Patent Publication Number: US-8529337-B2

Title: Enhanced parimutuel platform for wagering

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application claims the benefit, under 35 U.S.C. §119(e), of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/353,712, filed on Jun. 11, 2010, entitled “Enhanced Parimutuel Platform For Wagering,” which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to a platform developed to allow for trading in events, for example, which have no underlying cash market. The present invention further relates to parimutuel platforms for sports book and non-sports-book event wagering that allow for uniform payouts for single and multiple events in a single pool. 
     BACKGROUND INFORMATION 
     Parimutuel betting systems allow for a combination of bets taken for an event to be put in a single pool. Unlike other win/lose wagering systems, such as fixed-odd betting, in parimutuel systems, the payout is not determined until the pool is closed, which typically occurs when or shortly before the event begins. Parimutuel betting systems are designed around shifting odds, which are continually changing until betting for an event ends. Each payout for each individual bet is determined as a share of all the available bet amounts in the pool. A winning wager in a parimutuel system receives a payout from the portion of the pool that is made available to pay winning wagers (as opposed to being kept by the casino), which payout is proportional to the ratio of the amount of money wagered by the individual to the overall amount wagered by the winning bets. 
     In parimutuel betting systems, the role of and risk to the operators (the “house”), which may be, for example, a casino, sportsbook organization, racetrack operator, or the like, is minimized because bettors are placing wagers against other bettors, rather than against the house. Thus, parimutuel systems may eliminate any tangible risk for the house, allowing the house to simply take a cut of the entire betting pool without regard to the outcome of the event, such as an athletic competition, on which the wagers are placed. 
     In some betting systems, bettors are given the option of betting a point spread, where a team is favored by a fixed number of points over another team. Point spreads can be construed by a bettor as a predictor of victory, and also serves to equalize placed bets on either game participant. For example, a team may be favored, with respect to a game, by 5 points over its opponent. Betting a point spread can have multiple outcomes: a team wins and covers the point spread, a team wins and does not cover the point spread, a team loses a close game to cover the point spread, or a team loses and does not cover the point spread. Traditional parimutuel systems would not allow for combining point spread bets with bets specifying a team selected to win without specifying a point spread (“picking straight up” or “moneyline”) into a single pool, as point spread bets have more outcomes than straight bets, and, unlike straight bets, have winning outcomes which are not mutually exclusive. Traditionally, point spread bets are not made using parimutuel systems. Thus, there additionally remains a need for a parimutuel system that may accommodate point spread wagers in a single pool, thereby removing any additional risk to the house. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Example embodiments of the present invention provide for a parimutuel betting platform that combines single event wagers and multiple event wagers into a single pool. By aggregating different bet types into a single pool, the system significantly improves odds on long-shots and, particularly considering the increased size of the pool, the ability to accommodate large size wagers. 
     The system and method may combine single event wagers and multiple event wagers, and may split a bettor&#39;s wager evenly across a set of wager outcomes that relate to the event upon which the bettor placed the wager. According to such an embodiment, discrepancies between the odds for each of the possible outcomes in which the bettor may win may be ignored, resulting in a payout to a single event bettor that may vary depending on the outcome of events upon which the bettor has not placed a wager. In such a system for example, the wager of a bettor who is concerned with only an outcome of Event A, can be combined with wagers that concern the outcomes of Event A, B, and C. Even if Event A ends favorably for the bettor, different odds exist depending on the outcomes of Events B and C, and thus the bettor&#39;s payout is dependent on the outcomes of Events B and C. Thus, a bettor who only desires a particular outcome for A, and whose wager is split evenly across all possible outcomes of Events B and C with a favorable outcome for Event A, receives different payouts for different results of events upon which the bettor did not wager. 
     Other example embodiments of the present invention may allow for the bettor to receive a uniform payout for Event A regardless of the outcomes of Events B and C. For example, the system and method may combine event wagers and multiple event wagers, while still allowing for uniform payouts for the single event wagers which are independent of other events, for example by allocating different portions of the placed wager to the different possible favorable outcomes of the wager. According to this embodiment, the odds and subsequent payout of a bettor who makes a wager on an outcome of a single event is no longer affected by others who may have made parlay-like bets across multiple events. Accordingly, example embodiments of the present invention further provide functionality to prevent a payout for a single event wager to be influenced by events upon which a bettor has not placed a wager, and provide uniform payouts for all favorable outcomes for the single event. Example embodiments of the present invention also provide for combining wagers having a diverging number of favorable outcomes into one pool, while maintaining a uniform payout for all favorable outcomes for any placed wager. 
     Example embodiments of the present invention are directed to one or more processors, which may be implemented using conventional processing circuits or devices or combinations thereof, e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) of a personal computer (PC) or other workstation processor. The processor(s) may execute code provided, e.g., on a hardware computer-readable medium including a memory device, to perform one or more, e.g., all, of the methods described herein, alone or in combination. The one or more processors may be embodied in a server and/or user terminal. The user terminal may be embodied, for example, as a desktop, laptop, hand-held device, personal digital assistant (PDA), television set-top Internet appliance, mobile telephone, smart phone, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., or as a combination of one or more thereof. The memory device may include any conventional permanent and/or temporary memory circuits or combination thereof, a non-exhaustive list of which includes random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), compact disks (CD), digital versatile disk (DVD), and magnetic tape. Such devices may be used, for example, for placing wagers, receiving wagers, allocating wagers, and/or allocating payouts for wagers. 
     Example embodiments of the present invention provide one or more hardware computer-readable media, e.g., as described above, having stored thereon instructions executable by one or more processors, such as those described above, to perform one or more, e.g., all, of the methods described herein, alone or in combination. 
     Example embodiments of the present invention provide a hardware component or machine that transmits instructions executable by one or more processors, such as those described above, to perform one or more, e.g., all, of the methods described herein. 
     A processor may determine, for each of a plurality of favorable outcomes corresponding to a placed wager, a respective portion of an amount wagered by the single event wager, such that a return on the respective portions for each of the favorable outcomes is the same, and accordingly allocate the determined portions of the wager amount to the respective favorable outcomes. After the determined portions have been allocated, the processor may iteratively re-determine the respective portions for each of the favorable outcomes and reallocate the determined portions of the wagers to the favorable outcomes until an equilibrium is reached. The equilibrium may be reached, where no reallocation of portions of the amounts wagered is required for any of the wagers in the single pool. 
