AU9342801A - Method and system of ranking participants in a competition - Google Patents

Description

(Y 26i-NOV-2001 11:22 A J PARK 64 4 472 3358 64 4 472 3358 P.03/29 Regulation 3.2

AUSTRALIA

PATENTS ACT, 1990 COMPLETE SPECIFICATION FOR A STANDARD PATENT

ORIGINAL

Name of Applicant: Actual Inventor: Address for service in Australia: Invention Title: TOPSCORE 100 MANAGEMENT

LIMITED

Garth McMillan Cassidy A J PARK, Level 11, 60 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra ACT 2601 Method and System of Ranking Participants in a Competition The following statement is a fullI description of this invention. including the best mncthod of performing it known to me/us RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 RN IE28 O.93 PRINT TIME 28.NOV, 9:39 2E -NOU-2001 11:22 A J PARK 64 4 472 3358 P.04/29 644 412 3358 2 METHOD AND SYSTEM OF RANKING PARTICIPANTS IN A COMPETITION FIELD OF INVENTION The invention relates to a method and system of ranking participants in a competition. The invention is particularly suited to a sports-wagering system based on multiple sporting events.

BACKGROUND TO INVENTION Competitions involving sporting events are popular activities among sports fans and spectators. It is enjoyable for fans and spectators to follow various sporting events.

Enjoyment is increased by picking one's score before a game and comparing it after the game with scores predicted by others. Such competitions increase a spectator's interest in and enjoyment received from watching and keeping track of sports events as they progress. To further increase the enjoyment, it is often comm-on to wager a bet on a fan's or spectator's predicted score.

A participant in such a competition predicts a score for a sporting event and where there is 20 more than one sporting event in a series, the participant may predict the scores of successive sporting events. The aim in such competitions is generally to predict the closest score to the actual score or scores and to get closer and be more accurate than other participants in the competition.

It would be particularly advantageous to assign a ranking to each of the participants in such a competition based on the similarities or differences between the scores predicted by the participants and the actual scores.

3) SUMMARY OF INVENTION In broad terms in one form the invention comprises a method of ranking participants in a competition, the method including the steps of presenting to a participant data representing one or more sporting events, each sporting event involving two or more individuals or teams; obtaining from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event; assigning RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 PITTM 8 O. 93 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9 3 9 2-NOV.-200~1 11:23 Al J PAlRK a64 4 472 3358 P.0 64 4472 3358 a maximum numerical rating to each participant; obtaining actual scores for each team for each sporting event; comparing the predicted scores with the actual scores for each participant; and reducing the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores.

In another form in broad terms, the invention comprises a system of ranking participants in a competition including a display arranged to present to a participant data representing one or more sporting events, each sporting event involving two or more individuals or teams; a data entry component arranged to obtain fromn a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event; a rating assignor arranged to assign a maximumn numerical rating to each participant; a data entry component arranged to obtain actual scores for each team for each sporting event; a comparator arranged to compare the predicted scores with the actual scores for each participant; and a rating adjustor arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores.

In another form in broad terms, the invention comprises a computer program for ranking participants in a competition in which one or more participants predict scores for one or more sporting events involving two or more individuals or teams, the computer program including *:20 one or more sets of data values maintained in a data memory, each set of data values oo::oo representing a participant's predicted result for one or more of the sporting events; a rating assignor arranged to assign a maximum numerical rating to each participant; a comparator arranged to compare the predicted scores for each participant with the actual scores for each individual or team for each sporting event; and a rating adjustor arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES :o.0:3 Preferred forms of the method and system of ranking participants in a competition will now be described with reference to the accompanying figures in which: Figure 1 shows a block diagram of a system in which one form of the invention may be implemented; 5/29 RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 RN IE28 O.93 PR I NT TIME 28, NOV. 9 3 9 ok 2E-NOU-2001 11:23 A J PA~RK 64 4 472 3358 P.06/29 64 4472 3358 4 Figure 2 shows the preferred system architecture of hardware on which the present invention may be implemented; Figure 3 shows a pre-printed score card in accordance with the invention; Figure 4 illustrates actual scores for a series of events; Figure 5 illustrates one preferred form of ranking a participant; Figure 6 illustrates another preferred form of ranking a participant; Figure 7 is a preferred ranked table generated in accordance with the invention; and Figure 8 shows a flowchart of one preferred form of the invention; DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED FORMS Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of the preferred system 10 in which one form of the *:20 present invention may be implemented.

