Patent Application
20210038970
The invention relates to a set of cards for a lottery using a small symbol pool. In practical terms this will be a small number pool as numbers are the preferred symbols for use in lotteries. The invention can be compared with lotteries known as “Lotto” or “Keno”.
Lotto/Keno type games are popular and were previously played with printed cards or tickets displaying an array of numbers which, during the draw, are selected randomly and called out or displayed on a screen so that players can see if they have one or more selected numbers on their card or cards. Today this effect is typically simulated on an electronic display screen where the electronic equivalent of a Lotto card is played. This class of games requires the player to select a small group of numbers from a larger pool. For example in a typical Keno game the payer selects between 4 to 10 entry numbers (depending on what Keno game the player wants to play) out of a pool of 80 available numbers, with the selected entry/game being resulted by the random draw of 20 numbers out of the 80. Given the size of the number pool the player engagement is limited as it is highly likely that numbers other than those selected by the player are drawn early in the lottery and overall most of the players will only see very modest levels of successfully matching their entry numbers with the numbers drawn.
Over recent years, in many of the world's mature “lotto” markets, participation in lotto offerings by government sanctioned and or owned lotteries (“State Lotteries”) has been relatively static or even declining. For example, in 2015, total US State Lottery sales were US$73.9 billion, but for the year ended 31 Dec. 2017, total US State Lottery sales were down to US$72.8 billion, a decline of 1.5% during this 2 year period. [Source: North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries (“NASPL”)].
There are a number of reasons for this, including: a decline by natural attrition of lotto players; alternative gambling options, including more exciting interactive gaming over online channels; low uptake levels of traditional draw games by the younger generation (as traditional draw games are often considered by them as unexciting); and lack of draw game innovation, including in respect of both lotto and keno type draw games.
Big prize draw games (such as the well-known multi jurisdictional draw games of EuroMillions and American PowerBall) remain popular and receive significant support, more so as the size of the jackpot reaches its top levels:
These high prized draw games capture the imagination of the general public. However, despite this, many state lottery operators are still experiencing some levels of declining revenues, primarily as a consequence of shifts in player preferences towards more engaging games with high churn delivering instant and engaging gratification, many of which can be accessed and played using other ‘online’ operators. Of note, in the United States, instant games comprise 60% of all US State Lottery sales. This can be compared to draw game sales of about 19% (comprised of American PowerBall (c. 10%), Keno (c. 5%) and individual state lottos (c. 4%).(Source: North American State and Provincial Lottery Association, 2017 figures for US Lottery Sales).
Nevertheless, State Lotteries core products are their scheduled draw games. These are primarily distributed through land-based retail networks that have been steadily built up over multiple decades, and must be considered as one of the main core assets of all land based/retail focused State Lotteries.
At its most basic level, existing draw games are based on an entry comprising a small number set being selected from a much larger number pool, and then attempting to match the entry numbers (in any order) against a separate random draw of some of the numbers from the total pool, with such random draw usually being: for Lotto, of the same size as the number of numbers in an entry; for Keno: of a greater size as Keno draws 20 numbers from 80 to result its games.
As an illustrative example, 6/49 lotto is a common and standard lotto game. It has top odds (i.e. the probability of a player correctly matching all 6 drawn numbers to their entry numbers) of 1 in 13,983,816 and its game play involves matching a player's 6 entry numbers chosen from the 49 number pool (in any order) against 6 subsequent randomly drawn numbers, drawn from the full 49 number pool. All the odds outcomes from this 6/49 game are set out in the table of
As can be seen from
Changes can be made to this 6/49 game set out in
While smaller entry numbers have advantages, they also have disadvantages. The use of smaller entry numbers (of say 5 or 6) from a single pool standard lotto game: (i) often creates restrictions on the size of the top prizes that can be offered, unless the size of the number pool is very high (due to the relatively high odds of a player attaining a high match rate); and (ii) creates problems with the ability to configure a prize pay-out table that has a sensible increasing non-win and win ladder and which generates engaging outcomes for players.
To illustrate this top odds matter further (odds arising from the number of entry numbers Vs the total size of a single number pool),
As can be seen from the table in
Therefore to create a lotto game with relevantly high top odds/prizes for a sizable State Lottery using one single number pool (without any multipliers or other enhancements) and in order to maintain player entries at no more than 5 or 6 numbers (and leaving aside altogether for the moment issue (ii) noted above), the size of the single number pool would likely need to significantly increase beyond 50 numbers (depending on game application/top prize and entry fee requirements/size of intended market).
From
4 entry numbers is likely to need a very large pool of numbers, potentially 125-150 or more;
5 entry numbers is likely to need a lesser pool size, potentially of around 80-100 numbers; and 6 entry numbers is likely to need a pool size of around 50-80 numbers.
On top of this ‘top odds’ limitation as discussed above, in base lotto games with only 5 or 6 entry numbers, the ability to configure a prize pay-out table that has a sensible increasing non-win and win ladder and which generates engaging outcomes for players is, at best, challenging.
From the 5 or 6 events, there must be allocations for non-winning events as well as for winning ones. As a result, there are often not enough Incremental Success outcomes for players to experience (even when non-winning), and in respect of the winning outcomes, there are not enough winning ‘steps’, ‘events’ or ‘outcomes’ to create good allocations for both minor prizes and a top prize, all combined in a manner that creates for an engaging and successful game.
Increasing the number of entry numbers goes some way towards addressing this problem by increasing the number of events, but this then introduces other problems as has been discussed.
It would be preferable in single entry single pool lotto games if the number of ‘steps’, ‘events’ or ‘outcomes’ in a 5 or 6 number entry could be increased in an easily understood way while still using only a single number pool with the game resulted by one random draw.
There are some ‘imperfect’ ways to do this, but they are not widely adopted by operators as they can be confusing for players, and potentially disengaging for players (as can be seen from the following). As an illustrative example, and using the standard 6/49 lotto game, an extra “bonus feature” can be inserted, as described below:
In essence, in the foregoing described method of using an extra “bonus feature”, the player is selecting two entries: one comprised of 6 numbers; and the other entry of just 1. The first set of 6 entry numbers are resulted by a random draw from a perfect and complete pool (of 49). However, the second entry of 1 number is resulted afterwards, from an imperfect and incomplete pool (the remaining 43 pool numbers, the make-up of which is unknown at the start and only becomes known after the draw of the first 6 numbers). This means that many players in the draw game, that have as their selected “bonus number” a number that is drawn when resulting the main 6/49 lotto entry, are eliminated from the “bonus number draw” before the second stage draw even starts, which is not desirable. Further this process (and outcome) can be difficult to explain to players.
For reasons canvassed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ‘innovate’ for a successful new single pool base lotto game involving a single entry of just 4-6 entry numbers from a number pool that is not excessive in total numbers, because of the constraints presented by: (i) the limitation on the number of outcomes (4-6); and (ii) the mathematical odds of the outcomes. In any event any such ‘innovation’ is likely to only be a reshuffle involving the size of the numbers required in an entry and the total size of the pool numbers and accordingly, such would unlikely be an innovation, but rather a new game configuration.