     In an embodiment where single event wagers may be received, for allocating portions of a wagered amount to a plurality of outcomes, the processor may perform an iterative calculation in which the single event wager is initially allocated based on a degree of similarity between odds of different ones of the favorable outcomes, the greater the similarity, the more even the allocation, and may subsequently iteratively modify the allocation until a uniform payout for each of the favorable outcomes is reached. When a new wager is received, the processor may initially allocate the new wager to favorable outcomes to which the new wager corresponds and then reallocate the single event wager in response to odds of the favorable outcomes shifting by the allocation of the new wager. 
     In an alternative example embodiment, an initial determination may be made as to whether an allocation of equal portions of the single event wager to each of the favorable outcomes provides different returns on the single event wager. If it is determined that equal allocation provides a uniform payout, the processor may refrain from performing any further iterative allocation. 
     In the embodiments of a single event parimutuel system, the processor may perform an iterative calculation where after the initial allocation is determined, the allocation is subsequently modified until an equilibrium is reached. The speed of the calculation may be dependent on the proximity of the initial allocation to a final allocation of the iterative calculation. 
     In an example embodiment of the present invention, a system and method may aggregate straight wagers and point spread wagers in a single pool. A processor may allocate portions of the straight wager to a plurality of favorable outcomes of a plurality of both straight and point spread wagers corresponding to the favorable outcome of the straight wager. Allocation may occur through an iterative process where wager amounts of one or more of the wagers in the pool to a respective set of favorable outcomes are reallocated until an equilibrium may be reached. 
     In this straight/point spread system, the processor may perform an iterative calculation in which the straight wager is initially allocated based on a degree of similarity between odds of different ones of the favorable point spread outcomes, the greater the similarity, the more even the allocation, and the allocation is subsequently iteratively modified until a uniform payout for each of the favorable point spread outcomes is reached. When a new wager is received, the processor may initially allocate the new wager to favorable point spread outcomes to which the wager corresponds and then reallocate the straight wager in response to odds of the favorable outcomes shifting because of the allocation of the new wager. 
     In the embodiments of a straight/point spread wager aggregated system, the processor may perform an iterative calculation where after the initial allocation is determined, the allocation is subsequently modified until an equilibrium is reached. The speed of the calculation may be dependent on the proximity of the initial allocation to a final allocation of the iterative calculation. 
     In both single event and point spread/straight bet systems, there may be instances where a parimutuel wager is only partially filled in order to satisfy specified limit odds, such that only a portion of the parimutuel wager is allocated by the processor to the respective set of favorable outcomes. The remainder of the parimutuel wager that does not satisfy the specified odds may be recorded in a data store for later reference thereto. When new bets are added to the pool, the remainder or a portion of the remainder of the parimutuel wager may be allocated by the processor to the respective set of favorable outcomes if the specified limit odds are satisfied with the allocation of the remainder (or portion thereof) in view of the newly added bets. Additionally, there may be instances where specified limits are such that they cannot be satisfied with allocation of any of the wager, in which case, the wager is not allocated at all. The wager, may be recorded for later allocation in response to a later shift in odds which can be satisfied with allocation of some or all of the wager, should such a shift in odds occur. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a diagram of an enhanced parimutuel platform, according to an example embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 2  is a flow diagram of reallocation of wagers for single event wagers in the parimutuel platform, according to an example embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 3  is a flow diagram of reallocation of wagers for straight wagers in the parimutuel platform, according to an example embodiment of the present invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     In example embodiments of the present invention, a parimutuel betting system and method may allocate a wager for a single event to a subset of wagers on multiple events that correspond to the placed wager, and may prevent discrepancies in payouts for the single event by reallocation of different portions of the wager across the various outcomes to achieve uniformity for payouts. Accordingly, the payout for the wager would not be dependent on outcomes of the other events in the pool upon which the bettor did not wager. Thus, example embodiments of the present invention may provide an enhanced parimutuel platform that reallocates a wager placed on a single event across outcomes for multiple events that are all impacted by the outcome for the single event upon which the wager was placed. This may allow for concurrent betting for single events and multiple event parlay-like bets within the same single pool without affecting the payout for the single event betting, and allow for the pool to remain in balance. 
     The present invention may provide a system that includes an automated parimutuel platform that performs wager reallocation and aggregation, which provides an efficient and cost-effective option to maintain uniform payouts. The system may continuously update the allocation in view of changing odds during a betting period, and may use complex allocation algorithms that are not practically performed manually. The present invention may also provide the additional benefit that it may accommodate large wagers, and maintain uniformity in the payouts. Further, due to the increased pool size by aggregation of various bet types, a result may be that large wagers do not cause as great a swing in the odds, as they would for smaller pools. 
       FIG. 1  illustrates a computer system  100  that includes an enhanced parimutuel platform  110 , according to an example embodiment of the present invention. The parimutuel platform  110  may be tailored towards a specific genre or sport, such as football or baseball, or may encompass multiple genres and sports. Although, for the purposes of this discussion, the parimutuel platform is described, by way of example, as being directed towards sports events, the enhanced parimutuel platform discussed herein may be used to enable trading or wagering in any event that does not have an underlying cash market. 
     Parimutuel platform  110  may store and update a data structure, pool  120 , in which bets are recorded. Parimutuel platform  110  may collect bets on both a single event and those that depend on the outcome of a multiple of events (“parlay-like” bets), and combine each of those bets into a single pool  120 . Parimutuel platform  110  may allow for betting on events that have binary or nonbinary payouts. In events having binary payouts, there are only two possible outcomes for that event. An example of an event that may have a binary payout may be a sports game in which the bettor may only wager on whether a specific team wins or loses. Other examples of events that may have binary payouts, are the temperature at a game being below a specific temperature, a quarterback throwing for more than a specific number of yards, and whether or not Wayne Newton will be elected the mayor of Tokyo by a specific date. Platform  110  may accommodate all of these events. 
     If a pool provides only for binary payouts, N may equal the number of separate events or games upon which a bettor may place a wager in pool  120  and the total number of outcomes may be 2 N  in that pool. If a bettor only bets on the outcome of a single event, the total number of favorable outcomes to the bettor may be 
     
