text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|11 Aug 2009
|Filing date
|6 Jun 2001
|Priority date
|11 Sep 1998
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|Olaf Vancura
|Original Assignee
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (100), Non-Patent Citations (6), Referenced by (22), Classifications (13), Legal Events (12)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
This application claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/372,560, filed Aug. 11, 1999 entitled "KNOWLEDGE-BASED CASINO GAME AND METHOD THEREFOR" which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/099,959 filed on Sep. 11, 1998 entitled "KNOWLEDGE-BASED CASINO GAME AND METHOD THEREFOR."
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to casino games and, in particular, to casino games utilizing a player's knowledge as part of the game play.
2. Statement of the Problem
Casino games of chance presently fall into two categories—those that incorporate an element of skill, either in the betting or the playing, and those that do not. Many casino games of chance have some element of skill with respect to betting. For example, in Craps, some wagers have a house advantage of about 1%, while others have a house edge of nearly 17%. Clearly, the player will fare better, in the long run, avoiding wagers with a huge house advantage. Generally, any casino game of chance offering a variety of player expectations based on wagering has an element of betting skill involved. So, too, a player will fare better (for appropriate games) utilizing a good playing strategy. Examples of conventional casino games of chance in which playing skill is a major factor include Blackjack, Poker, and many card games in which the player has a unique hand.
While casino games of chance with an element of skill are plentiful, "skillful" play does not necessarily imply short-run success. For example, in Blackjack, the proper play when holding a "twelve" vs. a dealer "seven" is to hit. However, if the dealer hit card is a "ten," then the player busts and loses the wager. Similarly, all existing skill-based games retain an element of chance such that a "correct" play will sometimes be penalized, whereas an "incorrect" play will sometimes be rewarded. All of these casino games of chance relate to a player's skill of game play, rules, and statistical odds.
A number of well known conventional consumer games using a player's knowledge exist such as JEOPARDY. JEOPARDY is such a knowledge-based game wherein players win money based upon their knowledge of the answer to a question. In a typical round, a question is put to three players and the first to respond with the correct answer wins an amount of money which is displayed in front of the player. In the FINAL JEOPARDY round, a player may wager an amount of money, in the complete discretion of the player, from the accumulated winnings on having the correct answer to a question. The player writes the answer down and, if correct, receives the amount wagered which is added to the accumulated winnings. If the player is wrong, the amount wagered is deducted from the accumulated winnings. JEOPARDY represents a consumer game show wherein a player, simply using knowledge, plays to win money and in the FINAL JEOPARDY round can actually wager that money. Such consumer game shows as JEOPARDY, FAMILY FEUD, THE PRICE IS RIGHT, etc. are designed to always pay out money to the players. Such game shows earn a profit from advertising and merchandising revenues, but the actual games are designed to always pay out money. Furthermore, players upon starting the game are not required to ante up a wager or a bet as is commonly found in a casino.
Patent Cooperation Treaty International Publication Number WO 98/09259 provides a tic-tac-toe (or games such as Battleship or Concentration) casino game where a player may play against a machine or another player. In tic-tac-toe, a video screen displays touch sensitive areas. The player inserts 1 to 5 credits and presses a gamble button. The player then touches an image element on the screen and a large X is placed at that element as well as a prize indicia. The machine then selects an image element and places a large zero. This process continues. When the machine wins tic-tac-toe, the player loses the bet. When the player wins the tic-tac-toe, the machine pays the player the sum of the prize indicia in each image element multiplied by the number of credits bet. It is well known that the game of tic-tac-toe, with optimal play on the part of the participants, will necessarily result in a draw. Hence the 98/09259 patent requires, for the player to win as is taught, the computer opponent must play randomly, or at least occasionally play suboptimally (otherwise, the player would never win). A player who knows how to play tic-tac-toe and who would normally win, therefore, is not assured of success. Furthermore, the use of random "go again" or "lose a turn" squares ensures that the outcome of the game remains random (i.e., a game of chance) as opposed to deterministic.
A continuing need exists to provide new and exciting casino games. Having the opportunity to test a player's knowledge of trivia, facts, surveys, pricing, and so forth independent of a player's skill in a game of chance would be a welcome addition to the casino experience. Also, the use of knowledge serves to add an element of teamwork to the casino game, as patrons will ask colleagues and other participants for assistance if in doubt. A need exists to provide a knowledge-based casino game.