The system 10 includes one or more events indicated generally at 20 for example 20A, 20D and 20E. Each event could include for example rugby football, netball, rugby league, basketball, baseball, hockey and Australian rules. An event could include any sport in :*25 which individuals or teams compete against each other and are awarded points or scores during the sporting event. The event could also include other sports for example yachting, horse, car or dog racing in which there is more than one competitor in the sporting event. In these circumstances, a winner is generally awarded by completing a course ahead of other participants. Numerical values can be assigned to the winner based on the margin separating the winner from the rest of the competitors.

The system also includes one or more participants generally indicated at 30 for example 30C and 30D. Each of the participants 30 predicts a score ahead of time for each team competing in one of the events 20. The participant is preferably presented with a list of such RECEIVED TIME 2 8. NOV. 9 20 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9 :3 9 28r-NOU-2001 11:24 A~ J PARK 1 64 4 472 3358 P.07/29 64 4 472 3358 upcoming events and the participant selects predicted scores for each team for each sporting event. These predicted scores could be transmitted to a third party over a network or network It is envisaged that network 40 could comprise a local area network or LAIN, a wide area network or WAN, an Internet, Intranet, wireless access network, telecommunication network, or any combination of the foregoing. It is envisaged that participants 30 transmit predicted scores from a PC, workstation, or hand held device interfaced to the network 30 over the network 40, or by marking predicted scores on pre-printed cards and transmitting these cards to a third party.

The system preferably fuirther comprises a personal computer or workstation 50 operating under the control of appropriate operating and application software having a data memory 52 interfaced to a server or data processor 54, the workstation 50 interfaced to the network In one form, predicted scores from participants 30 are either input directly into workstation or otherwise transmitted to workstation 50 over network 40. Actual scores from sporting events 20 are also either directly input into workstation 50 or are transmitted to workstation over network 40. The workstation 50 is arranged to compare the predicted scores with the 0 actual scorcs for each participant and to rank the participants based on differences between scores predicted by each participant and the actual scores.

Figure 2 shows the preferred system architecture of a participant workstation 30 or workstation 50. The computer system 100 typically comprises a central processor 102, a main memory 104 for example RAMV, and an input/output controller 106. The computer system 100 also comprises peripherals such as a keyboard 108, a pointing device 110 for example a mouse, trackball or touch pad, a display or screen device 112, a mass storage memory 114 for example a hard disk, floppy disk or optical disc, and an output device 116, o .6 for example a printer. The system 100 could also include a network interface card or o controller 118 and/or a modem 120. A system 100 could further comprise wireless data transmission and receiving apparatus. The individual components of the system 100 could communicate through a system bus 122 or altematively individual components of the system 100 could be distributed over network RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 R~ IE28 O.93 PRINT TIME 28.NOV. 9:38 287NOU-2001 11:24 A J PARK £64 4 472 3358 P.08/29 64 4472 3358 6a Referring to Figure 3, each participant or potential participant in the competition has one or more sporting events presented to them. Referring to Figure 3, each participant could be provided with a pre-printed card 200 on which one or more upcoming sporting events are displayed. In Figure 3, these sporting events involve teams competing in the NPC (National Provincial Challenge) rugby football competition held in New Zealand each year. Events 20B, 20C, 20D and 20E could appear in a vertical column on the pre-printed card as shown, displaying the date of each sporting event and the two teams competing in the sporting event.

The pre-printed card 200 could also include an identifier area 210 in which the participant inserts the participant's namne. In this case, the participant has inserted the name Garth Cassidy.

The pre-printed form 200 could also include a data entry area 220 in which the participant can record predicted scores for each of the events 20- The preferred area includes a series of boxes, each box having a pre-defined value. The participant first selects the desired predicted score and then marks the appropriate boxes with values which together add up to that predicted score. For example, the participant in Figure 3 has predicted that the score for sporting event 20A between Wellington and Canterbury will be 26 for Wellington and 20 for Canterbury.

V. The pre-printed card 200 could also include a betting area 230 in which the participant can wager a sum of money on each of the sporting events is envisaged that the completed printed sheets 200 be collected prior to the sporting events and stored until after each sporting event has been completed. The results of each predicted score could be entered directly into workstation 50 by manual input. Alternatively, 0: the workstation 50 could be interfaced to an automated card reader which records the marks on the printed card 200 and sums the values indicated by the marks, storing these summed values in the workstation S0.

