Patent Publication Number: US-2011077075-A1

Title: Method and system for parimutuel wagering on outcomes

Description:
RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application claims the benefit of, and priority to, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/124,702 filed May 21, 2008 as a continuation-in-part application. Additionally, this application claims the benefit of, and priority to, U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/384,386 filed Sep. 20, 2010. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to parimutuel wagering on outcomes. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     It is difficult to accurately and profitably manage large scale projects. Aside from issues of scale, the persons with the most knowledge of what is needed to accomplish project goals are often implementation workers with limited ability to affect project operations, particularly at a scale beyond their own implementation efforts. While implementation workers may express their concerns or needs to immediate supervisors, it is common that as project difficulties mount, supervisors may become reticent to accurately report to their supervisors, and senior management may have limited knowledge of the problems faced by those ‘in the field’. The famous ‘emperor&#39;s new clothes’ fairy tale can often prove prophetic. Thus, senior management has a pressing need to know and understand project difficulties, but is often ill-sited to receive the information that is needed. Other times, the children&#39;s game of ‘operator’ in which the same word is whispered down a chain can be an apt metaphor for management communication, as each time the message is relayed, its accuracy is reduced. 
     Prediction markets are often found to be accurate predictors of future occurrences. However, prediction markets are less effective if first-hand participation in the predicted outcome is unrewarded. Additionally, prediction markets function wherein the predictors have limited effects on the activity subject to prediction. For example, political events are often the subject of prediction markets, but each participant in the market has a somewhat limited effect on the outcome of the election. In contrast, a prediction market for project management could be severely compromised by internal saboteurs seeking to adversely affect the project for their own gain. 
     Additionally, extreme outcomes are often more likely than perceived. In general people tend to under-estimate extreme outcomes (risks). Often managers can tend to be more certain about things than might be prudent, and traditional risk identification processes could be made more accurate and efficient. On surveys respondents tend to cluster in the middle of a scale, so methods that might open up their thinking about risk could lead to better articulation of extreme possibilities of outcomes. 
     Similarly, parimutuel betting is highly advantageous for outcomes with uncertain odds, and is highly popular in, for example, horse racing. The high odds for extreme responses for parimutuel wagering takes advantage of people&#39;s risk taking behavior. However, parimutuel wagering is at a disadvantage when a participant in the outcome can affect the outcome. 
     Thus, what is needed is a method to ensure that senior management receives good predictive information regarding progress on a project, while rewarding the participants in the project for the quality of their insight. It is desirable to advance the art. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     A first embodiment includes a method for determining an award for at least one winner that includes establishing at least a first outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction, and establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome, and receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities. The method further includes awarding at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers. 
     Another embodiment includes a computer readable medium including computer readable code for determining an award for at least one winner that includes computer readable code for establishing at least a first outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction, and computer readable code for establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome. The medium further includes computer readable code for receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities, and computer readable code for awarding at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers. 
     Another embodiment includes a system for determining an award for at least one winner that includes means for establishing at least a first outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction, and means for establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome. The system further includes means for receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities, and means for awarding at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The benefits and advantages of the present invention will become more readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the relevant art after reviewing the following detailed description and accompanying drawings, wherein: 
         FIGS. 1-4  illustrate methods of determining an award for at least one winner, in accordance with various aspects of the invention; 
         FIG. 5  illustrates exemplary scenarios associated with an outcome, in accordance with an aspect of the invention; 
         FIG. 6  illustrates an inflection point, in accordance with an aspect of the invention; and 
         FIG. 7  illustrates a risk mitigation curve, in accordance with an aspect of the invention; 
         FIG. 8  illustrates execution of a closed loop in accordance with one aspect of the invention; 
         FIG. 9  illustrates one embodiment of a method in accordance with another aspect of the invention; 
         FIG. 10  illustrates one example of a closed loop in accordance with an aspect of the invention; and 
         FIG. 11  illustrates example performance of risk measurement categories in accordance with an aspect of the invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       FIG. 1  illustrates a flowchart of a method  100  for determining an award for at least one winner, in accordance with one aspect of the invention. Method  100  includes establishing at least a first outcome, at step  110 . The first outcome is predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction. In one embodiment, the outcome relates to a project, and each of the plurality of entities is working on at least a portion of the project. Each entity can be an individual, a company, or an association of individuals working as a team for a common goal as a portion of the project. The project can be any project, such as, but not limited to, software implementation, software coding, or the like. At step  120 , at least three scenarios are established, such that each scenario is associated with a condition of the first outcome. Each scenario relates to the outcome and describes a potential condition of the outcome. For example, in a three scenario situation, the scenarios could be “project complete, on time, on budget;” “project complete, on time, over budget;” and “project incomplete.” In another example, with six scenarios, the scenarios could include “operates as intended;” “minor inconvenience due to manual workarounds;” “significant additional time and effort for manual workarounds;” “substantial overtime of staff and decrease of morale with risk of high turnover;” “material increase of headcount and costs and decrease in customer satisfaction;” and “material adverse impact on P&amp;L, payroll, customer base, or net worth.” The scenarios chosen for each project will vary depending on metrics to be measured and can vary by project. An exemplary chart  500  illustrating six scenarios is seen at  FIG. 5 . Each scenario may be associated with a graphical icon, such as the happy/sad faces illustrated in  FIG. 5 . Other graphical icons may also be used, and are within the scope of this disclosure. 