A method for a casino game is presented. In a first embodiment of the method, a knowledge-based bonus game is provided in combination with an underlying game of chance. A wager is received from a player to play both the underlying game of chance and potentially the knowledge-based bonus game. The underlying game of chance is played and the underlying game of chance has a first house advantage based upon the received wager. Play of the knowledge-based bonus game occurs at a given statistical frequency. After the knowledge-based bonus game is played, the underlying game of chance is restarted. In this embodiment, the combined knowledge-based bonus game with the underlying casino game has a second house advantage which is acceptable to the house even when the player has perfect knowledge of all answers in the knowledge-based bonus game. In a second embodiment, the knowledge-based bonus game is a stand-alone casino game. The knowledge-based bonus games whether as a bonus or stand-alone casino game are designed to maintain the house advantage in a range from when all answers to all queries in the knowledge-based bonus game are always correct from the player to the other extreme when all answers to all queries in the knowledge-based bonus game are always being guessed at by the player. In a third embodiment, a knowledge-based casino game is played in a back-and-forth arrangement with another casino game of chance.
1. Overview.
Throughout this disclosure the term "game of chance" shall refer to all types of conventional gambling games (whether live or automated) based on a wager(s) placed by a player whether or not the game is physically located in a casino or remote therefrom. Indeed such games of chance can be implemented on-line or on the Internet. "Skill" is defined herein to be a decision (in betting, playing, or both) such that long term performance in the play of a game of chance is maximized. On an individual game of chance basis, however, adopting "skillful" play may or may not yield a desired result, as an element of randomness remains. An example is the decision of how to play the hand of blackjack described above in the Statement of the Problem.
"Knowledge" is defined herein to be a decision which, on an individual game basis, necessarily yields a result without any element of chance. An example is the decision of how to respond to the question "Which is the smallest U.S. state?" Clearly, a correct answer has no associated uncertainty. The following disclosure provides a new casino game using the knowledge a player has and, therefore, the term "knowledge-based" casino game is used throughout. Because a knowledge-based casino game presents a risk of loss to the casino from those players "in the know," a special set of circumstances must be constructed to maintain game viability from a house advantage point of view.
Consider the following example of a trivia knowledge-based game which is ill-advised to incorporate into a casino environment: A player wagers 1 coin and is presented with a knowledge-based question (i.e., query) and 5 possible answers—one of which is correct. The player chooses an answer and should the player be correct, the player is paid 4 coins (i.e., a win of 3 coins), however should the player be incorrect, the player is paid nothing (i.e., a loss of 1 coin). With perfect knowledge, the player's expectation under this example is +300% which is disastrous for a casino. The preceding example serves to show why a casino knowledge-based game needs to be carefully constructed.
The present invention herein provides a knowledge-based casino game, but in one embodiment, keeps the associated expected return (from the knowledge-based portion) sufficiently small so that even a player with perfect knowledge will not be able to gain an advantage over the house (i.e., to limit the player's winnings). Additionally, the invention provides that a player with no knowledge will be able to play a game without a prohibitively high house advantage (i.e., to limit a player's losses). Alternatively, the game can be constructed with sufficiently small knowledge-based expected return so that perfect knowledge results in only a known advantage over the house. For example, in conventional video poker, paytables are often constructed such that with perfect skill, the player can squeak out a modest advantage of roughly 1%. However, the average player still plays at a considerable disadvantage, hence the casino still profits from play of these machines.
The present invention provides a knowledge-based game wherein the player's expectation, in the case of a player with perfect knowledge, is set at a value not to exceed an amount that maintains an acceptable house advantage to the casino. In addition, in the play of the knowledge-based casino game of the present invention, the player's expectation for players with imperfect knowledge and who simply guess falls within a range of house advantage values set into the design of the game under the teachings obtained herein.
As will be discussed in the following, the knowledge-based casino game of the present invention finds use as a bonus game to a conventional underlying casino game of chance, as a stand-alone casino game, and as a casino game that interacts with a conventional casino game of chance in a "back and forth" relationship. Furthermore, any type of knowledge-based consumer game or other game based upon knowledge can be adapted, under the teachings of the present invention, into the casino game of the present invention.