As a further alternative, each participant 30 could be presented with an electronic data entry form over the network 40, for example an Internet web page. The participant is preferably provided with a Login screen to uniquely identify each participant. The participant may then RECEIVED TIME 28, NOV. 9 :2 0 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9:38 287NOU-2001 11:25 A J PARK A 64 4 472 3358 P.09/29 64 4472 3358 7 enter predicted scores for each event and these predicted scores and events could be transmitted to and stared in the workstation Figure 4 illustrates actual scores for each team for each sporting event. As described above, these actual scores could be manually input into the workstation 50 or alternatively be transmitted over the network 40 to the workstation 50. Each event could be stored in a relational database in the workstation 50 as one of a series of records. Each record could include an event identifier, a date, a team identifier for each team competing and scores for each team competing.

Once the scores of each event 20 are available, each participant is ranked based on differences between the scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores. In one preferred form, this ranking could bc achieved by assigning a numerical value or a percentage to each participant.

In Figure 3, one of the participants, Garth Cassidy, predicted that in event 20A, Wellington would score 26 and Canterbury would score 20. As shown in Figure 4, the actual scores were Wellington scoring 27 and Canterbury scoring 20 Figure 5 illustrates one preferred method of calculating a ranking or score for a participant, for example participant 30A Garth Cassidy based on the differences between the scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores. The actual score, predicted score, and the difference between those scores are first calculated. A maximum rating is assigned to the participant and, as shown in Figure 5, this maximum rating could be an integer value for example 100. A weighted difference is then calculated for each team by, for example, dividing the difference by the actual score and multiplying by the maximum rating. For example in Figure 1, the weighted difference for the participant for team A (Wellington) score would be 1/27 x 100 =3.704.

A combined weighted difference is then calculated for example by averaging the weighted differences for cach team, In this example, the combined weighted difference would be 3.704 0 2 1.852. This combined weighted difference represents a penalty based on a function of the differences between the scores. This penalty is then deducted from the maximum rating to give a participant score or rating, in this case 98.148.

RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9:38 28rNJfU-2001 11:25 A~ J PARK A 64 4 472 3358 P.10/29 64 4472 3358 8 In a further preferred form, the maximum rating could be further reduced by a result penalty if the participant does not predict the correct result. For example, the participant in Figure 5 has provided a predicted score of 26 to Wellington and 20 to Canterbury, thereby predicting that the result of the event will be in Wellington's favour, namely a win to Wellington. If the result of the game was in fact a loss to Wellington or a draw, a result penalty could be deducted from the maximum rating. Such a result penalty could be for example 20% of the maximum rating which in this case would be a value of 20. As the participant in Figure correctly predicted the result, there is no penalty deducted.

Figure 6 illustrates another preferred form of calculating a rank or participant score for an individual participant. In the same way as shown in Figure 5, the actual score, predicted score, difference and maximum rating are all calculated for an individual participant. The difference in this further method is that the weighted difference is not calculated. The individual differences are simply combined or summed, resulting in a combined difference.

This combined difference is then deducted from the maximum rating to give a participant score or ranking. As is the case with the method shown in Figure 5, a result penalty could also be applied where the participant does not correctly predict a win, loss or draw.

Referring to Figure 7, the actual scores of each event and the predicted scores for each event for each participant are collected and stored, for example in data memory 52. This data could be stored in a relational database in which each participant 30 is represented by a separate participant record. The fields in the record could include that participant's predicted scores for each event 20 and a participant's score or rank, shown as a percentage in Figure 7, *2 5 associated with the predicted scores for each event. Where there is more than one event in the 0 competition as shown in Figure 7, an overall rank or participant score for each participant could be obtained by averaging the participant rank or participant score for each event to give an overall rank or participants score indicated at 300.

Each sporting event could be scored individually, with each event adding into an accumulator for a sporting event series. At the end of the series, the total of each sporting events ranks or participant scores could be totalled and then divided by the number of sporting events to give an overall average. The highest overall average would then win a pool prize if a pool prize has been set up. The amount that is allocated to a prize pool would be at the discretion of the RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 RN IE28 O.93 PRINT TIME 28, NOV. 9 3 8 28rNOU-2001 11:26 A J PAlRK A64 4 472 3358 P.11/29 64 4 4123358 9 administrator. It is envisaged that some of the prize pool could be retained for expenses, donations to charities and the like. The prize pool could be split across individual sporting events and over a series of sporting events.