       
         
           
             
               
                 2 
                 N 
               
               2 
             
             ⁢ 
             
                 
             
             ⁢ 
             or 
             ⁢ 
             
                 
             
             ⁢ 
             
               
                 2 
                 
                   N 
                   - 
                   1 
                 
               
               . 
             
           
         
       
     
     Parimutuel platform  110  may also collect bets on events that do not have a binary payout. An example of a nonbinary payout would be a scenario in which the bettor is given the option to select whether a given team wins, loses, or covers the point spread in a game. The bettor may select the “cover the point spread” option, where a team is designated to win or lose by a certain number of points. In such a scenario, more than two outcomes may be possible, the total number of outcomes in the entire pool  120  possible may be, for example, 3 N , and the number of favorable outcomes to the bettor may be, for example, 3 N-1 . 
     For all payouts, including binary and nonbinary payouts, the total number of outcomes possible in the pool may be X N , where X is the total number of selectable options (i.e., a team winning, losing, or covering the point spread), and N is the total number of events (i.e., in the described example, games) that may be picked. The total number of favorable outcomes for a bettor who places a wager on a single game or event may be X N-1 . 
     If the wager of a bettor who places the wager on only the outcome of a single event is simply split evenly across each of the favorable outcomes for the bettor&#39;s event, then if T B  is the total wager amount placed by the bettor, the amount split evenly across each favorable outcome would be 
                 T   B       X     N   -   1         .         
An even distribution of the wager may be problematic because other bettors placing wagers within pool  120  may have placed wagers on multiple outcomes depending on multiple events. If there is increased betting on certain parlay-like bets, for example a scenario in which all favored teams in 3 football games all win, a shift in the odds and payout may occur because of the heavy volume of betting on this outcome. Other outcomes may receive more favorable odds, such as a scenario in which one or more underdogs win in the 3 games. A bettor who simply bets on the outcome of one of the events (such as the winner of one of the football games) may find that although there are X N-1  favorable outcomes, not all of the outcomes result in the same payout due to the shifting odds. This may create the unwanted outcome that a bettor of a single event finds the payout to be dependent on the outcome of events upon which the bettor did not lay a wager.
 