In the following examples of conventional knowledge-based games such as THE PRICE IS RIGHT, The FAMILY FEUD, TRIVIAL PURSUIT, multiple choice, proximate choice, and puzzles are used to illustrate how the methods of the present invention enable such games to be played in a casino wherein the casino is protected against a player with perfect knowledge and the player is protected when simply guessing.
2. Knowledge-based Bonus Game
A knowledge-based casino game, under the teachings hereof, works well as a bonus game to a conventional underlying casino game of chance. Consider the following knowledge-based bonus game on an underlying conventional slot machine. The slot machine can be a standard stepper-reel or video-reel which has a bonus feature. Without loss of generality, assume that with X units wagered in the underlying game, the player is eligible for the bonus game with frequency, f. The frequency, f, may periodically occur (e.g., every 20 games) or may be entirely random with a statistical frequency over time (e.g., on average every twenty games, but randomly selected). The expected return is R units for the underlying casino game of chance without the bonus, and the bonus participation, on average, garners B units. The house advantage may be written as:
House Advantage=−[R+f B−X]/X FORMULA 1
When used as a bonus or as a part of a game, the means of initiating the bonus or entering the part of the game is not material to this invention. Any condition occurring in the underlying game of chance can be utilized. There are a large number of bonus game initiation mechanisms that are variously triggered upon the occurrence of an event in the underlying game. For example, in the case of reel slot machines, a special bonus pay symbol (or combination of existing symbols) could align on the payout line (or elsewhere in the window) of the slot machine. Or, any other suitable game event could be utilized such as the occurrence of a random event such as selecting a random number for coin-ins and signaling the condition when the random-numbered coin-in occurs. Any condition occurring, but unrelated to the game play can also be utilized such as a randomly set timer. Furthermore, while the condition preferably causes the underlying game of chance to stop so that the knowledge-based bonus game can be played, certain embodiments of the present invention continue play of the underlying game of chance while the player plays the knowledge-based bonus game.
In addition, the play of the knowledge-based bonus game could also require an extra wager. For example, when the condition occurs in the underlying game of chance, the player would have a choice to wager an additional amount to play the knowledge-based bonus game or to continue play of the underlying game of chance. The teachings of the present invention are not limited by the condition in which the underlying game of chance triggers, causes, initiates, or trips the knowledge-based bonus game. The knowledge-based bonus game, as defined above, and the use of the formulas described above (or something similar) determines the limiting cases of perfect knowledge and no knowledge on the part of the player. Indeed, the exact algorithmic game model of the knowledge-based game could be one of many possibilities, some of which will be discussed later.
Two examples follow which illustrate the teachings of the knowledge-based bonus game of the present invention.
For example, consider a slot machine in which the player (with a maximum bet, X, of 3 units) is eligible for a knowledge-based bonus game of the present invention with frequency, f, of 0.02 (i.e., 1 in every 50 spins). Furthermore, the expected return R on the conventional underlying casino game is 2.4 units (80%). A player may have perfect knowledge or a player may simply guess the answers to the knowledge-based bonus game. For the player simply guessing, assume a desired House Advantage of roughly 8% (i.e., Player's Expectation=−8%). Solving Formula 1, the desired BMIN=18 units. BMIN is a first value for a player's expected return from pure guessing. For the player with perfect knowledge, a desired "worst case" scenario is no House Advantage or 0%. Setting the House Advantage equal to 0% yields in Formula 1, a BMAX=30 units. BMAX is a second value for a player's expected return for always being correct. Further assume the following algorithmic game model for the knowledge-based bonus casino game of this example:
Note that these two types of players represent the two extremes in terms of the knowledge-based casino game design of the present invention. All other players, with perhaps knowledge of some of the answers, or some knowledge of the answers, will have player expectations that fall, in this example, between the two extremes of 0% and −8%. Or, house advantages in the range of 0% (for perfect knowledge players) to 8% (for players who simply guess). It is assumed that a player will try to maximize his/her expected return, B, in the play of the bonus game. It is to be expressly understood that it is possible for a perfect-knowledge player to purposely attempt to miss every knowledge-based question, in which case the house advantage would be 16%.
