US20090291747A1

US20090291747A1 - Method and system for parimutuel wagering on outcomes

Info

Publication number: US20090291747A1
Application number: US12/170,247
Authority: US
Inventors: John M. Aaron
Original assignee: Individual
Current assignee: Individual
Priority date: 2008-05-21
Filing date: 2008-07-09
Publication date: 2009-11-26

Abstract

A method for determining an award for at least one winner 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.

Description

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/124,702 filed May 21, 2008 and claims the benefit of and priority to that application. The entirety of that application is hereby incorporated by reference.

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. 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'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'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'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;

FIG. 7 illustrates a risk mitigation curve, in accordance with an aspect of the invention;

FIG. 8 illustrates one embodiment of a method in accordance with one aspect of the invention;

FIG. 9 illustrates one embodiment of a method in accordance with one aspect of the invention; and

FIG. 10 illustrates one embodiment of a method in accordance with one 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&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≦Won 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, technical challenges encountered, political challenges encountered, policy matters directly affecting the project, differential taxation matters 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'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 one embodiment, a graphical user interface is provided to illustrate to a user any previous betting patterns. The interface displays wagering patterns for at least one time span, and preferably multiple time spans. For example, the interface displays a number of intermediate stages of a project and a final outcome, as well as any prior wagering on the outcome of each intermediate stage and the final outcome. In such a fashion, a wagerer can ascertain a wagering pattern, and place additional wagers with this additional information. For example, a wagerer with knowledge that many of the problems likely to result in project incompletion will occur in the first two or three wagering periods can use wagering patterns in those time spans to gain additional confidence in their own wagers.
Thus, FIG. 8 illustrates one embodiment of a method 800 for receiving a plurality of wagers as in step 130, in accordance with one aspect of the invention. Method 800 begins by displaying a wagering history for a plurality of wagers. The display can be via any appropriate display, such as a graphical user interface. Method 800 continues by receiving a first wager at step 820, and receiving a second wager at step 830. Having received the first wager and second wager, the method determines any association between the first wager and second wager. This association can be a stacked association, a conditional association, or any other relationship between the wagers. In another example, the method can cancel a particular wager based on the outcome of an earlier won or lost wager.
Alternatively, the method can provide for stacking wagers such that successful wagers are automatically placed on a secondary wager. Thus, for example, if an intermediate wager of 5 betting units pays 100 betting units, a stacked wager on the intermediate wager on the final outcome becomes based on 100 betting units rather than 5. In other examples, the wagering system operates similar to a teaser bet, allowing multiple alternative wagers or for the automatic rolling forward of winning bets. In other examples, outcomes from multiple events can be tied together in a fashion similar to a so-called “daily double”, “perfecta”, “quinella”, “trifecta” or other similar wagering plans.
Another embodiment includes the simultaneous wagering on project events in which information on wagering preferences for one event can influence wagering on another event (either forward or backwards). This allows more robust and unbiased assessments of project risk to be made because more information is utilized when work on milestones occurs simultaneously. This is quite common on software projects.
By way of example, consider an exemplary project with three events-two intermediate milestones (M1 and M2) and the terminal project milestone (M3). It is possible for work toward M2 to begin to occur even before M1 is fully completed and closed for wagering. Viewing the wagering preferences by entities for Milestone M2 could influence the wagering preferences back toward milestone M1 (until M1 is closed), both of which influence the wagering preferences toward M3. This example includes three events, not as a limitation on the disclosures, but rather as an illustration.
These interdependencies could lead (theoretically at least) toward a more consistent estimate of project risk because all information about the project is being fully utilized.
FIG. 9 illustrates another embodiment of a method 900 in accordance with one aspect of the invention. Method 900 includes establishing at least a first outcome, at step 910. 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 920, 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&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. In one embodiment, steps 910 and 920 are implemented as in steps 110 and 120 respectively.
At step 930, method 900 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. In one embodiment, step 930 is implemented as in step 130.
At step 940, a wagering history is displayed based on the received wagers. The wagering history can be displayed using any appropriate device, such as a graphical user display or the like. The wagering history can be anonymous or each wager can be associated with an identified wagerer. The wagering history can be configured to display changes in wagering patterns, the sum of wagers per outcome, or the like. The display can utilize bar charts, line charts, or any other appropriate display technique.
At step 950, additional wagers are received based on the display, and at step 960, the display is modified based on the additional wagers.
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 970. Each wagering unit may be financial or represent an abstract value, such as a point. In one embodiment, step 970 is implemented as in step 140.
In one embodiment, the initial wager is structured as a binary wager. A wager on the binary wager is received, and based on the received binary wager, a secondary binary wager is structured with a different substance. For example, if the initial wager is “will the project be completed by August 1” and the wagerer wagers “no”, the secondary binary wager may be “will the project be completed by September 1.” This wagering pattern can be used to estimate revised project completion dates. In one embodiment, the revised project completion dates can be used to further refine wagering for other wagerers, as well. This process can be used iteratively to provide additional knowledge, based on sample size.
Thus, FIG. 10 illustrates one embodiment of a method 1000 in accordance with one aspect of the invention. At step 1010, a binary wager is established, and presented to a wagerer at step 1020. As used herein, the term binary wager means a wager with two and only two outcomes—win and lose based on the proposition contained in the wager. The outcome of the wager is predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction. At step 1030, a wager is received, and at step 1040 a secondary binary wager is established based on the received wager. The secondary binary wager is presented to the wagerer at step 1050, and a secondary wager is received responsive to the secondary binary wager at step 1060. At step 1070, the wager and secondary wager are used to adjust the proposition within the wager. In one example, the proposition within the wager is adjusted to estimate a project completion date.
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.