The overall winner calculated by the invention would be the participant having the highest participant score or ranik. If the participant scores are tied, then the prize pool could be divided among the winners at that level.

The number and value of such prizes could be defined by adjusting the "precision factor" when calculating the weighted average. The more precise the calculation, the fewer winners there will be as there will be less opportunity for ties. Higher values of prizes could then be put in place. It is envisaged that the invention could further include a prize calculation model which would perform the above calculations and allow adjustments as required prior to final payouts being decided.

Figure 8 illustrates a flowchart of a preferred form of the invention described with reference to Figures 5 and 6 indicated generally at 400. As shown at 402, the predicted score for each event for each participant is retrieved, for example, from data memory 52. As indicated at 404, the actual event score for each event is retrieved from, for example, data memory 52 once the sporting event has been completed.

As shown at 406, a rating is assigned to each participant. This rating could include the maximum rating described above with reference to Figures S and 6.

As shown at 408, the predicted score and the actual score for each participant for each event are compared and if there is an exact match, the participant scores a perfect or maximum score for that event. If there is not an exact match, as shown at 410, the maximumr rating for the participant is reduced by a penalty based on differences between the predicted scores and the actual scores. This penalty could be calculated as described above as a combined weighted difference or simply a combined difference and could include a result penalty. The penalty could also include the result described above.

RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9 :2 0 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9:38 28-NOU-2001 11:26 A J PARK 64 4 472 3358 P.12/29 64 4 472 3358 If the participant has predicted the scores for more than one event as shown at 412, the participant score or rating is stored as shown at 414 and the next predicted event score retrieved as indicated at 402.

As indicated at 416, if there are more than one participants in a particular competition, the predicted scores for those further participants are retrieved as indicated at 402.

The invention provides a simple and effective way of assigning a rank or participant score to a series of participants predicting the scores of one or more sporting events. The sporting events could include team sports as described above and could include other sports such as races.

The foregoing describes the invention including preferred forms thereof. Alterations and modifications as will be obvious to those skilled in the art are intended to be incorporated within the scope hereof, as defined by the accompanying claims.

RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9:38

Claims (2)