     At step  130 , method  100  receives a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities. Each entity may be allowed to place a single wager, or each entity may be allotted a plurality of wagering units, W, wherein W≧2, and allowed to place any number of wagers B, wherein B≦W on any number of scenarios, S, such that S≦N, wherein N is the number of scenarios. Thus, each participant can wager each of their wagering units on a single scenario, or they may wager a portion of their allotted wagering units on different scenarios. Once the outcome is determined and classified according to the scenario, at least a first award is awarded in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers based on the actual outcome at step  140 . Each wagering unit may be financial or represent an abstract value, such as a point. 
       FIG. 2  illustrates an embodiment of a method for establishing the scenarios at  200 . Method  200  includes establishing at least the first award associated with the first outcome at step  210 . The first award can be any item perceived to be of value by the entities. The first award can be financial or nonfinancial. For example, the first award could be monetary. In another example, the first award could be a catered lunch for the winner. In another example, a trophy could be awarded. In another example, additional vacation days are the first award. Having determined the first award, at step  220 , the established scenarios are presented to the entities. 
       FIG. 3  illustrates one embodiment of a method  300  for awarding the first award, in accordance with one aspect of the invention. Method  300  begins at  310  by determining a result of the output. In one embodiment, the result of the output is determined and compared with the scenarios to determine which scenario is best representative of the output. The determined result is compared with the received wagers at step  320 , and at least one winner is determined from the entities based on the comparison and the sum of the values associated with the winning wager. Based on the received wagers, a pool is established at step  330 , and the first award is made to the determined winner based on the pool at step  340 . The pool and payouts are made in traditional parimutuel fashion. 
       FIG. 4  illustrates a flowchart of a method  400  for receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities in accordance with one aspect of the invention. Method  400  begins by determining a pattern of the wagers at step  410 . The pattern, in one example, can be charted or graphed to present a visual cue illustrating the beliefs of the participants in the project. An exemplary graph is shown at  FIG. 6 .  FIG. 6  illustrates a sample of a limited chart illustrating only negative views on the project, and the information determined by determining the pattern can be presented in any number of ways. In one embodiment, wagering occurs over a period of time and a pattern of wagering can be determined based on varying wager behavior over the period of time. 
     At step  420 , method  400  determines a change in the pattern, wherein the change includes at least one inflection point. An example of a pattern change is illustrated in  FIG. 7 , as compared to  FIG. 6 . The inflection point is then associated with at least one external factor at step  430 . For example, a change in staffing (an example of an external factor) can affect progress, either positively or negatively, and this may be reflected in a variance in the pattern of wagering. Other examples of external factors include budget modifications, modifications to project goals and/or deliverables, changes in morale factors (raises/cuts in per diem allowances, modified travel policies, etc.). Depending on the determined external factor, if the external factor is subject to management control, at step  440 , the external factor is modified based on the inflection point. In one embodiment, the determined change can be associated with statements received from at least one wagering entity. For example, management notices an inflection point in the wagering pattern and seeks to determine the existence and/or identity of any external factors affecting the wagering pattern. In one embodiment, the inflection point is determined statistically, and a notification is automatically generated (such as an email or other alert) and transmitted to an appropriate person. 