To overcome some of the inherent difficulties in lotto game design that use a single number pool, some lotto games have been designed with the use of two number pools from which players choose two sets of numbers as comprising their entry. These games are resulted by the use of two random draws, one each in respect of the entry numbers chosen from each relevant pool.
The second number pool is usually smaller than the first, from which players select fewer entry numbers than from the first. In Lotto, it is often categorized as relating to the “power ball” or “bonus ball” number/s.
Importantly, the use of two separate number pools with entries from each provides extra ‘steps’, ‘events’ or ‘outcomes’ with more prize winning events overall to create for more engaging games. Further, each number pool is usually of a size that is lower than what would be required when creating similar top odds from a single number pool, thereby acting to potentially reduce any adverse ‘perception’ issues that some players may have relating to the otherwise alternative requirement (so as to achieve the same top odds) of using a much larger headline total number pool when using only a single pool of numbers.
In summary, the use of two number pools improves the performance and engagement of lotto games (compared to single pool games) as it: allows for greater manipulations of all the outcomes providing greater design flexibility; increases overall outcomes and prize winning opportunities thereby increasing player engagement; allows for better minimum winning odds than may otherwise be attainable, and each pool acts in concert to multiply up the top odds and top prize winning opportunities.
Examples of such games are the well know multi jurisdiction cross-sold lotto games of EuroMillions and American PowerBall, which each use two main pools. These two games are summarized in Table 1:
EuroMillions and American PowerBall are examples of two differently designed and targeted multi jurisdictional cross-sold games. As can be discerned from Table 1:
As is typical for all recognised lotto games, most of the time both American PowerBall and EuroMillions players will experience very little engagement from successfully achieving matches with their entry numbers, as the combined odds or chances of getting nothing or just one match (0-1) (when using entry numbers that comprise just 5 or 6 numbers), are very likely outcomes. What drives repeat play from these players is being in with the chance to win the enormous top prize.
Notwithstanding, it would be preferable to provide within such lotto draw games, randomly produced outcomes that act to increase the players overall engagement, including by increasing the number of Incremental Successes and close or near wins, with such being experienced more often than currently occurs within most recognised lotto draw games.
Keno draw games have better levels of engagement than typical recognised lotto games.
Keno game/s are resulted by the relevant gaming operator drawing substantially more numbers from the 80 number pool than the number of Spots being played by the player as his/her entry. The Operator always draws 20 numbers from 80 irrespective of the number of Spots being played, and the player matches his/her chosen number of Spots in any order against the 20 numbers drawn by the operator. This feature of drawing substantially more numbers than are contained on an entry results in more matches occurring and provides for stronger levels of player engagement when compared to a typical lotto game, with the most likely outcomes for each Keno game/entry usually being at least 2 matches, which is achieved for 7-Spot through to 10-Spot Keno games. The most likely outcome for each Keno game identified in
As can be seen from
Like lotto games, the above Keno games can have their outcomes altered by the use of additional entries (such as with bonus numbers or multipliers). For example, such as with using an additional entry from another number pool of say 10 or 20 numbers, and players picking a “bonus” (multiplier) number. Again, like in lotto games, the use of such multipliers usually affects all outcomes infrequently (say 1 in 10 games or 1 in 20 games as the case may be) and in the same way, and also results in extra ‘steps’, ‘events’ or ‘outcomes’ with more prize winning events and engagement overall.
In an industry where ‘other’ new gaming options and innovations are continually being undertaken and or sought, and in circumstances where draw games have been experiencing (to varying degrees): long-term pressure from other emerging (and more engaging) gaming options, such as online interactive gaming; growth rates that are generally below many other forms of comparable gambling, and in some cases draw game sales declines; and an increasingly aging player base with difficulties in attracting younger players, it could be initially considered to be somewhat surprising that there has been little to no new draw game innovation (beyond just changing the matrix configuration/s of existing draw games and or introducing add on features, such as extra bonus draws or prize multipliers).
However, the lack of actual draw game innovation cannot be said to be because there is a lack of attention given by the lottery industry to the subject of and need for draw game innovation, as innovation and the need for it are common and top of mind issues, especially as many State Lotteries are experiencing levels of comparatively poor to even negative growth rates compared with other gaming forms. Illustrative of this is the 1.5% decline in all US State lottery sales that occurred between 2015 and 2017.
This lack of draw game innovation can be explained with reference to and consideration of the issues that would need to be addressed and solved, which are both numerous and not easy. Further, the issues are often intertwined to the extent that the majority, if not most or all of the issues, all need to be solved in order to achieve any new successful draw game innovation of the type that is new and different to and beyond just changing the matrix configurations of existing draw games and or adding one or more new add-on features (such as an extra random drawing of some extra weekly ‘millionaire’ winners from the pool of entries in the underlying base lotto game, or adding a new or further bonus number/draw).
American PowerBall is a good example to consider what type of draw game design changes are made in order to meet different outputs as a lotto game matures and evolves in order to meet increasing player numbers and top prize requirements.
The Power Play Multiplier used in American PowerBall was first introduced in 2001. When activated, it multiplies lower-tier winnings by up to 5×, or by up to 10× when the jackpot is under US$150 million. It also automatically doubles the 5+0 prize from US$1 million to US$2 million.
The Power Play Multiplier is drawn separately from the other two draws involving 5/69 and 1/26, so it involves a third draw, with such third draw being from a third pool of numbers. This third pool has varied in size from 30 to 43 numbers. It currently uses 42 numbers when multipliers are up to 5×, and 43 numbers when the 10× multiplier also applies.
As the game and player numbers have progressed, and to achieve the required outputs, the game's designers have had to increase the size of the main number pool, from initially 5/45 to what is currently now used, 5/69, (being an increase by 24 additional numbers).
Offsetting this 24 number increase, and in what appears at first glance to be a significant counter balancing decrease, there is a reduction in the size of the secondary number pool, from initially 45 numbers down to 26 (a reduction of 19 numbers). Accordingly, as the net difference over the two pools is only a net increase of 5 numbers, such a small net change can be perceived overall by many players as being slight and having little or inconsequential effect to the chances of winning. However such a perception is very wrong mathematically, as the corresponding outputs arising from the changes alter the top odds from 1 in 55 million to 1 in 292 million.
All the same, the changes in American PowerBall represent changes merely to the matrix configurations of the game, from 5/45 and 1/45, to 5/69 and 1/26, as opposed to there being any fundamental new draw game innovation.
In any new draw game innovation, issues to be addressed and solved should preferably include:
Preferably, it would also be beneficial to avoid the dilution of the top tier cash prize to multiple lower tier winners, which often occurs in circumstances where the jackpot reaches a ‘must win’ situation and no top tier winner emerges in the relevant draw, such as occurs with the EuroMillions jackpot once it reaches its €190,000,000 ceiling level and is not otherwise won.