The actual values of 0% and −8% in this example are mere illustrations based on the two types of players: a player with perfect knowledge and a player with no knowledge (i.e., a player simply guessing). All other players will fall somewhere in the middle of the range. The "average" house advantage for the combined underlying game of chance and knowledge-based bonus game will fall somewhere in the middle of the range dependent upon the knowledge of the player.
In Example 1, the player, in the knowledge-based game always wins: if correct 30 units or if incorrect 6 units. However, the house is protected with the assurance that over time in the play of the combined underlying game of chance and knowledge-based bonus game, that the house advantage is 0% whenever a player with perfect knowledge plays the game. At this point, it is clear that the instantaneous house advantage varies on the knowledge that the player has in playing the knowledge-based bonus game. The house is assured, in this example, that over time it will never lose money (when 0% is set as the House Advantage limit value for a player with perfect knowledge).
To illustrate a variation of the above example, based on a separate wager for the bonus game, keep everything the same except that the player needs to wager 3 units to play the bonus game. Instead of paying 30 units for a correct answer and 6 units for an incorrect answer, award 33 units for correct and 9 units for incorrect. Bmax=33−3=30 units as before; Bmin−� (33)+� (9)−3=18 units, as before. Thus, we have the same overall house advantage as before; the bonus game awards are modified to reflect the "price" of participating in the bonus.
As another example, consider the same underlying slot game as in the example above with a different knowledge-based bonus game in which the following algorithmic game model is used:
The following example illustrates the many possibilities for varying the frequency, f, of the knowledge-based bonus game occurrence, the expected return, R, for the underlying game without the bonus, and the wager, X, that the player makes.
Consider a 3-unit (X=3) game in which the desired constraints are PEMIN=−15% (i.e., Maximum House Advantage=15%), PEMAX=0% (i.e., Minimum House Advantage=0%).
PE MIN =[R+f B MIN −X]/X FORMULA 3
PEMIN=the Minimum Player's Expectation in % Units
PE MAX =[R+f B MAX −X]/X FORMULA 4
PEMAX=the Maximum Player's Expectation in % Units
The solutions for BMIN and BMAX as a function of R/X (the return per unit wager) are:
B MIN =[PE MIN −R/X+1]�X/f FORMULA 5
B MAX =[PE MAX −R/X+1]�X/f FORMULA 6
Table I summarizes the values of BMIN and BMAX as a function of various values of R/X and f. The matrix entries are in the form BMIN, BMAX.
TABLE I R/X f 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.01 75,120 60,105 45,90 30,75 15,60 0.015 50,80 40,70 30,60 20,50 10,40 0.02 37.5,60 30,52.5 22.5,45 15,37.5 7.5,30 0.025 30,48 24,42 18,36 12,30 6,24 0.03 25,40 20,35 15,30 10,25 5,20
Thus, for a given f, R, and X, the corresponding values for BMIN, BMAX will yield the desired minimum House Advantage (a player with perfect knowledge) of 0% and maximum House Advantage (a player with no knowledge) of 15%.
In Table I, paying units in fractional values out to players would not be desirable; and hence, if BMIN, BMAX are fixed at integer values for every bonus game, the f=0.02 value would be avoided in the design process. However, all of the other entries in Table I are integer values for BMIN, BMAX and, hence, if fixed integer values are desired for every bonus game, would represent desirable payouts. For example in Table I, where R/X equals 0.8 (that is an 80% return to the player over time), any of a number of suitable bonus game frequencies, f, could be utilized. For example: assume f equals 0.03 (or the occurrence of the bonus game is three times out of every one hundred spins of a slot game), this results in a BMIN=5 units and a BMAX=20 units. Clearly if the occurrence of a bonus game is f=0.01 (or once every one hundred spins of the underlying slot game), the payoff to the player is higher since BMIN=15 units, and BMAX=60 units. Table I is provided as illustration of many possible design parameters based upon f, R, and X as well as BMIN, BMAX which will result in the house advantage for a perfect player of 0% and a maximum average house advantage of 15% for a player who simply guesses, for the overall combined underlying and bonus game. Again, the underlying house advantages can be any suitable range worked into the design of the overall game of the present invention.