     Additionally, these methods can be iterative, with each outcome divided into stages, providing for a finer view of progress. In such embodiments, each stage can be subject to individual wagers in addition to or instead of wagers on the larger project. 
     Alternatively, different wagering opportunities can be offered to different entities. For example, coworkers receive the opportunity to wager on differing stages of the project. Such an embodiment can reduce the potential impact of intentional sabotage of the project, as well as reduce the chances of the same. 
     In one embodiment, techniques to conceal the identity of an individual&#39;s wagers are implemented. Such techniques may increase the honesty of wagers. While some association must be made between entity and wager (at least to pay the winners), limiting access to this association may improve overall results and performance. The associations can be hidden behind a wall, password protected, or the like. 
     The methods can be implemented over a computer network, with various steps taking place at any one or multiple nodes over the network. For example, communications can take place over a decentralized packet data network, such as the Internet, and can be encrypted for privacy and security. A graphical user interface can be provided. 
     In another embodiment, entities can update wagers and/or cast additional wagers at various times during the project. For example, new wagers can be made on a weekly basis, using additional wagering units. Alternatively, new wagers can be made daily, or monthly using additional wagering units. Any time span between wagers can be used, although it may be preferable to limit the intrusion on work by controlling the number of opportunities for wagering. 
     In one embodiment, each entity is asked at least one question when making a wager. For example, wagering may require identifying risks to the project, and/or identifying any information that may not be known, but should be, by management. Responses may be considered when identifying external factors, for example. 
     In certain embodiments of the invention, a time series risk signal is utilized in an effort to improve performance of the system under configurable parameters. A greater degree of specificity to drive a closed loop managerial control process can improve performance. 
     A closed loop control process is responsive to wagers placed on scaled scenarios (example with faces ranging from happy to unhappy with each face representing a scaled value ranging on a numerical continuum) during a predetermined time period “t,” such as a week, two weeks, month, day, or any such time period correlated to project scope. This allows the plurality of wagers on those scenarios and their resulting odds in a period to determine a closing price for that time period t. At the close of t, the closing price, P close , as well as other pricing measures (median, mean, mode, etc) are readily calculated, and the P close  can be used to determine an average closing price, P avgclose , and P avgclose  can form a composite time series containing the outcome prices for each prior time frame, containing two data components—risk level at t (defined as the average current price during t) and risk direction at t (defined as the change in average closing price from t−1). Based on these two data components, a third component—a risk forecast is determined based on closing prices using any appropriate moving average technique, such as a simple moving average, ARIMA, double exponential smoothing, transfer functions, regression, or the like. A list of risks is generated during the wagering responsive to participant concerns, and these participants can be selected responsive to duties or responsive to prior wagering success patterns. 
     Having established the three data components within the composite time series—risk level, risk direction, and risk forecast—these points are fed into a Boolean logic engine, or some other appropriate logic engine. Depending on the output from the logic engine, an intervention signal is issued. The intervention signal can be of single form, to a single destination, or the intervention signal can be configurable for both content and destination based on the logic engine output. For example, an intervention signal indicative of a crisis that threatens project success can be immediately directed to a particular person or organizational level, whereas an intervention signal indicative of a minor change in risk level may be directed to other persons/organizational levels without message to the senior management. Alternatively, in other examples, an intervention signal indicative of a reduction of risk can be directed to other persons/organizational levels. The intervention signal can be configured to tighten the feedback loop, such that intervention signals that occur after an earlier intervention signal can be directed to the original recipients, to help the original recipient gauge the success or failure of any efforts that had been undertaken responsive to the earlier intervention signal. Each of these destinations is pre-configurable responsive to any combination of current or previous values for the risk level, risk direction, and risk forecast. 
     In certain embodiments, the intervention signal can be included in an electronic message, such as email, including a link or connection to a problem-solving tool to guide the recipient to identifying solutions, either individually or with assistance from an ad-hoc task force. In certain embodiments, the message including the intervention signal can include suggestions for members of an ad-hoc task force and/or include the suggested members in the notification. For example, if a strong contributing factor to a situation requiring issuance of an intervention signal is a supply chain issue, participants that affect or control the supply chain may be identified directly as members of the task force, or suggested to the decision makers as participants. The corollary of this fact is that presence of consistently negative wagers will peg the risk level and risk direction factors to a negative, thus forcing the risk forecast negative, and in turn affecting the chances of issuing an intervention signal, or affecting the severity or destinations of the triggered intervention signal. 