     For example, if the pool  120  includes bets on a football game between the Giants and the Eagles, a football game between the Colts and the Patriots, and a football game between the Packers and the Vikings (as shown in Table 1), a bettor might wager only on the game between the Giants and the Eagles, betting that the Giants would win. If the wager is allocated evenly among all outcomes in which the Giants win, i.e., (1) the Giants, Colts, and Packers all win, (2) the Giants, Colts, and Vikings all win, (3) the Giants, Patriots, and Packers all win, and (4) the Giants, Patriots, and Vikings all win, then the payout the bettor receives upon the Giants winning would depend on the odds on the outcomes for the other games as well. For example, if more is bet on the Colts and Packers winning than the Patriots and Vikings winning, then the bettor would receive a larger payout if the Patriots and Vikings win than if the Colts and Packers win, even though the bettor did not wager on those games. 
     The following table shows eight outcomes for which the system and method may accept wagers or to which the system and method may allocate wagers for the three example games. 
     
       
         
           
               
               
               
               
             
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   
                 Giants vs. Eagles 
                 Colts vs. Patriots 
                 Packers vs. Vikings 
               
               
                 Outcome 
                 Winner 
                 Winner 
                 Winner 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                 1 
                 Giants 
                 Colts 
                 Packers 
               
               
                 2 
                 Giants 
                 Colts 
                 Vikings 
               
               
                 3 
                 Giants 
                 Patriots 
                 Packers 
               
               
                 4 
                 Giants 
                 Patriots 
                 Vikings 
               
               
                 5 
                 Eagles 
                 Colts 
                 Packers 
               
               
                 6 
                 Eagles 
                 Colts 
                 Vikings 
               
               
                 7 
                 Eagles 
                 Patriots 
                 Packers 
               
               
                 8 
                 Eagles 
                 Patriots 
                 Vikings 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
       FIG. 2  is a flow diagram according to an example embodiment of the present invention that illustrates allocation by the parimutuel platform of a wager according to an algorithm such that the same payouts are provided across all outcomes that include the outcome on which the wager was placed. The system and method may receive parlay-like and single event wagers placed on various events in platform  110 , and may aggregate the wagers into pool  120 . At step  210 , a new wager that is placed on a single event may be received by platform  110 . At step  220 , the system and method may determine for the individual wager X N-1  corresponding favorable outcomes. Because the wager is newly received, an allocation of the wager to the determined outcomes is, at this point, NULL, leading to the “YES” branch of decision point  230 . Accordingly, at step  270 , the system and method may allocate the wager across all X N-1  favorable outcomes to obtain a set of diminutive wagers for the single event wager. Pool  120  may contain a collection of sets of diminutive wagers, including the set corresponding to the newly received single event wager. 
     Payout odds for different ones of the X N-1  outcomes may vary due to a heavy volume of betting or large wagers that have been made on specific events or parlay-like bets. Accordingly, the system may, at step  230 , determine whether the outcomes in the set of diminutive wagers all have the same payout. If the outcomes in the set of diminutive wagers have an equal payout, platform  110  may proceed to step  240 . If the outcomes in the set of diminutive wagers do not have an equal payout, the system and method may proceed again to step  270 , where the wager is reallocated. After each performance of step  270 , the system and method may proceed again to decision point  230  to determine whether the outcomes would provide equal payouts in view of the latest reallocation. 
     Allocation of the newly obtained wager to the various favorable outcomes to which it corresponds may cause a shift in odds that affects prior placed wagers. Accordingly, subsequent to step  270 , the system and method may initially perform step  280  to set (if not already set) an internally stored flag indicating that a new iteration, during which to traverse all placed wagers to ensure that their respective corresponding sets of favorable outcomes produce equal payouts for the respective placed wagers, is to be performed. 
     Additionally, after it is determined at decision point  230 , for the newly placed wager, that the allocation is such that the favorable outcomes produce equal payouts for the newly placed wager, the system and method may determine, at step  250 , that the flag has been set, and therefore, return to step  220  to obtain from memory a stored set of X N-1  outcomes and diminutive wagers corresponding to another recorded wager to similarly determine, at step  230 , for the previously placed wager, whether the allocation of the wager to its respective set of favorable outcomes produces equal payouts. It is noted, that during a repeat performance of step  220  for a wager, the system need not re-determine which outcomes correspond to the wager, as they may already be recorded in memory, and may be retrieved from memory. 
     This may be repeated for all of the previously placed wagers. If, at step  240 , the system determines that the final wager and corresponding set has been traversed, the system may determine whether the flag has been set in step  250 . If the flag has been set, this indicates that a reallocation was performed in the latest traversal through the placed wagers, requiring a new traversal. Accordingly, the system may, at step  260 , clear the flag and return to step  220 , to begin a new iteration. If a reallocation (or a significant reallocation) does not take place in the next iteration, then the flag will not be reset in the next iteration, and, after the final set is traversed, as determined at step  240 , the system may end the process, since an equilibrium has been reached. The iterative process may be restarted for each newly received wager during the betting period. 
     It is noted that in an example embodiment, the system may be configured such that step  280  is not performed upon an allocation for a newly placed wager in a first traversal through the wagers, because if none of the prior recorded wagers are reallocated based on the allocation of the newly placed wager, then there is no reason to perform a subsequent iteration through the recorded wagers. 
     Additionally, it is noted that, while the steps of  FIG. 2  have been described as being performed immediately in response to receipt by the system of a wager, some or all of the steps may be performed instead at set periodic intervals and/or after receipt of a predefined number of wagers or of wagers specifying in total at least a predefined number of currency value units, and/or upon closing of the betting window. For example, performance of all of the steps may be limited to such instances. Alternatively, immediately upon receipt of a new wager, the wager may be allocated based on odds prevailing at the time of receipt of the new wager, but reallocation of prior wagers may be delayed until the next such predefined time. 
     As noted above, for each traversed wager, if platform  110  determines that the payout is not the same across all of the favorable outcomes for a traversed set, platform  110  may proceed to step  270  to reallocate portions of the individual single event wager until a uniform payout is reached across all of the favorable outcomes in the set. The allocation for providing the equal payouts may be performed such that, for each favorable outcome the following is true: 
                       A   i     =     P     O   i         ,           (   i   )               
where P=the uniform payout (profit) for each of the favorable outcomes, O i =the odds for a particular outcome, A i =the amount allocated for a particular outcome.
 