Preferably, it would also be beneficial to minimise the number of different pools and draws, preferably, for each relevant game, to just one pool size and to one draw to result each game or in the event that two pools are required to be used, then such pools are low in number size, preferably containing less than 16 numbers each, preferably no more than 9 numbers each.
As can be seen from the above, the issues are numerous and complex, and some run counter intuitive to others. For example, and using ‘traditional thinking and logic’ that can be applied in draw game design, it is counter intuitive to have lower entry numbers and a lower pool size (which can help with player perceptions of winnability) while at the same time achieving increased outputs and outcomes, outputted by an underlying single base game from one number pool and one draw. The counter intuitive nature of this can be seen by reference to the matrix of odds discussed in the examples.
Our WO2016/042489 patent family describes earlier versions of our lotteries based on links between adjacent cells in a 5×5 matrix as the symbols on the matrix are drawn at random.
Our WO2016/042490 patent family describes the mapping technology for displaying a 5×5 matrix and displaying and scoring the number of links as a result of a random draw. (Note that the term “our” in this specification refers to earlier patent families in which the present inventor is also the inventor or a co-inventor, or which is owned by L2W Limited, or LMS Patents (Isle of Man) Limited).
W W Wiperi in GB1,604,303 (1978) teaches how to guarantee a single winner by using a set of cards made up of all of the possible permutations of available numbers. This however still requires a large number of numbers to be drawn before a winner can be declared.
One of the earliest patents for scratchcards is U.S. Pat. No. 4,643,454 which issued in 1987.
In U.S. Pat. No. 7,100,822 PIPER & SMITH taught how to run a cardless lottery in which the interaction of all of the players' entries determined the outcome. It had the problem that the end time was indeterminate unless the promoter interfered to terminate the lottery by injecting random entries.
Our earlier WO 2014/027284 teaches a lottery in which 6 symbols are picked from 20 available symbols, and a means to achieve a single winner in the lottery through a ranking process. As the odds of picking 6 symbols from 20 available symbols in order are 1 in 27,907,200, this means that the chances of achieving a single winner of the lottery, each time it is run, are very high.
Our WO2016/042489 describes earlier versions of our lotteries based on links between adjacent cells in a matrix as the symbols on the matrix are drawn at random.
Our WO2016/042490 describes the mapping technology for displaying matrices and displaying and scoring the number of links as a result of a random draw.
Other patents in this area include:
U.S. Pat. No. 8,764,543 “Method and System for Playing a Networked Bingo Game”
U.S. Pat. No. 8,956,212 “Method of Playing a Bingo-Type Game with a Mechanical Technological Aid, and an Apparatus and Program Product for Playing the Game”
U.S. Pat. No. 7,726,652 “Lottery Game Played on a Geometric Figure Using Indicia with Variable Point Values”
US 2004/0119232 “Bingo Type Numbers Game”
And
GB2395915
US2003144550
US2005059468
US2006249897
US2007135205
US2012122539
US2013252697
US2014011565
U.S. Pat. No. 5,560,610
U.S. Pat. No. 8,602,684
U.S. Pat. No. 8,616,952
All references, including any patents or patent applications cited in this specification are hereby incorporated by reference. No admission is made that any reference constitutes prior art. The discussion of the references states what their authors assert, and the applicants reserve the right to challenge the accuracy and pertinency of the cited documents. It will be clearly understood that, although a number of prior art publications may be referred to herein; this reference does not constitute an admission that the document, act or item of knowledge or any combination thereof was at the priority date, publicly available, known to the public, part of common general knowledge; or known to be relevant to an attempt to solve any problem with which this specification is concerned.
Adjoining or adjacent cells: where two cells have a common boundary or point or edge or corner or vertex, so that a line can be drawn from a first cell to a second cell without crossing any other cell.
Base Game Structure: means the underlying game architecture of each relevant game where such: involves one pool of numbers; a base game play method, and one random draw of some or all the pool numbers to result the relevant game.
Base Game Outputs: means the underlying base game outcomes (with each different outcome known as a Base Output Level) (including the odds outcomes) of a Base Game Structure that are randomly produced and where such underlying base game outputs and or outcomes are not altered or changed as a consequence of any add on feature, for example, such as a change when adding a multiplier feature, which can be added to any Base Game Structure so as to increase and or alter such game's base odds and the number of possible outcomes (for example, such as involving the addition of a 1/10 multiplier feature using an additional number pool and draw).
For the avoidance of doubt: the Base Game Outputs of the various identified Base Game Structures and the Most Frequently Attained Base Output Level (which is identified by a single bolded black lined boxing effect around each relevant level) for each Base Game Structure in respect of exampled: base Lotto and Keno games are set out in
Card: refers to an entry in a lottery containing at least two or more pre-populated Playing Areas and a card ID. This entry is typically printed on card or paper (hence the name) but can also include a “virtual card” displayed on a screen of a gaming machine, computer or mobile device. As will become apparent the most preferred card layouts have two or more matrices (each matrix comprising one Playing Area) on each card.
Cells: defined areas smaller than the playing area; each cell separated from another cell by a visible boundary, and each cell capable of containing/displaying a symbol. Each cell has a number of adjoining cells within a playing area.
Closed Loop Draw: means any random draw used to result any relevant game where the order of the draw, instead of being displayed in a linear form (as usually occurs in lotto draws), is displayed in a closed loop form where any two numbers that would not otherwise be in direct sequence or contact with each other (or have a recognizable direct association) in any linear display of a relevant draw order (for example as would be the case with the first and last drawn numbers) would, as a result of being displayed in a closed loop form, be in direct sequence or contact (or have a recognizable direct association) with each other. For the avoidance of doubt: Three examples of a closed loop draw are set out in:
Comprise: It is acknowledged that the term ‘comprise’ may, under varying jurisdictions, be attributed with either an exclusive or an inclusive meaning. For the purpose of this specification, and unless otherwise noted, the term ‘comprise’ shall have an inclusive meaning—i.e. that it will be taken to mean an inclusion of not only the listed components it directly references, but also other non-specified components or elements. This rationale will also be used when the term ‘comprised’ or ‘comprising’ is used in relation to one or more steps in a method or process.
Incremental Success(es): means, in respect of each relevant Base Game Structure, the measurable attainment based on random probability of each Base Output Level towards and including (but not exceeding) the Most Frequently Attained Base Output Level.
Link-lottery: a type of lottery in which links are created between adjoining cells within each of one or more playing areas on a card entered in the lottery, if when symbols are drawn and displayed in a linear or loop sequence, two neighbouring symbols in that sequence also are present in adjoining cells in at least one of the playing areas on the card. This type of lottery is described in WO2012/042489 and WO2012/042490. It is sometimes referred to herein as a “Linka game” or “Linka lottery” or as a suffix in games labelled “KenoLinka” OR “LottoLinka”.
Link: a situation where two adjoining cells contain symbols which are neighbours in the list of symbols drawn in the lottery; links can be designated graphically by a line or an arrow crossing the boundary between adjacent cells.