     The problem-solving tool is, in one embodiment, a form designed to retain and/or create a record of performance and/or progress in problem identification and solution. The form can be organized responsive to goals, but in one embodiment includes sections to state the problem, identify alternative solutions, evaluate the identified alternative solutions, select from evaluated solutions and generate an action item list including tasks and responsibility for the included tasks. The tasks, in one embodiment, include a due date and/or milestones for accomplishment of the task. 
     It must be noted that the inclusion of wagering participants on any ad hoc team tasked with solving identified risks creates the closed loop in a fashion that would affect their own wagering patterns in future time frames. Therefore, the methods described herein provide an efficient feedback loop to not only identify the problems, but also identify solutions, and execute on the identified solutions to reduce ongoing risk and move the project towards successful outcomes. This is due to the corrective actions being taken being either perceived as appropriate and beneficial, or as inappropriate, insufficient, or even counter-productive. The ability to control the influences is counterbalanced by changing odds that would incent a wagering participant to wager opposite in the normal control cycle to take advantage of mis-priced risk. Thus, while participants who are unable to directly affect the risk-causing factors would incent wagering negatively in reaction to the risk factor, the participants who can affect the risk-causing factor will wager positively, effectively filtering self-bias, and providing two out-of-phase influences that filter wagers to prevent ordinary situations from being perceived as “critical” and to prevent participants from gaming the system in their own favor. Additionally, this will increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the risk signal, and further allow management to adjust the sensitivity of the signal-to-noise ratio by adjusting the magnitude of the wagering payout. 
     The participant wagering in the best interest of the participant for a return responsive to the odds and payouts in this closed loop will behave in a counter-cyclical recursive manner during the project term in response to effective managerial control. Adjusting the payouts provides a risk discriminator function. Over time, the wagering participants will ‘learn’ the risk management style and capability of the project management and wagers will reflect this institutional knowledge in a measurable fashion, potentially sufficiently to inform senior management of relative skills of the individual managers. Armed with this knowledge, certain aspects of individual project manager performance can be objectively compared to identify areas for performance enhancement and potentially enhance personnel investments by identification of strong and weak performers. Certainly, such data is subject to abuse by more senior management, but at the same time, may assist in comparisons and help measure progress towards goals and the like. 
       FIG. 9  illustrates a method in accordance with one aspect of the invention at  900 . Method is a method for determining an award for at least one winner, and begins at step  910  by establishing at least a first outcome, the outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction. Based on this outcome, step  920  includes establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome. At step  930 , method  900  continues with receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities. 
     As discussed above, step  940  includes generating at least a first time signal responsive to the received plurality of wagers. The first time signal comprises a risk level determined responsive to the received wagers, a risk direction responsive to a difference between a first wagers and a second wagers, and a risk forecast derived from the first wagers and the second wagers. Each of these data points is determined based on the wagers collected either during the current time period or during at least one prior time period. At step  950 , method  900  compares at least the first time signal to a pre-configured threshold value. In one embodiment, comparing at least the first time signal to a pre-configured threshold value comprises feeding the risk level, risk direction, and risk forecast into a Boolean logic software device. At step  960  issues a notification signal responsive to the comparison. In one embodiment, the method further includes receiving an intervention signal from the Boolean logic software device, wherein the intervention signal comprises an identification of an organizational level to receive the intervention signal. At step  970 , method  900  awards at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers. In another embodiment, the method includes receiving input at a form, analyzing the received input, and providing steps for risk mitigation responsive to the received input, risk level, risk direction, and risk forecast. 
       FIG. 10  illustrates the closed loop process in another view, whereas  FIG. 11  graphically illustrates example performances of various measures as described herein. 
     Using the teachings of this disclosure, it is apparent that a parimutuel betting system can be implemented in a project management context such that each participant in the project being managed may wager on the outcome of the project. Such a teaching differs from traditional parimutuel systems since each participant not only contributes to the determination of the outcome, but also wagers on it as well. Traditionally, contestants in a contest subject to wagers are prohibited from wagering on the contest, whereas these disclosures rely on the ‘contestant’ making the wagers. 
     While specific embodiments of the invention are disclosed herein, various changes and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.