The values for BMAX and BMIN need not be fixed, hence identical, for every visit to the bonus game. Rather, it can vary. Consider a game with BMAX=50 randomly half the time, and BMAX=100 randomly half the time. In this case, the overall BMAX=75 units, and this overall or average value may be substituted in the formalism above for BMAX (similarly for BMIN). While a random variation can occur, such a variation may also be timed to attract players to machines during otherwise slow period.
What has been presented in the above three examples is a method for playing a knowledge-based bonus game in combination with an underlying casino game wherein a player places a wager, X, to play both the underlying casino game of chance and the knowledge-based game. The player plays the underlying casino game of chance having a predetermined player return, R. A ratio R/X exists which is well known in the casino industry when applied to the underlying game of chance as a whole. The method of the present invention provides a knowledge-based bonus game which could be any suitable algorithmic game model as a bonus game in combination with an underlying game such as a slot machine. The knowledge-based bonus game occurs at a frequency, f, wherein the underlying game of chance is stopped and the player has the opportunity to use his/her knowledge to play the knowledge-based bonus game. The frequency, f, is preferably randomly selected so that on average it occurs at a known rate over time. In the preferred embodiment, rewards, awards, or payouts are always made whether or not the player has the correct response in the knowledge-based game. This preferable approach encourages players to continue to play the underlying slot games even though they are not always correct in their responses. It is to be expressly understood that the method of the present invention is not limited to the preferred approach and, for example, that players with incorrect responses could receive nothing.
For example, consider a knowledge-based game in which for a query, five responses are given, three of which are valid and two of which are incorrect. The player is awarded 30 units for each valid answer. The game ends when an invalid answer is given, or after all three valid answers are chosen which garners a 20 unit bonus. A player in this variation with perfect knowledge will earn 110 units per bonus game. A player with no knowledge has a ⅗� 2/4�⅓= 1/10 chance of getting all three correct answers, a ⅗� 2/4�⅔=⅕ chance of getting two correct answers, a ⅗� 2/4= 3/10 chance of getting one correct answer, and a ⅖ chance of getting no correct answers. Thus the no-knowledge player's expected return is 1/10�110+⅕�60+ 3/10�30+⅖�0=32 units per bonus game. Of course, many variations are possible under this example.
Under the method of the present invention, the casino is assured that when a player with perfect knowledge plays the knowledge-based bonus game in conjunction with an underlying casino game of chance, that its house advantage value will be preserved over time so as not to fall below a predetermined amount. In the preferred embodiment, the predetermined amount is non-negative, but it is to be understood that in certain designs of the present invention, the minimum house advantage could be set at any suitable positive, zero, or negative value dependent upon the nature of the game and the desires of the casino. Finally, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the knowledge-based casino bonus game used in conjunction with an underlying casino game of chance provides a House Advantage that exists in a range from a first House Advantage corresponding to correct responses from a player with perfect knowledge to a second House Advantage corresponding to responses that are simply guessed by a player who has no knowledge. The provision of such a range ensures fairness to the house and to the players so as to prevent a player with perfect knowledge or a team of players working together from cleaning out or bankrupting the house. In the preferred embodiment, the house advantage range is from about −3% to about +20%. While this is the preferred range, it is not meant to limit the teachings of the present invention.
While the term "units" are used in the above examples (and subsequently), it is to be understood that units could be, but not limited to, coins, bills, credits, charges, tickets, or any form of wager or bet.
The following represent illustrative examples of implementing several well-known knowledge-based games, under the teachings of the present invention, as bonus games into well-known underlying casino games of chance. In no way should these examples be interpreted to limit the scope of the invention. Indeed, they are meant to indicate some of the possibilities under the teachings of this invention.
3. Knowledge-Based Bonus Casino Games Based Upon Conventional Game Shows
Three examples follow, using the teachings of the present invention to modify conventional knowledge-based game shows into casino environments.
