while multiple participants may select the perceived “favorite” as a member of their team, the participants are also required to wager on the performance of contestants who are perceived as less likely to be successful in the contest and must evaluate a grouping of such contestants wherein the relative performance of these contestants are also applicable to determining a winning entry. This expansion of applicable performances renders a participant to be as knowledgeable about the idiosyncrasies of the lesser perceived contestants as much as the favorites. 
         [0020]    For instance, to increase the variability of winning wagers, the grouping of contestants may be done such that various groupings include more contestants than other groups. It is perceived that many participants will select a favorite contestant, consequently the favorites may consist of a first grouping which has a limited number of contestants. The remainder of the field may be further divided into multiple groupings having an irregular number of contestants. A team entry may require that the team consists of a majority of contestants selected from one of the groupings of lower ranked contestants and only allow a single entry from the favorites. Further expansion of the selection of contestants may require that the selection of contestants include a selection of multiple contestants from at least one of the categories. For instance, to increase the range of variability some groups may consist of more participants than other groups. 
         [0021]    In one example the contest includes a plurality of contestants who are competing head to head and wherein each contestant&#39;s performance, including those contestants who do not win the competition, are utilized for determining if a received wager is a winning wager. Prior to the contest the contestants are ranked utilizing a predetermined criteria and are grouped into at least two distinct groups based upon the rankings. Based on these groupings, participants select at least one contestant from a first group and a second contestant from a second group forming a team. The winning wager is determined based upon the performance of the team which is made up of the selected contestants which may or may not include the overall contest winner. 
         [0022]    Once a team entry is created and an appropriate wager made, the entry is inputted by the respective entry terminal and received at the Central Host B and stored in the received entries and wagers database  64 . 
         [0023]    Once the contest has been performed the results are stored in a contest results database  66 . The contestants may be afforded points based upon their final position in the contest. For instance, in a head to head competition the contestants may be afforded a point value based upon their final position in the head to head competition. As the contestants are awarded points, the respective team of contestants selected by the participant has their respective point totals aggregated to provide a total point value for the respective entry. Hence, each entry receives a point total based upon their selected contestants. The respective point totals of each received entry is evaluated for determining those entries with the point value which meet the winning criteria when compared to the other entries. The comparison of the entries and contest results are achieved via the programs affiliated with the determine winning entries and payouts area  70  of Central host B. 
         [0024]    One method of conducting a pari-mutual game of the invention involves head to head competition including those competitions involving individuals or teams. In this arrangement the final position of an individual or team may be utilized in determining points attributable to the respective contestant. This scenario would include a racing event involving motor sports or animal or other sport teams. Another game includes contestants participating in the same sport but in different events at different locations. Such a format includes a tournament format where the overall performance of a team at the end of the tournament is utilized for determining winning entries. An additional game includes evaluating contestants based on performance characteristics not related to the outcome of the contest. Such an arrangement includes fantasy sports type arrangements wherein athletes participating in team events acquire points based on their respective performances. 
         [0025]    In addition to obtaining points based on the final ranking of the contestants, additional bonus points may be awarded based on certain predetermined characteristics relating to the contest. For instance, in a racing event points may be added to a contestant for laps lead during the race. Such points are combined with the point value attributed to the contestant based upon their final position in the head to head contest for determining an overall point total for a respective contestant with respect to their performance in the contest and wherein the overall point total is combined for each selected contestant for determining a winning wager. 
         [0026]    Another embodiment includes a method of conducting a pari-mutuel game wherein the contestants are teams participating in a tournament and wherein the teams are seeded according to a predetermined criteria. The teams are grouped into at least two distinct groups based upon the seeding such that gaming participants select at least one team from a first group and a second contestant from a second group and wherein a winning wager is determined based upon the performance of the selected teams within said tournament. 
         [0027]    One particular wagering game involving contestants involved on different teams which play at different times is as follows: Initially a period of time is established wherein wagers may be placed exists. The period of time expiring for a particular contestant being prior to the start of their contest which they are participating. Accordingly if the contest includes players in multiple games, those players who have previously played will be unavailable for selection. A database having a roster of contestants is provided, the contestants being grouped according to a predetermined criteria. A selection mechanism is provided enabling participants to select contestants initially slated for competing in the contests. The selection of at least one contestant from at least two separate groups is required forming a selected team. The eligibility of the team selected by the participant is verified to determine if the selected contestants are participating in the contest by utilizing the database and checking the status of the selected contestants eligibility for participation in the contest. A participant is alerted if the team selected is an invalid selection if it is determined that a selected contestant is not eligible for participating in the contest. Alternatively, the participants are provided an opportunity to place a wager on the selected team if the selected team consists solely of eligible players. The wagers are received to form a pool of wagers. A portion of the wagers is allocating to an operator of the game and the remainder of the pool is allocated as a common pari-mutuel payout for payout of winning wagers. Once the contest has occurred the teams are ranked upon the performance of the selected contestants and winning wagers are determined based upon the rankings of the teams. A payout for each winning wager is determined based upon the rankings. 