Matrix: refers to a generally rectangular array of cells capable of containing unique symbols, typically numbers or letters, arranged in rows and columns. For example, the most preferred matrix used in this invention is a 3×3 matrix of cells as there are three rows and three columns of cells.
Matrices: means two or more Matrix.
Most Frequently Attained Base Output Level: means the most frequently attained base output level as determined by reference to the mathematical chances/odds for each base output level from amongst all the Base Game Outputs produced by a relevant Base Game Structure.
For the avoidance of doubt: the Most Frequently Attained Base Output Level of various Base Game Structures in respect of the 6/49 Lotto game and the Keno games are set out in
Playing Area: means a two dimension collection of neighbouring cells in which the majority of cells have 3 or more neighbours, as explained in the Statement of Invention. A preferred type of playing area is a matrix having rectangular arrangement of cells in rows and columns as this is easier for a participant to check for links between neighbouring cells.
It is an object of the invention to provide a set of cards for a link-lottery using a small number pool or a small pool of symbols that ameliorates some of the disadvantages and limitations of the known art or at least to provide the public with a useful choice.
In a first aspect the invention provides a set of cards for a link-lottery wherein each card contains at least two playing areas, each playing area comprising a plurality of adjoining cells, wherein each cell contains a symbol selected from a set of symbols, the symbol in each cell being different from the symbol in the other cells on that playing area, wherein the size of the set of symbols is between 6 and 16 symbols, means for displaying or recording links between adjoining cells in each playing area if the adjoining cells contain symbols which have been drawn or displayed in sequence in the link-lottery.
Preferably, the symbols may be numerals, as commonly used in lotteries such as Lotto or Keno. These may be Arabic numerals, as these symbols are easily recognised and easily distinguished from one another. They may also be sequential or non-sequential.
However, it will be appreciated that a wide range of other symbols fall within the scope of the present invention, so long as the symbols in a given set are readily distinguishable one from the other. In some embodiments we have created cards using well-known cartoon characters, and in others we have used letters a selection of letters from the alphabet but examples of other sets of symbols include and are not limited to for example the images of playing cards, or pictures of dominoes.
Preferably, each playing area comprises a generally two-dimensional array of cells. Reference to “a generally two-dimensional array” includes both two-dimensional configurations per se, and configurations wherein the array of cells has a three-dimensional element (such as a degree of depth or height between adjoining cells or between different regions of the array of cells), for example for decorative purposes. All such embodiments are to be considered a “generally two-dimensional array of cells” so long as, when the playing card is viewed substantially from the front, the player will be able to determine the links between cells containing symbols when the link-lottery is drawn.
Preferably, at least the majority of the cells in each playing area adjoin at least three other cells in that playing area giving rise to the possibility of at least three chances to form a link between each of said majority of cells and its adjoining cells when the link-lottery is drawn.
More preferably, all of the cells in each playing area adjoin at least three other cells in that playing area.
Preferably the at least two playing areas are of different sizes, wherein the larger playing area comprises more cells than the smaller playing area.
Preferably the at least two playing areas are of different shapes. Preferably at least one of the playing areas on each card is a matrix of m×n cells. Preferably at least one of m or n is 3 or 4.
Preferably m and n have equal values.
More preferably, each card has two 3×3 matrices. The combination of these two matrices and the number of possible adjoining cells in each matrix results in a player always having at least two links when the nine available symbols have been drawn. For example in a single 3×3 matrix the corner cells each have 3 adjoining cells (e.g. side, side, corner) so 3 possibilities for links, the outer middle cells have 5 possibilities for links as each has 3 sides and 2 inwardly facing corners, and the central cell has 8 possibilities for links as it has 4 sides and 4 corners surrounded by other cells.
The odds table, charts and Figures discussed later in this specification show the preferred card configuration of two 3×3 matrices has a most probable outcome of six links per card, meaning the player has experienced successes by achieving 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5 and then 6 links and making the player feel that they have come very close to winning, if for example prizes are allocated from eight or more links. With two 3×3 matrices on the card, making use of the same nine symbols on each matrix, albeit in different layouts on each matrix, with a linear draw there is a maximum of eight possible links per matrix, and hence a maximum of 16 links across the two matrices. In other words the number of potential links on a card is additive across the number of matrices on the card, but the number of permutations of possible card layouts is multiplicative based on the number of permutations of the layout of the cells in each matrix. This type of matrix game is attractive as the player will quickly see a number of links being built up on their card as the symbols are drawn by the lottery operator.
Preferably each card has designated locations on the card for recording the number of links per playing area.
In some cases, each card has an area for recording the combined total number of links.
In other cases, each card has an area for recording the number of matrices with the same number of links.
The inventive step according to this aspect of the invention is the provision of a limited number of card layouts which can be used with a small pool of symbols, this pool of symbols being between 6 and 16 symbols, with symbols arranged in at least two playing areas on each card layout. Each playing area is a generally two-dimensional arrays of cells, such that the majority of cells in each playing area adjoin at least three other cells in that playing area giving rise to the possibility of at least three chances to form a link between a cell and its adjoining cells. This configuration gives rise to a large number of “near win experiences”. By counting the total number of links achieved on a card (or the number of matrices with the same number of links) after a draw of the symbols one after the other, the total number of links can be additive but the number of card permutations is multiplicative.
In another aspect the invention provides a set of cards for a link-lottery wherein each card contains at least two playing areas, each playing area comprising adjoining cells in a primarily two dimensional configuration, wherein at least a majority of cells of each playing area have at least 3 adjoining cells, wherein each cell on each playing area contains a symbol from a set of symbols, wherein the symbol on each cell of each playing area is different from the symbols on the other cells on that playing area, wherein the size of the set of symbols is between 6 and 16 symbols, wherein each card has an area for recording the sequence of the symbols drawn during the lottery.
As shown in the odds table for cards with two or more matrices, the large number of possible card layouts with two or more matrices means that the same layout of the matrices on the cards is unlikely to be duplicated for a winning combination, so that an ordered or random allocation of symbols to each matrix can be used when generating a set of cards.
In some cases it is preferred that the set of cards is generated in such a way that each card differs from each other card, although it is likely that one of the matrices on a card may appear on one or more other cards—but it is not likely that both matrices will appear on one or more other cards. This may involve the ordered creation of all possible matrix layouts (in the case of 3×3 matrix this is 9 permutation, expressed as 9!), and the ordered creation all permutations of all matrix layouts (9!×9!) or a subset of all possible such combinations.
Preferably each card has an area for recording the number of links in each playing area resulting from a sequential draw of the set of symbols.
Preferably each playing area on a card is a matrix of m×n cells.
Preferably at least one of m or n is 3 or 4.
Preferably m and n have equal values.