In this example, a slot machine is conventionally playing with a bonusing feature under the teachings of the present invention. Periodically, the player gets to participate in a knowledge-based bonus game based upon the conventional THE PRICE IS RIGHT game. It is to be expressly understood that no endorsement, affiliation or relationship whatsoever exists between the owners of THE PRICE IS RIGHT game show and the inventor and/or assignee of the present invention. THE PRICE IS RIGHT trademark and game is used in a factual sense to illustrate the teachings of the present invention.
In the play of THE PRICE IS RIGHT game show, an object is displayed on a screen and a description (oral or written) is given. The player is shown three prices and is given two chances at guessing the correct price. If the player is correct on the first guess, the player receives a high payoff, a lower payoff if correct on the second guess, and lower still if the player misses with both guesses. For example, a bottle of shampoo is shown in three-dimensional rotation on the screen while being described verbally in a multi-media presentation. Thereafter, three prices (e.g., $2.99, $1.99, $0.99) are shown and the player tries to choose the correct price.
The operation and design of gaming machines of chance are well known and the present invention can be adapted to operate with any conventional gaming machine. The conventional slot machine 10 is modified to have a bonus condition such as the bonus symbol 80 on payline 90. The provision of a bonus symbol 80 on the payline 90 is also conventional and it is well known that slot machines 10 can have a bonus condition randomly appear which results in a player having the opportunity to play a bonus game. In
It is to be expressly understood that the underlying game of chance can be any suitable casino game of chance and is not limited to a slot machine 10 (nor to the design of
How the database is constructed is immaterial to the teachings of the present invention. The database would need, at a minimum, the questions and correct responses. Other possible answers can either be in the database or generated "on the fly" as described above. It is also to be expressly understood that the display monitor 110 and the use of touch screens 113 are illustrative of the present invention and that many other equivalent approaches could be utilized. For example, the touch screen areas 113 could be dedicated push buttons located below the monitor 110, or a keyboard, or voice commands could be utilized. Indeed, the monitor 110 displays the information and could be used in conjunction with an audio presentation. The present invention is not to be limited to how the knowledge-based questions are answered, whether or not an audio, or visual presentation (or a combination thereof) is made.
Furthermore, it is to be expressly understood that the knowledge-based game 100 while shown as a separate component in
In the following example, consider a 3-coin "buy-a-pay" slot machine. The first two coins have a return of 90% each and do not render the player eligible for the bonus game. The third coin has no base game pays except to make the player eligible for a "PRICE IS RIGHT" bonus game with frequency f=0.02. In this "buy-a-pay" configuration, R/X=1.8/3=0.6.
If the casino desires a minimum House Advantage of 4% and maximum house advantage of 12%, then using Formulae 5 and 6:
B MIN=(−0.12−0.6+1)�3/0.02=42 coins
B MAX=(−0.04−0.6+1)�3/0.02=54 coins
Thus, for example, the knowledge-based game 100 may present three prices in display 110 and have the player select one price. If the player is correct on the first guess, the award may be 54 coins. If correct on the second guess, the award may be 42 coins, and if incorrect on both guesses, the award may be 30 coins. In this case, BMAX is equal to 54 coins. The player with no knowledge has a ⅓ chance of being correct on the first guess, a ⅓ chance of being correct on the second guess, and a ⅓ chance of missing both guesses. Hence, BMIN=⅓ (54)+⅓ (42)+⅓ (30)=42 coins. Under this example, the PRICE IS RIGHT knowledge-based game can be implemented as a bonus game to an underlying slot game having a house advantage for both games in a range of 4% to 12%.
In this example, a slot machine is conventionally playing with a bonusing feature under the teachings of the present invention. Periodically, the player gets to participate in a bonus game based upon the conventional FAMILY FEUD game. It is to be expressly understood that no endorsement, affiliation or relationship whatsoever exists between the owners of the FAMILY FEUD game show and the inventor and/or assignee of the present invention. The FAMILY FEUD trademark is used in a factual sense to illustrate the teachings of the present invention.
As in the conventional game show, a question given to 100 people will be presented to the player. The top five answers will be shown (in random order) to the player. The player chooses the answer he/she thinks was most popular. The number of people (between 1 and 100) that gave the player's response is credited to the player.