         [0028]    The following is an example when the contestants are comprised of professional auto drivers, either NASCAR® or Formula 1. The participant will select 5 eligible contestants, drivers, from a predetermined list of contestants, drivers, to create a “team” of their choosing. The participant will select a wager amount of $5, $10, $20, $50, or $100 which will determine the shares they are eligible to win should they have a team with a top five (5) point total. The first driver (CONTESTANT A) the customer chooses will be from a list of the top 9 drivers in the respective auto racing standings as of that date, or the drivers may be grouped according to their respective pole position. This list will be referred to the ‘Group A.’ The second driver (CONTESTANT B 1 ), third driver (CONTESTANT B 2 ), and the fourth driver (CONTESTANT B 3 ) will be selected from a list of drivers who are ranked 10 th  through 34 th  (25 drivers) in the respective auto racing standings or according to their respective pole position. This list will be referred to as the ‘Group B.’ The fifth driver (CONTESTANT C) will be selected from a list of drivers who are ranked 35 th  and higher (10+ drivers) in the national professional auto racing standings. This list will be referred to as the ‘Group C.’ The driver rankings will be included in the Driver Roster provided after each week&#39;s race results are final. After the completion of each week&#39;s race, the customer&#39;s drivers will each be awarded points based on their results in the race, as well as bonus points awarded for their driver&#39;s laps lead and if one of their drivers lead the most laps. Each team member&#39;s points will be combined along with additional bonus points for guessing the correct number of cautions in the race to determine the total team points awarded to the customer&#39;s ticket. The three (3) tickets with the most points at the end of each race week will determine which tickets will win the pari-mutuel prizes. Their shares ($5 per share) of the pari-mutual prize will be determined by the wager of the winning ticket. The customer can play this game using a play slip where they select their 5 drivers, or select ‘QP’ (Quick Pick) to have the terminal select 5 eligible drivers from the driver roster. The Driver Roster will be updated after each week&#39;s race and uploaded into database through a BOS upload utility. As drivers are deemed ineligible due to suspension, injury, or inability to qualify for a given race, these drivers would be eliminated from the list and not eligible for quick pick or play slip wagering. As driver&#39;s rankings will also change after each week&#39;s race those changes will also be reflected on this updated Roster. Once uploaded into the database the Driver Roster will be used to create an eligible drivers list available through the terminal as a report. When the list is printed it will list all the eligible drivers and their corresponding car numbers. The list will be divided into three parts, Group A, Group B, and Group C; each part separating drivers according to their current rankings into the appropriate List (Group A=current top 9 drivers, Group B=currently ranked 10 th  through 34 th , Group C=35 th  ranked and higher.) Each customer&#39;s ticket consists of 5 drivers and one number representing the number of caution flags predicted (6 total selections for the wager). The first five selections are three-digit numbers of the customer&#39;s desired drivers (Range: 000-199). The sixth selection is a two digit number only indicating the number of cautions the customer believes will be called for the week&#39;s race (Range: 00-49). If errors are made on the play slip filling in the selections the terminal will display specific error messages for each type of error.  FIG. 3  provides an example of a play slip. In some arrangements, a play slip may be produced under a “quick pick” arrangement. In this arrangement contestants who have participated in contests earlier in the week may be included in the final team roster of players. Once a contest has occurred, wagering for the next race will remain closed until the next Driver Roster can be uploaded. 
         [0029]    All players buy into a single pool in one embodiment $5=1 share into the pool. The participant with the most points for their team wins the top prize (50% of 74% of total sales). The customer with the second highest amount of points for their team will win the second prize (30% of the 74% of total sales). The customer with the third highest amount of points for their team will win the third prize (20% of the 74% of total sales). If more than one ticket has equal points (a tie) and they have won one of the top three prizes the prize payout will be pari-mutuel. The number of shares each customer has determines the percentage of their win of that prize. Depending on what position a driver finishes determines how many points that driver scores. Penalty points will not be counted toward a driver&#39;s total points for the week because penalty points are more a deduction to a driver&#39;s total season points as opposed to a specific race&#39;s points. 
         [0030]    A ‘Caution’ is defined as the initial yellow flag displayed to race-car drivers to indicate a slow down. Also used to indicate no passing, due to a problem or mishap on the race track, or weather related issue. If a yellow flag lasts for more than one (1) lap, it is counted as one (1) caution. In the event that a driver is in a collision, or does not finish a race that he/she has started, they are still placed in the standings for the race; hence, they receive points for the race. 
         [0031]    This is merely one example of a wagering game which may be had according to the invention. Additional contests may be utilized as the subtext for the wagering game. In certain non head to head competition teams in a tournament like the NCAA basketball championship may be grouped in various groups prior to the initiation of the tournament with the final ranking based on the overall performance of the selected teams. Such grouping would include all tournament teams and an example of the grouping may include teams ranked first and second as one group, teams ranked third through sixth another group, and other variations of groupings of the additional teams. In this manner the performance of teams in a lower grouping will also be relevant in totaling the entire entry.