     In a parimutuel betting system, the payout odds for a particular outcome may be determined by the formula: 
                       O   i     =         T   POOL     -     T   OUT         T   OUT         ,           (   ii   )               
where T POOL =the total amount wagered in the entire pool and T OUT =the total wagered on a particular outcome.
 
     As the odds for each outcome may be dependent on the proportion of the total bet amounts that were bet on that particular outcome, the amount allocated to an outcome may thus also be dependent on the proportion of the total bet amounts that were bet on the outcome. Thus, the amount allocated for each favorable outcome may be: 
     
       
         
           
             
               
                 
                   
                     A 
                     i 
                   
                   = 
                   
                     
                       P 
                       
                         
                           
                             T 
                             POOL 
                           
                           - 
                           
                             T 
                             OUT 
                           
                         
                         
                           T 
                           OUT 
                         
                       
                     
                     . 
                   
                 
               
               
                 
                   ( 
                   iii 
                   ) 
                 
               
             
           
         
       
     
     In an example embodiment of the present invention, the system and method may perform an iterative process as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/640,656 (“the &#39;656 application”), the entire content of which is hereby incorporated by reference herein, to determine the value of P and the value for A i  for each of the outcomes. The iterative process is further represented by the set of equations 15.2.9A in the &#39;656 application. 
     According to Equation (iii), a higher allocation amount is allocated for those of the outcomes upon which much more money had been wagered. For example, platform  110  may select an initial allocation and then reallocate the determined portions of the wager to the respective favorable outcomes until a uniform payout is reached. In each iteration, a degree of change to the allocation may be dependent upon the extent of the differences between payouts for the different outcomes in accordance with the allocation of the prior iteration. Platform  110  may converge faster to the final allocation of the iterative process if the initial allocation is chosen closer to the final allocation. 
     In an example embodiment of the present invention, the initial allocation of a newly received wager may be uniform. In an alternative example embodiment of the present invention, the initial allocation may be non-uniform, e.g., selected according to a degree of similarity between odds of different ones of the favorable outcomes. For example, if the odds (the payout per wagered value unit) for a first of the outcomes is greater than the odds for a second of the outcomes, then the processor may initially allocate more of the wager to the second of the outcomes than to the first of the outcomes. In an example embodiment of the present invention, if an allocation was previously determined for a prior placed wager corresponding to the same set of favorable outcomes as those to which a newly placed wager corresponds, the processor may select the allocation of the prior placed wager as the initial allocation for the iterative process in determining the allocation for the newly placed wager. 
     As the odds may continuously shift for each outcome until betting closes for an event, parimutuel systems continuously or periodically update or check that the payouts for an outcome remain in equilibrium. Each subsequent wager may cause a reallocation of every wager that came before it, e.g., except for those wagers which specified a single one of the defined outcomes and were therefore not distributed among a set of corresponding defined outcomes. In circumstances of a heavy volume of betting or a large amount bet on a particular outcome, odds will significantly change and may necessitate a significant reallocation. Therefore, after the new wager is allocated to outcomes of pool  120 , the platform  110  may perform the iterative process described with respect to  FIG. 2  to re-check that the allocation of wager amounts to the sets of diminutive wagers in pool  120  for the prior recorded wagers continue to produce equal payouts regardless of which of the corresponding favorable outcomes occurs. Equilibrium is found where the allocation amounts for each of the wagers in the respective diminutive sets containing the new wager remain unchanged (or substantially unchanged) in sequential iterations. If the payouts for all the X N-1  favorable outcomes remain the same for each of the wagers, reallocation is not necessary and an equilibrium has been found. 
     It is noted that the system and method may accept a parlay-like wager on one of the defined outcomes. Since such a wager already selects one of the defined outcomes, allocation to a corresponding subset of outcomes is not performed for that wager (although reallocation of prior recorded wagers may be performed in response to the parlay-like wager on the single defined outcome, which may cause a shift in odds requiring such reallocation of the prior recorded wagers). 
     Continuing the example from Table 1 with the three corresponding football games, the following table shows an allocation of a new wager of $50 on the Giants winning. For the initial pool and, therefore, initial odds given by the table below, the system and method may allocate $20 of the $50 wager to outcome 1, and $10 of the $50 wager to each of outcomes 2 to 4 in order for the bettor to receive a $70 payout where the Giants win, regardless of which of outcomes 1 to 4 occur. As Table 2 shows, the allocation changes the odds, which may give rise to further reallocations for other bets as described above. Outcomes that have a lower payout ratio may require a higher amount allocated on that particular outcome to maintain the same payout as those of longshot outcomes. 
     