Claims

1. A method for determining an award for at least one winner, the method comprising:

establishing at least a first outcome, the outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction;

establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome;

receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities;

displaying a wagering history based on the received wagers;

receiving additional wagers based on the display;

modifying the display based on the additional wagers; and

awarding at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein establishing the scenarios comprises:

establishing at least the first award associated with the first outcome; and

presenting the established scenarios to the entities.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein awarding the first award comprises:

determining a result of the output;

comparing the determined result with the received wagers;

determining the at least one winner from the entities based on the comparison and the sum of the values associated with the winning wager;

establishing a pool based on the received wagers; and

awarding the first award based on the determined winner, wherein the first benefit is awarded based on the established pool and the determined winner.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein awarding the first award comprises:

determining a result of the output;

comparing the determined result with the received wagers;

establishing a pool based on the received wagers; and

5. The method of claim 4 wherein establishing the scenarios comprises:

establishing at least a first award associated with the first outcome; and

presenting the established scenarios to the entities.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities comprises:

determining a pattern of the wagers;

determining a change in the pattern, wherein the change includes at least one inflection point;

associating the inflection point with at least one external factor;

modifying the external factor based on the inflection point.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein the determined change is associated with at least one statement received from the entity making the wager.

8. The method of claim 6 further comprising:

establishing at least a second outcome, the second outcome associated with an intermediate stage prior to attaining the first outcome, the second outcome predicated on a common output produced by the plurality of entities;

establishing at least three scenarios associated with the second outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the second outcome;

receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities; and

awarding at least a second award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the method further comprises:

associating at least one of the scenarios associated with the second outcome with at least one of the scenarios associated with the first outcome;

comparing received wagers based on the association; and

determining at least one inflection point based on the comparison.

10. The method of claim 9 further comprising:

determining at least one external factor based on the determined inflection point; and

controlling the at least one external factor.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein the outcome is based on a project, and wherein each of the scenarios relates to a result of the project.

12. The method of claim 1 further comprising revising at least one milestone date responsive to the wagering.

13. A computer readable medium including computer readable code for determining an award for at least one winner, the computer readable code comprising:

computer readable code for establishing at least a first outcome, the outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction;

computer readable code for establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome;

computer readable code for receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities;

computer readable code for displaying a wagering history based on the received wagers;

computer readable code for receiving additional wagers based on the display;

computer readable code for modifying the display based on the additional wagers; and

computer readable code for awarding at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers.

14. The medium of claim 13 wherein establishing the scenarios comprises:

computer readable code for establishing at least the first award associated with the first outcome; and

computer readable code for presenting the established scenarios to the entities.

15. The medium of claim 14 wherein awarding the first award comprises:

computer readable code for determining a result of the output;

computer readable code for comparing the determined result with the received wagers;

computer readable code for determining the at least one winner from the entities based on the comparison and the sum of the values associated with the winning wager;

computer readable code for establishing a pool based on the received wagers; and

computer readable code for awarding the first award based on the determined winner, wherein the first benefit is awarded based on the established pool and the determined winner.

16. The medium of claim 15 wherein awarding the first award comprises:

computer readable code for determining a result of the output;

17. The medium of claim 13 wherein computer readable code for receiving a plurality of wagers associated with each scenario and at least one of the entities comprises:

computer readable code for determining a pattern of the wagers;

computer readable code for determining a change in the pattern, wherein the change includes at least one inflection point;

computer readable code for associating the inflection point with at least one external factor;

computer readable code for modifying the external factor based on the inflection point.

18. The medium of claim 17 wherein the determined change is associated with at least one statement received from the entity making the wager.

19. The medium of claim 17 further comprising:

20. A system for determining an award for at least one winner, the system comprising:

means for establishing at least a first outcome, the outcome predicated on a common output produced by a plurality of entities working in conjunction;

means for establishing at least three scenarios associated with the first outcome, each scenario associated with a condition of the first outcome;

means for displaying a wagering history based on the received wagers;

means for receiving additional wagers based on the display;

means for modifying the display based on the additional wagers; and

means for awarding at least a first award in a parimutuel basis based on the received wagers.