In another aspect the invention provides a set of cards for a link-lottery wherein each card contains at least two matrices, each of the matrices being a matrix of m×n cells, each cell containing a symbol from a set of symbols, the symbol in each cell of each of the at least two matrices being different from the symbols in the other cells of that matrix, wherein the size of the set of symbols is between 6 and 16 symbols, each card further comprising means for displaying or recording links between adjoining cells if adjoining cells contain symbols which have been drawn in sequence.
Preferably at least one of the matrices on each card has at least 3 rows or 3 columns of symbols.
Preferably, for each card in the set of cards the matrices are populated with the symbols in a pattern unique to that card and different from the other cards in the set.
In practice each card will be unique within a set as it will have a machine readable code unique to that card.
In a further aspect the invention provides a set of cards for a link-lottery, each card having at least two matrices, each of the matrices having a defined layout comprising at least a subset of a set of symbols, wherein the set of symbols comprises between 6 and 16 different symbols, wherein each symbol in the set of symbols appears no more than once on each matrix, so that each card has a different layout of symbols from each other card, and wherein at least one of the matrices on each card is selected from the group comprising matrices of the following sizes: 2×3, 3×3, 3×4, and 4×4.
Preferably each card has at least one additional matrix of 2×2 configuration.
Preferably each card also includes instructions for playing the game based on a draw of the symbols and the creation of links, and prize rules setting out the number of links needed to claim a prize.
Preferably each card is a scratch card and the symbols on the matrices are hidden under a removable layer, so that the symbols can only be revealed by removing the removable layer.
Preferably each card is a scratch card and the draw of the symbols is hidden under a removable layer, so that the draw of the symbols can only be revealed by removing the removable layer.
Preferably each card also includes at least one machine readable code.
In a further aspect the invention provides apparatus for conducting a link-lottery, including a server, a communication network with a plurality of retail outlets, at least one printer at each outlet, and set of virtual cards for the link-lottery, wherein each virtual card is stored in the server with instructions to allow individual physical cards to be printed on demand on a paper or card or other substrate at one of the retail outlets in return for an entry in a lottery, each virtual card having stored information to allow the printing on the physical card of at least two playing areas, each playing area made up of adjoining cells in a generally two dimensional configuration so that the majority of cells on each playing area have at least 3 adjoining cells, each cell containing a different symbol from the other cells on that playing area wherein the size of the set of symbols is between 6 and 16 symbols and wherein each virtual card differs from each other virtual card in the set, each virtual card containing an area for recording the sequence of the symbols drawn during the lottery and preferably containing instructions in relation to printing and recording the sequence of the symbols drawn on the physical card.
In another aspect the invention provides apparatus for conducting a link-lottery, including a server, a communication network, and a plurality of visual display units (VDUs) each capable of communicating with the server, and set of virtual cards for the link-lottery, wherein each virtual card is stored in the server with instructions to allow individual cards to be presented on demand to one of the visual display units (VDUs) on receipt of an entry in a lottery, each virtual card having stored information to allow the display on one of the virtual cards on the VDU of at least two playing areas, each playing area comprising adjoining cells in a generally two dimensional configuration so that the majority of cells have at least 3 adjoining cells, each cell containing a different symbol from the other cells on that playing area, and wherein the size of the set of symbols is between 6 and 16 symbols and wherein each virtual card differs from each other virtual card, or based on random possibilities each virtual card is very likely to differ from each other virtual card, and instructions to display on the VDU of an area for recording the sequence of the symbols drawn during the lottery.
Preferably each visual display unit is adapted to display the ranking of each cell in a matrix as each cell number is selected during the course of a game.
Preferably each visual display unit is adapted to display links between sequentially selected symbols in adjacent cells.
Preferably the plurality of visual display units are adapted to receive and send game information from and to the game server which is adapted to (a) record entries, (b) use a random or pseudo random selection process for the symbols during the course of a game and (c) to relay information on the selection of the symbols to each visual display unit.
Preferably the plurality of visual display units are or form part of casino machines which are connected to a game server by a secure network.
Preferably the plurality of visual display units are or form part of machines chosen from the group comprising: personal computers, gaming machines, tablets, smart phones, hand held or portable machines, and the like.
In another aspect the invention provides a set of cards for use in a link-lottery in which symbols are drawn in sequence from a set of s different symbols, each card having an area for recording the sequence of the symbols drawn during the lottery and at least two matrices each having a layout of adjoining cells in a substantially rectangular array having rows and columns wherein each cell contains a symbol from the set of s symbols wherein s is from 6 to 16, and at least one of the matrices having a minimum of three rows or three columns, and the layout of the symbols on each card differing from the layout of the symbols on each other card or based on random possibilities being very likely to differ from the layout of symbols of each other virtual card.
Preferably the layout of the symbols on each matrix on a card differs from the layout of the symbols on the other matrices on that card.
Preferably each card has two or more matrices of identical size.
Preferably each card has two matrices of 3×3 configuration
Preferably each card has three 3×3 matrices
Preferably each card has a set of four 3×3 matrices.
Preferably each card has two or more matrices of different size.
Preferably each card is a scratch card, such that removal of at least part of the scratchable layer to produce a “reveal state”, reveals the result of a draw.
Preferably the reveal state also shows the resulting links from that draw having being displayed on the matrices.
Preferably each card also includes a machine-readable code.
Preferably the symbols are numbers.
In a further aspect the invention provides a link-lottery comprising a plurality of tickets/cards each having the same set of symbols as all other tickets in that lottery, each set of symbols being arranged on each of a pair of identical m×n matrices each having a total of m×n cell locations, where m can be 2,3, or 4 (the number of rows or columns in each matrix) and n can be 3 or 4 (conversely the number of columns or rows in the matrix) with each matrix being made up of the same set of symbols but the layout of the symbols (i.e. cell location of each symbol) differing from matrix to matrix, the set of symbols being made up of from 6 to 16 symbols (the product of m×n), wherein the symbols can be ranked (drawn in a random sequence) and links displayed when/where two or more adjacent symbols are sequentially related.
Preferably the symbols are a set of numbers.
The symbols or numbers need not be sequential, and it is possible to have a mixed collection of symbols, e.g. A, 7, Z, +, 22, Q, 9.
Preferably the set of numbers comprises 9 sequential numbers arranged in different layouts on a pair of 3×3 matrices on each ticket or card. (Such a set is easy to check as these are the most commonly used numbers and hence easy to distinguish one from the other).
In a further aspect the invention provides a set of cards for a link-lottery in which numbers are drawn at random, each card having at least two matrices capable of containing at least a portion of a set of s numbers with s being from 6 to 16, at least one of the matrices having a minimum of three rows or three columns (giving a 2×3 matrix as the minimum matrix size, matching the lower limit of six numbers) and a 4×4 matrix as the maximum matrix size, to match the 16 numbers, allowing for two or more matrices selected form the group comprising 2×3, 3×3, 3×4, and 4×4 matrices, wherein, once each of the matrices on each card is populated with the set of s numbers, the layout of the numbered matrices on each card is different to that of every other card in the set.