For example, the query "We asked 100 men to name their favorite sport" might be accompanied by these "top 5" responses:
A) Baseball (25) B) Football (40) C) Basketball (20) D) Boxing (7) E) Pro Wrestling (3)
The numbers in parenthesis would not be visible to the player as they represent the actual survey results. Thereafter, if the player correctly selected football, the player would be rewarded with 40 credits. Alternatively, if the player had picked basketball, the player would have received only 20 credits, since this answer was "correct" but not as popular.
For this question, a player with perfect knowledge has BMAX=40 coins. A player with no knowledge has BMIN=⅕ (25+40+20+7+3)=19 coins.
In this case, each individual question may have a different top award, so the calculation for the theoretical BMAX needs to consider the individual BMAX for all the possible questions. BMAX for the bonus game would be the average of all the individual BMAX values. Similarly, BMIN for the bonus game is equal to the average of the individual BMIN values for each question.
To whit,
B MAX=1/NΣB MAXindividual FORMULA 7
B MIN=1/NΣB MINindividual FORMULA 8
Where BMAX and BMIN are as before,
BMINindividual and BMAXindividual represent the individual BMIN and BMAX values per question, and
N=Number of Questions
For example, assume the database comprises 1,000 queries with an average BMAX=40 and average BMIN=20. If f=0.03, X=5, and R=3.5, then a game with a minimum player's expectation of −18% (Formula 3) and a maximum player's expectation of −6% (Formula 4).
Alternatively, the game could function by providing five correct answers and two bogus answers. As long as the player avoids the bogus answers, he/she is awarded the appropriate credits corresponding to the chosen correct answer. The bonus game continues, and credits are accumulated, until the player selects a bogus answer or until all correct answers are chosen.
The bonus game could also function a different way. Instead of awarding the player a number of credits equal to the number of respondents who also picked the same answer, the paytable could consist of five fixed reward amounts (e.g., 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 credits) depending on whether the player picked the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th most popular answer, respectively. The game could also function with the player trying to select the least responded to answer, or the only response not said by anyone (i.e., a placebo response), and so forth.
In this example, a slot machine is conventionally played with a bonusing feature under the teachings of the present invention. Periodically, the player gets to participate in a bonus game based upon the conventional TRIVIAL PURSUIT game. It is to be expressly understood that no endorsement, affiliation or relationship whatsoever exists between the owners of TRIVIAL PURSUIT game and the inventor and/or assignee of the present invention. The TRIVIAL PURSUIT trademark is used in a factual sense to illustrate the teachings of the present invention.
As described above, several possible answers may be given in which the player must try to select the correct one. In keeping with the theme of the home game, the player may receive a bonus for correctly answering a question and additionally receive a "lammer" (e.g., pie piece) for that category (e.g., Science). Once lammers are collected for all six categories, the player enters a bonus round receives a final bonus or final question for a large potential bonus.
For example, consider a four-coin game in which the frequency is 0.04 for visiting a bonus game. In the bonus game, the player is initially assigned a random question from any of six random categories, together with two possible answers. On the next visit to the bonus, the player is assigned a random question from any of the remaining five categories, and so forth. For each category, a correct answer is worth 20 credits, while an incorrect answer is worth 10 credits. Upon facing all six categories (whether answered correctly or not), the player with the seventh visit is given a final question which is worth 200 coins if correct and 100 coins if incorrect. Regardless of the outcome of the seventh visit, the bonus game then resets.
In this case, a player with perfect knowledge will, each time upon entering the bonus game for the first six bonus games, earn 20 credits. The seventh bonus game will yield 200 credits for the final question. Thus, for one complete bonus cycle consisting of seven visits, the total number of credits won is 320. The equivalent BMAX, per visit, is thus 320/7=45.71.
A player with no knowledge will, each time upon entering the bonus game, have a one-half chance of answering correctly, and a one-half chance of answering incorrectly. Each visit is thus worth � (20)+� (10)=15 credits. The final visit is worth an average of � (200)+� (100)=150 coins. Thus, for one complete bonus cycle, the player will earn, on average 240 coins in seven visits. The equivalent BMIN, per visit, is roughly 240/7=34.29.
Assuming the value for R/X=0.55, the following are the values for the player's expectation:
Thus, in this game, the house has a minimum advantage of −0.71% (against perfect knowledge) and a maximum advantage of 10.71% (against no knowledge).