1. 28.-NO-2001 11:26 A J PRRK AL64 4 472 3358 P.13/29 64 4472 3358 11 The claims defining the invention are as follows 1I A method of ranking participants in a competition, the method including the steps of: presenting to a participant data representing one or more sporting events, each sporting event involving two or more individuals or teams; obtaining from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event; assigning a maximum numerical rating to each participant; obtaining actual scores for each team for each sporting event; comparing the predicted scores with the actual scores for each participant; and reducing the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores. 2. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 1 further including the step of reducing the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on a function of the differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores for each team for each sporting event. 3. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 2 further including the steps of: '20 calculating the penalty by calculating the difference between the predicted score and *4 the actual score for each team as a fraction of the actual score; multiplying each fraction by the maximum numerical rating to calculate a weighted go' difference; and calculating a combined weighted difference by averaging the weighted differences for each team to calculate the penalty. 4. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 2 further including the steps of: calculating the penalty by calculating the difference between the predicted score and the actual score for each team; and calculating a combined difference by summing the differences for each team to calculate the penalty. RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV, 9:20 RTTIE2.ro.98 PRINT TIME 28.NOV. 9:38
2. 287-NOV-2001 11:27 A J PARK a64 4 472 3358 P.14/29 64 4472 3358 12 A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of the preceding claims further including the step of reducing the maximum rating for each participant by a result penalty if the participant does not predict the correct result. 6. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 5 wherein the result penalty comprises 20% of the maximumn rating. 7. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of the preceding claims further including the step of presenting to a participant data representing one or more sporting events in the form of a pre-printed card. 8. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 7 further including the step of obtaining from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event by manual entry of the predicted score into a data memory. 9. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 7 futher including the step of obtaining from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event with an automated card reader arranged to obtain the predicted score from each pre-printed card and to store the predicted score in a data memory. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 6 further including the step of presenting to a participant data representing one or more sporting events in the form of an electronic data entry form. ~25 11. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 10 further including the step of obtaining from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event by transmitting the predicted score from the data entry form over a network to a memory. 12. A method of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of the preceding claims further including the steps of storing the actual scores in a data memory; and retrieving one or more actual scores from the data memory for comparison with the predicted scores. RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 R~ IE 28 O. 93 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9 3 8 28-NOU-2001 11:27 Al J PARK A 64 4 472 3358 P.15/29 64 4 472 3358 13 13. A system of ranking participants in a competition including: a display arranged to present to a participant data representing one or more sporting events, each sporting event involving two or more individuals or teams; a data entry component arranged to obtain from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event; a rating assignor arranged to assign a maximum numerical rating to each participant; a data entry component arranged to obtain actual scores far each team for each sporting event; a comparator arranged to compare the predicted scores with the actual scores for each participant; and a rating adjustor arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores. 14. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 13 wherein the rating adjustor is arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on a function of the differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores for each team for each sporting event. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 13 or claim 14 O wherein the rating adjustor is arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a result penalty if the participant does not predict the correct result. 660 16. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 15 wherein the result penalty comprises 20% of the maximum rating. 0 17. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of claims 13 to 16 wherein the display includes a pre-printed card. 18. A system of ranking participants in a compctition as claimed in claim 17 wherein the -:o::f3O data entry component arranged to obtain from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event includes a keyboard interfaced to a memory, RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 RN IE28 O.93 PRINT TIME 28,NOV. 9:38 28F-NOU-2001 11:28 A J PARK a64 4 472 3358 P.16/29 64 4472 3358 14 19. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 17 wherein the data entry component arranged to obtain from a participant a predicted scare for each team for each sporting event includes an automated card reader interfaced to a memory. 20. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of claims 13 to 16 wherein the display includes an electronic data entry form. 21. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 20 wherein the data entry component arranged to obtain from a participant a predicted score for each team for each sporting event includes a data entry form interfaced to a data memory through a network. 22. A system of ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of claims 13 to 21 wherein the data entry component arranged to obtain actual scores for each team for each sporting event is further arranged to store the actual scores in a data memory; and wherein the comparator is fuirther arranged to retrieve one or more actual scores from the data memory for comparison with the predicted scores. 23. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition in which one or more participants predict scores for one or more sporting events involving two or more individuals or teams, the computer program including: one or more sets of data values maintained in a data memory, each set of data values representing a participant's predicted result for one or more of the sporting events; a rating assignor arranged to assign a maximum numerical rating to each participant; a comparator arranged to compare the predicted scores for each participant with the actual scores for each individual or team for each sporting event; and a rating adjustor arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores. 24. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 23 wherein the rating adjustor is arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a penalty based on a function of the differences between scores predicted by the participant and the actual scores for each team for each sporting event. RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 RN IE 28 O. 93 PRINT TIME 28.NOV. 9:38 28rNOU2001 11:28 A J PAlRK *64 4 472 3358 P.1 64 4 472 3358 A computer program for ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim 23 or claim 24 wherein the rating adjustor is arranged to reduce the maximum rating for each participant by a result penalty if the participant does not predict the correct result. 26. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition as claimed in claim wherein the result penalty comprises 20% of the maximum rating. 27. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of claims 23 to 26 wherein data representing one or more sporting events is presented to a participant for the purposes of data collection in the form of a pre-printed card, the computer program including a card reading component arranged to extract the predicted scores from the pre-printed card. 28. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one of claims 23 to 27 wherein the data values representing the predicted scores are entered into the data memory by means of a keyboard interfaced to the memory, the computer program arranged to interface the keyboard to the memory. 29. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition as claimed in any one *S0 of claims 23 to 28 wherein the data values representing the predicted scores are entered into the data memory by means of a data entry form interfaced to the memory through a network, the computer arranged to interface the data entry form to the memory A computer program as claimed in any one of claims 23 to 29 embodied on a computer readable medium. 31. A method of ranking participants in a competition, substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying figures. 32. A system of ranking participants in a competition, substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying figures. .7/29 RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9:20 RN IE 28 O. 93 PRINT TIME 28. NOV. 9 3 7 28-NOV-2001 11:28 Al J PARK 64 4 472 3358 64 4 472 3358 P.18/29 33. A computer program for ranking participants in a competition, substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying figures. Dated this Day of 2001 By their Patent Attorneys AJPARK On behalf of the lppicant Per: RECEIVED TIME 28. NOV. 9 :2 0 PRINT TIME 28. NOV, 9:37 A. A A AA A. A A A A. A* 0 *A