Preferably the layout of the numbers on each matrix on each card differs from the layout of the numbers on the other matrices on that card.
Preferably each card has two or more matrices of identical size.
Most preferably each card has at least two matrices of 3×3 configuration.
Preferably each card has three 3×3 matrices.
Preferably each card has a set of four 3×3 matrices.
Preferably each card has two or more matrices of different size.
Preferably each card is a scratch card, such that removal of the scratchable layer produces a “reveal state” showing the result of a draw
Preferably the reveal state also shows the resulting links from that draw having being displayed on the matrices
Preferably each card also includes a machine-readable code.
These and other aspects of the inventions, which will be considered in all their novel aspects, will become apparent from the following descriptions, which are given by the way of examples only, with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
The following description will describe the invention in relation to preferred embodiments of the invention, namely a set of cards for a lottery using small pool of symbols. The invention is in no way limited to these preferred embodiments as they are purely to exemplify the invention only and that possible variations and modifications would be readily apparent without departing from the scope of the invention.
Described below is a new draw game innovation. In summary, it address and solves all the previously discussed issues, as overviewed and summarised in
The sets of cards of this invention can be used for lotteries of different sizes, and can be configured for state lotteries using the land-based retail outlets, in which the cards are printed at the time of purchase by the customer, or they can be pre-printed as for example with the scratch to win type of lottery card in which the draw has already taken place, but the results of the draw are concealed underneath the removable layer on the card.
In both situations the customer does not have the ability to determine or select the layout of the symbols on the matrices, nor does the customer have the ability to influence the random draw of the symbols and hence the number of links on the customers card.
In the state lottery situation where cards are either pre-printed and distributed to the retail outlets, or more likely are printed on demand at a land-based retail outlet when a customer purchases an entry into the lottery and is supplied with a printed card (sometimes called a ticket) displaying the random allocation of the symbols on each of the matrices, the number of possible different permutations of layouts on each matrix or the number of possible permutations of two different layouts on a card together with the increased permutations from the in-game multipliers is sufficiently high that it is unlikely that two players would ever be provided with or have as their entry identical Cards. It is possible that two players may have one matrix layout in common, but it is extremely unlikely that just by chance two players would each have a Card containing the same two identical matrix layouts. Even then it is possible for the software, which controls the printing of the cards, to prevent such an occurrence.
In order to minimise the risk of fraud, it is preferred that in the case of a state lottery that the printing of the cards at the land-based point of sale includes a unique machine-readable code on each card, which machine-readable code and card layouts is stored in a secure database, and the card has other security features, not readily apparent to the customer, which can be used to verify a winning entry, and minimise the risk of fraudulent attempts to print or otherwise recreate a card after the draw has taken place.
It is also possible for the operator of the state lottery to program the various card layouts and to store each of them in a secure database together with a unique key for each of these card layouts, so that the stored layouts can be checked before issuance, to eliminate any possible duplicates. These stored or virtual card layouts can then be disseminated at random to the various land-based retail outlets, and allocated to customers by being printed on demand. If the operator wishes to ensure that a complete set of all possible permutations of card layouts are created and stored in the secure database, then it is preferable that the cards are allocated to the different retail outlets at random, even if the cards have not been created by a random process.
Preferably, the customer has no control over the layout of the symbols on each of the matrices on the card although it is possible that the customer could be allowed to select the position of the layout of symbols on one matrix. (This restriction is necessary because if a customer was allowed to select the position of the layouts of symbols on each of the matrices, then the customer could increase the chances of winning by selecting the same layout positions on both matrices).The completion of the lottery involves the random draw of the symbols and their display in the sequence of their draw, the chance of winning is unpredictable, but the odds table shows that the customer will more likely than not have a large number of Incremental Successes and near win experiences where they'd come very close to gaining enough links to win a prize. For example,
In the case of scratch cards, it is preferable that the required set of cards is pre-printed and that the draw has occurred prior to printing of that set of cards, with a set of cards being seeded with one or more winning cards. Each card is then covered with a suitable removable layer using relevant scratch card technology, where the removable layer is typically a rubberised ink which can be scratched off to reveal the draw, and in this case the links on each of the matrices. Once the scratch cards have been prepared and the winning information has been hidden, the cards then need to be distributed at random to the different retail outlets, since it is the distribution of the cards which is the primary random step of card disbursement so that a customer purchasing a scratch card has no way of knowing whether the card is a possible winning card until he has taken possession of the card and then removed at least part of the removable layer to reveal the outcome.
In respect of Linka games, the number of Base Game Outputs and the mathematical odds of each output are dependent on the size of the number pool and the corresponding size and shape of the relevant matrices being used.
Preferably, the size of the number pool is equal to the size of the relevant matrix being used in a game (and multiple matrices of the same size do not require any increase in the number pool or to the number of draws). For example, a number pool of 9 numbers can be used in a single game that uses two or more matrices of a 3×3 configuration (each 3×3 matrix having a space for each of the 9 numbers), and the single game is resulted by a single draw of 9 numbers, with such draw used to determine the sum total of links achieved on all the matrices.
Preferably, the rule for forming each link on each relevant matrix is as follows: a link is formed between any two numbers that are:
In sequence in a random draw, and
Are adjacent on the matrix (in any direction).
This rule results in the maximum number of links that can be achieved on each matrix being either:
The odds for linka games have been determined by using Monte Carlo simulations, as the probability of all the different Base Game Outputs from the various matrix sizes and combinations cannot be easily predicted. In respect of a linka game that use a single larger matrix size (such as a single 5×5 or 6×6 matrix) as in our earlier patent specifications, or a linka game that is designed to use the accumulation of links across multi matrices (such as two or more matrices each of a 3×3, 3×4 or 4×4 configurations), the determination of all the outcomes are potentially impossible or at least impractical to do any other way. In the odds tables we have used run sizes of at least 109 (1 billion or more). Examples of run sizes are set out in Table 2 below:
The importance of undertaking very long run sizes is mainly in respect of Base Game Structures (with and/or without multipliers) where the very top odds are very high so as to more accurately/precisely determine such top odds. For example, the top odds of the 2 matrices of 3×4 have been Monte Carlo determined at 1 in 2,982,446,818 from a total run size of 11,929,787,273 (11.9 billion). This run size produced only 4 top outcomes, which shows that the run size of 11.9 billion is too small to accurately determine the top odds for 2 matrices of 3×4. However, we can sanity check this top odds figure by reference to the top odds for a single matrix of 3×4, which has been very accurately determined at 1 in 51,154.11 from a total run size of 48,800,000,000 (48.8 billion). This run size produced 953,980 outputs at the top outcome level (11 links), which is more than sufficient for very accurate determination of the top odds of a single matrix of 3×4. To then sanity check the expected top odds for 2 matrices of 3×4, this can be checked by undertaking the following squaring calculation: 51,154.11=2,616,742,970. This check is fairly close to the 1 in 2.98 billion figure achieved from the above mentioned run size of 11.9 billion.