       
         
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   
                 Initial 
                 Initial 
                 Split of 
                 New 
                 New 
                 Payout for 
                 Total 
               
               
                 Outcome 
                 Pool 
                 Odds 
                 New Bet 
                 Pool 
                 Odds 
                 New bet 
                 Payout 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                 1 
                 $20 
                 7:2 
                 $20 
                 $40 
                  5:2 
                 $70 
                 $140 
               
               
                 2 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                 $10 
                 $20 
                  6:1 
                 $70 
                 $140 
               
               
                 3 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                 $10 
                 $20 
                  6:1 
                 $70 
                 $140 
               
               
                 4 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                 $10 
                 $20 
                  6:1 
                 $70 
                 $140 
               
               
                 5 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                  $0 
                 $10 
                 13:1 
                  $0 
                 $140 
               
               
                 6 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                  $0 
                 $10 
                 13:1 
                  $0 
                 $140 
               
               
                 7 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                  $0 
                 $10 
                 13:1 
                  $0 
                 $140 
               
               
                 8 
                 $10 
                 8:1 
                  $0 
                 $10 
                 13:1 
                  $0 
                 $140 
               
               
                 Total 
                 $90 
                   
                 $50 
                 $140  
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     The present invention may also allow for the combination of different types of bets having a different number of outcomes, into a common pool. In particular, in an example embodiment, platform  110  may receive wagers from bettors who wish to bet the point spread and from those wishing to bet straight up. 
     In conventional game wagering systems, a single point spread is set by an expected point differential. The only wagers that can then be made on the game are either those that either do not specify the point spread, but rather only specify a winner, or those that specify the single point spread. Unlike traditional parimutuel systems in which a bettor who believes that a team will win by significantly more than the point spread would not be allowed to lay a wager that rewards the bettor for predicting a less probable outcome, in the present invention, a bettor may choose the bettor&#39;s own point spread, and is rewarded with a payout that is commensurate with the improbability of the unlikely event occurring. Traditional parimutuel systems are not generally used for point spread betting and do not accommodate multiple point spreads for a single event. In particular, traditional parimutuel systems could not handle multiple point spreads for a single event because, for example, not enough bettors would take both sides of each of the point spreads. 
     For example, for a particular game, the system and method may store a data structure defining a set of discrete point spreads for each team of the contest, and may record wagers for any one or more of those defined point spreads. Each defined point spread may be a respective single point spread, e.g., 3 points, or may be a respective range of point spreads, e.g., between 3 and 5 points, or at least 30 points. The following table shows an example of point spreads which may be defined by the data structure maintained by the system, for a game between the Lakers and the Suns. Thirty point spreads are shown to be defined for each team, each defined point spread being a single point spread, except for one point spread which includes the range of all point spreads of at least 30 points. 
     
       
         
           
               
               
             
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Outcome 
                 Final Score 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 1 
                 Suns Win by 30+ 
               
               
                 2 
                 Suns Win by 29 
               
               
                 3 
                 Suns Win by 28 
               
               
                 4 
                 Suns Win by 27 
               
               
                 5 
                 Suns Win by 26 
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 . . . Rows Omitted . . . 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 28 
                 Suns Win by 3 
               
               
                 29 
                 Suns Win by 2 
               
               
                 30 
                 Suns Win by 1 
               
               
                 31 
                 Lakers Win by 1 
               
               
                 32 
                 Lakers Win by 2 
               
               
                 33 
                 Lakers Win by 3 
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 . . . Rows Omitted . . . 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 56 
                 Lakers Win by 26 
               