Preferably, when determining the top odds of any relevant game by Monte Carlo simulation, the run size should produce at least 1,000 outputs or more at the top odds level.
It is considered important that for there to be any new draw game innovation, there needs to be a core innovation first, and it must be in respect of an underlying Base Game Structure, and not as may be manipulated by adding in any external non unique add-on features and or additions and or multipliers which can usually be applied to most if not all Base Game Structures, for example such as may be achieved by an additional 1/10 multiplier from an extra number pool (of 10 numbers), with the player selecting one number from that extra pool, and an extra draw of 1 number from that extra pool to result the multiplier.
The considerations undertaken in the development of this new draw game included the following core considerations:
Firstly, the initial considerations were focused on the Base Game Outputs of various Base Game Structures of certain selected and recognised Lotto and Keno games as identified in
By way of a further illustrative and visual comparison, the preferred Base Game Outputs of the selected Linka game and the Base Game Outputs of the standard 6/49 Lotto game the 8-Spot and 10-Spot Keno games were each charted to show for each of the four games, the range of outputs and the chances of each output occurring—see
Three of the features considered as being critical and to be contained within any new Base Game Structure derived from a linka draw game innovation, and for such to be compared against the comparable performance of the existing Base Game Structures of 6/49 Lotto game and existing Keno draw games (for 4, 6, 8 and 10-Spot Keno), the three features being that:
Preferably: the top odds are to be in excess of the top odds in EuroMillions and American PowerBall; and with the ability to have frequent winnings of the top prizes; and with design flexibility such that the overall game can be changed to deliver different top odds ranges and other outputs without any change to the underlying Base Game Structure.
Note: that columns B. and D. in
As can be seen from
The above shows that while increasing the size of the underling linka game derived from any Base Game Structure using a single matrix does significantly increases the top odds and the total number of Base Game Outputs, the draw backs when increasing the size are the use of an increased number pool and, as can be seen by reference to the single matrix Base Game Structures set out in columns A, C, E and F, increasing the size of the underling game derived from a Base Game Structure using a single matrix does not materially add to or increase the levels of player engagements that are generally experienced by the majority of players of such games as there is no material corresponding increase to the level or number of Incremental Successes.
When increasing the size of a game, the above discussed issue of there not being a correspondingly similar level of increase to the Incremental Successes to be experienced by the majority of players also exists in the Base Game Structure of all recognised Lotto and Keno draw games, and this can be seen in the Base Game Structures for the Lotto and Keno games identified in
As mentioned previously, and summarised again, the three features considered as being critical and to be contained within any new Base Game Structure derived from any linka draw game innovation are that:
While the single matrix Base Game Structures (
The two matrix Base Game Structures as set out in columns B. and D. of
The range of Base Game Outputs is also superior to the relevant single matrix game using the same number pool size, with the 9 and 12 number pool games having respectively 16 and 22 Base Game Outputs (compared to 8 and 11).
Importantly, both these two matrix Base Game Structures have extremely slim chances of getting game outcomes with only a low level of Incremental Successes, as in respect of both these Base Game Structures, it is almost certain, based on the probabilities, that the number of Incremental Successes in each will be 6 links or more, as this occurs respectively on the probabilities, 98.19% and 97.91% of the time, which can be determined by reference to
In comparison, in respect of the single 4×4 matrix Base Game Structure using a number pool of 16 numbers as set out in column E. of
In these important respects, the single 4×4 matrix Base Game Structure is significantly inferior to the two 3×3 matrix Base Game Structure. Further, it uses a number pool size of 16, which is 1.8× greater than the 9 number pool used in the two 3×3 matrix Base Game Structure. Accordingly, and because the two 3×3 matrix Base Game Structure is capable of very high odds (with the use of in game multipliers and no additional draw (or if with an additional draw, then also of a low number set), as discussed later) the single 4×4 matrix Base Game Structure is not part of this invention.
A first example is a card having a single 3×3 matrix as shown in
Leaving aside the possibility of prize multipliers or additional choices by the customer, the Base Game Structure involves: one number pool of nine numbers; the nine numbers distributed in different locations on the 3×3 matrix; there is one random draw involving those nine numbers used to result the game; and the formation of links follows the method set out in
The draw can either be a linear draw or a Closed Loop Draw. For example with nine symbols drawn one after the other and displayed in a single line (this is called a linear draw) there is a maximum number of eight potential links on a matrix using the linking rules set out in
The preferred card layout is shown in
The two 3×3 matrix Base Game Structure as set out in column B of
For the reasons set out, this two matrix Base Game Structure, as set out in columns B of
As can be seen from
While the Base Game Structures of the single matrix linka games produce increased levels of Incremental Successes when compared to comparable Lotto and Keno games, it was not initially appreciated that the number and makeup of Incremental Successes arising from a single game using two (or more) matrices as described above, would result in the outstanding outputs as described above. These outputs are exceptional and they can be further enhanced by the use of in game multipliers.
By way of explanation and using the change in odds and outcomes from a single 3×3 matrix to a double 3×3 matrix, the very top and very bottom odds have been compounded (by a squaring factor) which has a huge effect on both ends of the odds spectrum, decreasing exponentially the relevant top and bottom odds. This effect is still felt but is not as great for the second top and bottom odds. However, as this consideration moves towards the middle of the odds table, these middle odds are generally unaffected and display odds levels that are comparable with the single matrix. This effect is demonstrated in Table 3 below.
Note: The Illustrative Increase Factor shown in column E of Table 3 is, as described, illustrative only as it is difficult to undertake exact comparisons. For example, taking the 4 Link/8 & 9 Links comparison in the centre of the table (identified with a bolded border), while the 8 and 9 links outcomes in the two matrices are shown at odds of 1 in 4.8 and 1 in 4.2 respectively, if these odds were to be combined so as to better equate to the odds of 1 in 3.2 in the single matrix, the combined odds of getting 8 or 9 links would reduce the face value of the odds to 1 in 2.2, thereby resulting in a decrease factor (being less than 1) of 0.69×.
The design specifications of the new Linka draw game innovation are based on the preferred Base Game Structure. The core specifications are set out in Table 4 below:
This game is played on an entry Card (
In this exampled game, it is not an option for the player to select the Pick 2 multiplier with knowledge of the order in which the two matrices are or have been populated as this would allow players to improve their chances to win the very top jackpot prize by choosing Pick 2 numbers that were: (a) not contained in the centre squares of the matrices; and (b) located next to each other on each of the matrices (and which therefore could form links, for example such as the location of numbers 2 & 3 or 6 & 8 on the two matrices contained in
This exampled game can allow the player to select the Pick 2 multiplier, but only if the player is committed to the entry and only without knowledge of the position of the numbers on the two matrices.