               
                 57 
                 Lakers Win by 27 
               
               
                 58 
                 Lakers Win by 28 
               
               
                 59 
                 Lakers Win by 29 
               
               
                 60 
                 Lakers Win by 30+ 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     According to this example, for any one team winning, the system may record the outcome as thirty discreet outcomes. If bets are accepted on three games, as discussed above with respect to the example of the game between the Giants and the Eagles, the game between the Colts and the Patriots, and the game between the Packers and the Vikings, and if thirty point spreads for which to accept wagers are provided for each team, then the number of outcomes is actually 30 3 ×8, instead of the eight described above with respect to Table 1. 
     Accordingly, with respect to even a single contest, a wager from a bettor who simply wishes to select the winner of the contest after a number of point spread wagers had previously been received by platform  110 , the system and method may treat any point spread outcome that has the selected team winning as a favorable outcome to which a portion of the new wager may be allocated. Evenly splitting the straight bet across all the favorable point spread outcomes may again create an issue with uneven payouts across favorable outcomes due to shifting odds, making the straight bettor dependent on the point spread despite the fact that the bettor never made any wager against the point spread. A less likely outcome, such as a large margin of victory by one team for example, may result in a higher payout. 
     Accordingly, the system and method, according to an example embodiment of the present invention, may allocate different percentages of the wager to the different corresponding outcomes, such that a uniform payout is made regardless of which of the corresponding outcomes occurs. 
       FIG. 3  is a flow diagram according to an example embodiment of the present invention that illustrates allocation by the parimutuel platform of a placed straight wager according to an algorithm such that the same payouts are provided across all outcomes that include the outcome on which the straight wager was placed. The system and method may receive straight wagers and point spread wagers placed on various events in platform  110 , and may aggregate the wagers into pool  120 . At step  310 , a new straight wager that is placed on an event may be received by platform  110 . At step  320 , the system and method may determine for the straight wager, corresponding favorable outcomes for a corresponding set of predefined point spread wager types. Because the wager is newly received, an allocation of the wager to the determined outcomes is, at this point, NULL, leading to the “YES” branch of decision point  330 . Accordingly, at step  370 , the system and method may allocate the wager across all favorable outcomes to obtain a set of diminutive point spread wagers for the straight wager. Pool  120  may contain a collection of sets of diminutive point spread wagers, including the set corresponding to the newly received straight wager. 
     Payout odds for different ones of the outcomes may vary due to a heavy volume of betting or large wagers that have been made on specific point spreads. Accordingly, the system may, at step  330 , determine whether the outcomes in the set of diminutive point spread wagers all have the same payout. If the outcomes in the set of diminutive point spread wagers have an equal payout, platform  110  may proceed to step  340 . If the outcomes in the set of diminutive point spread wagers do not have an equal payout, the system and method may proceed again to step  370 , where the wager is reallocated. After each performance of step  370 , the system and method may proceed again to decision point  330  to determine whether the outcomes would provide equal payouts in view of the latest reallocation. 
     Allocation of the newly obtained wager to the various favorable outcomes to which it corresponds may cause a shift in odds that affects prior placed wagers, whether the prior placed wagers are straight wagers or point spread wagers, e.g., that correspond to a plurality of predefined atomic point spread wagers. Accordingly, subsequent to step  370 , the system and method may initially perform step  380  to set (if not already set) an internally stored flag indicating that a new iteration, during which to traverse all placed wagers to ensure that their respective corresponding sets of favorable outcomes produce equal payouts for the respective placed wagers, is to be performed. 
     Additionally, after it is determined at decision point  330 , for the newly placed wager, that the allocation is such that the favorable outcomes produce for the newly placed wager equal payouts, the system and method may determine, at step  350 , that the flag has been set, and therefore, return to step  320  to obtain from memory a stored set of outcomes and diminutive point spread wagers corresponding to another recorded wager to similarly determine, at step  330 , for the previously placed wager, whether the allocation of the wager to its respective set of favorable outcomes produces equal payouts. It is noted, that during a repeat performance of step  320  for a wager, the system need not re-determine which outcomes correspond to the wager, as they may already be recorded in memory, and may be retrieved from memory. 
     This may be repeated for all of the previously placed wagers. If, at step  340 , the system determines that the final wager and corresponding set has been traversed, the system may determine whether the flag has been set in step  350 . If the flag has been set, this indicates that a reallocation was performed in the latest traversal through the placed wagers, requiring a new traversal. Accordingly, the system may, at step  360 , clear the flag and return to step  320 , to begin a new iteration. If a reallocation (or a significant reallocation) does not take place in the next iteration, then the flag will not be reset in the next iteration, and, so that after the final set of that next iteration is traversed, as determined at step  340 , the system may end the process, since the equilibrium has been reached. The iterative process may be restarted for each newly received wager during the betting period. 
     It is noted that in an example embodiment, the system may be configured such that step  380  is not performed upon an allocation for a newly placed wager in a first traversal through the wagers, because if none of the prior recorded wagers are reallocated based on the allocation of the newly placed wager, then there is no reason to perform a subsequent iteration through the recorded wagers. 
     Additionally, it is noted that, while the steps of  FIG. 3  have been described as being performed immediately in response to receipt by the system of a wager, some or all of the steps may be performed instead at set periodic intervals and/or after receipt of a predefined number of wagers or of wagers specifying in total at least a predefined number of currency value units, and/or upon closing of the betting window, as described above with respect to  FIG. 2 . 