This game can be modified slightly to allow for the player to select the Pick 2 modifier with the knowledge of the position of the numbers on the two matrices, with such modification involving a second draw of 2/9. In this event there would need to be new Monte Carlo simulations run to determine any change in the odds (in particular the top odds) as set out in
In all other respects, the operation of this new draw game can be determined from
The face of the card has a machine-readable code at the top left for security and identity purposes, it has a linear sequence of cells to enable the player to record the draw in order of the numbers drawn, to assist the player in then identifying and recording the links in the two playing areas. The playing areas comprise two 3×3 matrices, with individual numbers appearing once only on each matrix, and with the layout of the numbers on the matrices being randomly achieved, with the numbers appearing in different positions on the different matrices. There are a number of different ways of achieving such layouts, and whilst epos makes it possible to randomly generate these layouts at the point of sale, it is preferable that the layouts are pre-established, and stored in a central server, and then distributed to the retail outlets as needed so that the distribution of the layouts to customers is in itself a random process. On the face of the card there is provision for the player to record the results of the number of links, and any other price multiplier consistent with the prizes and instructions for that particular lottery. The reverse of the card is shown in
The player will also have identified that the central cells contain numbers five and four which were drawn first and second, meaning that the player will achieve a total of two Lucky Links.
In
This involves a card having four 3×3 matrices preferably side-by-side as shown in
The card is similar to that of
Reverse of the card shown in
This information is expanded in
This is the KenoLinka type of game which is illustrated in
This KenoLinka game has large player choice, with a number of sub games, all resulted from one draw of 9 numbers. This choice is similar to that available in the Keno games in set out in
It has been given the name KenoLinka because it is a draw game that has player choice and because it has some similarity with the odds profile of the Keno games.
Pattern A, by 5×—similar to the odds of getting pattern A (1 in 4.5);
Pattern B, by 50×;—not similar to the odds of getting pattern B (1 in 9)
Pattern C, by 100×;—not similar to the odds of getting pattern C (1 in 18)
Pattern D, by 200×—not similar to the odds of getting pattern D (1 in 36)
Excluding pattern A, achieving the maximum number of links on each of the other patterns B-D is about 5× harder than the associated odds of getting the pattern. This is because patterns B-D do not allow for a lucky link involving the middle square and a corner, but only allow a bar link, like that shown in pattern D. As a consequence it becomes much more difficult to achieve the top number of 8 Links on the Card. In essence the use of a bar pattern restricts the number of top link outcomes.
As an illustrative example, lucky link with pattern “B” is an event that will happen on average 1 game out of every 9. While the odds of achieving this lucky link are 1 in 9, this modifier's occurrence is not independent of the number of links formed. If it were independent, then the odds of getting any number of links in combination with getting the lucky link with pattern B would be nine times harder. The table in
This creates a striking advantage: it provides comparatively good chances for players to achieve the extra win (1 in 9 for pattern B), and it makes the top outcome of 8 Links much harder to achieve (1 in 49), thus allowing the operator to offer a much bigger top prize than would otherwise be able to be done. This is a unique factor, which flows throughout the KenoLinka number games.
Nevertheless these cards with unequal matrices have been included to show that with a linear draw, for example the card of
In this example, the playing area 102 on the right of the card has for example 9 cells but the odds of achieving the different number of links on each of these matrices will differ from that of the more regular 3×3 matrix described above in
This drawing has been included to show that the game can be played with cards having unusual playing areas, so long as a majority of the cells in that playing area have three or more neighbours. The playing areas need not be the same shape or size and need not have the same number of cells.
Card 100 shows only the two playing areas (as the other card information has been omitted for ease of explanation). It has two irregular playing areas 101 and 102. Area 101 has 12 “cells” one of which is labelled 105 (in this case irregular areas separated from other “cells” by boundary lines), and another 106. Each cell contains a symbol, in this case a numeral from 1-12.
These numerals will be drawn at random during the lottery to determine if links can be recorded on the playing areas as described above. Playing area 102 has a different shape and different number of cells, one of which is labelled 105A and another is labelled 107. Most cells in each playing area have at least 3 neighbours. For example cell 105 is bounded by the cells containing numbers 2, 7, 8 and arguably the cell containing the numeral 1—this shows a problem with these irregular layouts as the layouts need to be unambiguous in terms of neighbouring cells—hence requiring more time in their preparation for printing than the much simpler rectangular matrices of cells described above.
Cells 106 and 107 illustrate an advantage of this irregular layout in that these two cells around the periphery of the playing areas can potentially have a large number of neighbouring cells. For example cell 106 contains the number 4 and has neighbouring cells containing the numbers 2, 5, 11 (at one vertex of this cell), 12, 9 (at vertex), 3 and 10 (at one vertex of this cell). Cell 107 has fewer neighbours but still more than 3 neighbours.
Since playing area 101 has more cells than playing area 102, 11 cells compared to 9 cells, this means that the numbers drawn are preferably from 1 to 11 allowing for a full contingent of links in area 101 but giving rise to discontinuities in play of area 102 when numbers 10 or 11 are drawn. Conversely the numbers drawn could be the smaller set of 9 numbers creating a discontinuity in the play of area 101.
The preferred set of cards allows the operation of a lottery with a small number pool (from 6 to 16 numbers) yet allows the complexity of different numbers of potential links as shown in the odds tables in the drawings.
By producing cards with 2 or more matrices the number of permutations is multiplicative though the number of symbols drawn to complete the lottery remains the same, as the same symbols appear on each matrix—albeit in different locations. In addition by having two or more 3×3 matrices on the card the player cannot have an outcome of no links at all—as the player will always have at least two links or above, which enhances player satisfaction, and the number of near win experiences (where the player achieves a significant number of the required links for a win) is increased, making the game more interesting and tantalising for players.
In particular:
The set of cards of the invention are typically used in State Lotteries to raise funds for a State Government. They are a tangible and saleable commodity with an interaction between the different cards in a set, as each card in the set contains the same set of symbols but the layout of the symbols on each card is different and hence the number of links achieved by players in a link-lottery will be different. The use of two or more matrices enhances the player engagement by creating numerous “near win” experiences. In enhancing player engagement and hence promoting the popularity of the game provided by the present set of cards, the invention promises to be of significant use in raising funds alongside and/or independently of existing Government-run Lottery schemes and models. A system of storing card information and printing cars on demand is also described, as is the production and use of “scratch to win” cards. The invention can also be used in the manufacture of and form part of casino or slot machines.
The Invention may also broadly be said to consist in the parts, elements and features referred or indicated in the specification, individually or collectively, and any or all combinations of any of two or more parts, elements, members or features and where specific integers are mentioned herein which have known equivalents such equivalents are deemed to be incorporated herein as if individually set forth.
The examples and the particular proportions set forth are intended to be illustrative only and are thus non-limiting.
The invention has been described with particular reference to certain embodiments thereof. It will be understood that various modifications can be made to the above-mentioned embodiment without departing from the ambit of the invention. The skilled reader will also understand the concept of what is meant by purposive construction.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 739727 | Feb 2018 | NZ | national |
| 741302 | Apr 2018 | NZ | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/NZ2019/050008 | 2/5/2019 | WO | 00 |