     It is noted that, while  FIG. 3  has been discussed with respect to a newly placed straight wager, the process described with respect to  FIG. 3  may similarly be performed for a newly placed point spread wager that corresponds to more than one predefined atomic point spread wager type to which placed wagers are allocated. 
     For example, continuing the example above regarding the game between the Lakers and the Suns, in an example embodiment of the present invention, the system and method may accept a wager that a team will win by at least a specified margin of victory. For example, the wager may specify that the Suns will win the game by at least 28 points. The system and method may allocate portions of the wager to one or more of the defined outcomes that correspond to the specified point spread, in this case, for example, outcomes 1, 2, and 3, according to the same method described above with respect to  FIG. 3 . 
     In a further example embodiment, the present invention may allow for the combination of different types of betting in a single pool. For example, in the game between the Lakers and the Suns (see Table 3), bettors may place wagers on the point spread as well as the total combined points scored in the game. Thus, the resulting number of outcomes may be the number of point spread options multiplied by the number of presented options for combined score in the game. A bettor who selects only the point spread between the Suns and Lakers, but does not make a wager dependent on the total points scored in the game, may find the bet for a specific point spread allocated across all the possible outcomes for that specific point spread with the varying options for total points. This may function similar to the example embodiment where a bettor may desire to place a wager on a single event, but has the bet allocated on all favorable outcomes of that single event with multiple event bets, as described above. 
     In an example embodiment of the present invention, the system and method may accept limit bets, where the bettor sets a limit (e.g., a minimum) on the odds for a placed wager. The system and method may include the wager in the pool as long as the odds meet the specified limit and may pull the wager from the pool where the odds do not meet the specified limit. As noted above, as long as the betting window during which a wager may be placed by a user is open, the odds for any outcome may shift. Therefore, a limit bet may be entered into and removed from the pool numerous times while the betting window is open. The system and method may maintain a data store in which to store placed wagers that are not in the pool because the limits set by the wagers are not met. The conditions for the extent to which placed wagers are filled in view of current odds and placed odds may be as those described in the &#39;656 application. 
     In an example embodiment, where limit betting is accepted, in an instance where there is no satisfaction of the odds specified by a bettor where the wager is fully filled, the system may fill only a portion of the wager that does satisfy the odds (“partial fill” of a wager). In such an instance, the remainder of the wager may be excluded from the pool, and only the partially filled wager may be allocated across the favorable outcomes. The portion of the wager not bet, may be maintained in the data store. When new bets are placed, the odds may shift, and the portions of the wagers not bet may therefore be checked to see if they may be allocated with satisfaction of the specified odds. Any portions of the wagers not previously allocated for inclusion in the pool, which are subsequently determined to be allocatable while satisfying the specified odds, may be allocated across the favorable outcomes in the pool. Similarly, the newly placed wager may cause a shift in odds such that previously filled portions of a prior placed wager are removed in order to meet the limit odds set by the prior placed wager. 
     Similar to that described above with respect to  FIGS. 2 and 3 , whenever the body of wagers changes, whether by adding a wager to the pool or removing a wager from the pool, odds may shift for any of the outcomes. Therefore, if a wager is pulled in response to a shift of odds to a new odds that does not meet the limit set by the wager, the pulling of the wager may change odds of yet another wager in the pool so that the limit set by the other wager is also no longer met, thereby requiring its removal. Therefore, in response to each addition of a wager to the pool and removal of the wager from the pool, the system and method may traverse all of the recorded wagers of the pool and those of the placed wagers not in the pool due to the set wager limits, to determine whether the odds meet the wager limits. This may be performed for portions of placed wagers, as indicated above, and, for a particular placed wager, the size of the portion added to the pool may vary as the odds shift. This may be iteratively performed as the removal of wagers from and addition of wagers to the pool in each iteration may require still other changes with respect to whether wagers traversed in the previous iteration are to be included in the pool. The system and method may perform iterations until an equilibrium is achieved. Equilibrium is found where the allocation amounts for each of the wagers in the respective diminutive sets containing the new wager remain unchanged (or substantially unchanged) in sequential iterations, and where the amount of the money in the pool with respect to limit bets is maximized 
     Example embodiments of the present invention, may provide, in combination with any of the above-described methods, e.g., as illustrated with respect to  FIGS. 2 and 3 , for a wagering association to enter bets for each of the defined fundamental outcomes, to which or to combinations of which subsequently placed wagers accepted by the wagering association may correspond. In an example embodiment, the wagering association places such “opening bets” prior to accepting any wagers by other parties. The opening bets may be placed as described in section 15.2.3 of the &#39;656 application. Thus, the system and method of the present invention may provide for recording respective first fundamental bets on all of the plurality of fundamental outcomes by a single party. 
     The above description is intended to be illustrative, and not restrictive. Those skilled in the art can appreciate from the foregoing description that the present invention may be implemented in a variety of forms, and that the various embodiments may be implemented alone or in combination. Therefore, while the embodiments of the present invention have been described in connection with particular examples thereof, the true scope of the embodiments and/or methods of the present invention should not be so limited since other modifications will become apparent to the skilled practitioner upon a study of the drawings and specification.