Clearly, other variations on this theme are possible. For example, instead of automatically progressing to the next category whether answering correctly or not, the bonus game could require that a category's question be answered correctly before progressing to the next category. Alternatively, instead of paying 10 credits for an incorrect answer, the bonus game might pay nothing, and so forth.
4. Various Algorithmic Models for Knowledge-based Games
Clearly, many possible embodiments exist for knowledge-based games that could be utilized under the teachings of this invention. Several examples have already been described above.
The player can be allowed multiple guesses at the same question, up to a number of guesses equal to the number of possible responses (i.e., ensuring a correct answer ultimately). The multiple choice questions can have several correct answers (e.g., surveys). How this is calculated has already been shown in the above examples.
True/false answers are a multiple choice variation. Consider a true/false knowledge based game in which the player is given a statement and queried whether the statement is true or false. Assume the player is awarded an average to 50 credits for a correct answer, and zero points for an incorrect answer. In this case, the perfect-knowledge player's expected return is 50 credits, while that of a no-knowledge player is ��50+��0=25 credits. Clearly, the true/false knowledge based game need not be limited to zero points for an incorrect answer, but this example is illustrative in the sense of the type of query that may be asked.
One variation is to have a player guess a value and the closer a player gets to the correct answer, the more the potential reward is. An example might be the query, "How many miles is Boston from Washington, D.C.?" The pay schedule may be a function of how close the player got to the correct answer. E.g., if the player's response:
Is within � 10 miles 100 credits Is within � 100 miles 75 credits All others 50 credits
A player with perfect knowledge would result in BMAX=100. A player simply guessing would result in BMIN=50. Alternate examples for proximity might include temperatures, prices, poll results, or other answers within a range. Furthermore, stipulations such as "player can't be higher than the answer" or "player can't be lower than the answer" can be put in place to add a further twist to the game.
A series of questions can be presented to challenge players with superior knowledge. Thus, a player answering correctly may be rewarded and queried with another question of the same or greater difficulty, and so forth, until missing a question. For example, the payoffs as the player moves to the next level of difficulty can increase.
TABLE II Payoff Level Correct Incorrect Round I Question 10 5 Round II Question 20 10 Round III Question 30 15 * * * * * * Round N Question J K
As shown in the above Table, players are encouraged to sit at the underlying game and continue to play so that they can move up in the question rounds to increase payoffs. Under the teachings of the present invention, each round can have the same house advantage for BMAX and BMIN (for example, by altering the frequency, f, of entering the bonus game) or the house advantage can change from round to round. In this case, the design approach is to consider the entire cycle.
A quiz comprising, for example, seven questions, might be given and the player rewarded based on the number of correct answers.
For example, consider Table III. A player, upon entering a bonus round, is given a question. If incorrect, the player is rewarded with 5 coins and the bonus game ends. If correct, the player is given 10 coins and another question. If incorrect on the second question, the player is given an additional 10 coins and the bonus game ends. If correct on the second question, the player is given 20 additional coins and one last question. On the last round, a correct response garners 30 coins, while an incorrect response garners 15 coins.
TABLE III Payoff Level Correct Incorrect Round I Question 10 5 Round II Question 20 10 Round III Question 30 15
In this case, BMAX=60 coins. BMIN=� (5)+� (10+10)+� (10+20+15)+� (10+20+30)=20.625 coins
Alternatively, the player, at some point during the game, may be given the option to "double or nothing." For example, upon entering the game and correctly answering a question worth 20 credits, the player may "double or nothing" on the next question. In this case, BMAX=40 credits, and so forth. The opportunity to risk a portion of one's winnings on the next question need not be limited to occurring after a correct response. Indeed, it may be initiated after an incorrect response, or immediately upon entering the game (e.g., the player is awarded 50 credits and the option to "double or nothing" by answering a question correctly).
Puzzles can also be provided in which logic and/or knowledge results in a known method of solution with no uncertainty. An example of a puzzle game is the well-known game of Nim. In the two-player game of Nim, a number N of separate piles each containing Cj elements, where j is an index from 1 to N, are used. The game can be played in several variations, the object of one of which is to be the individual to take the very last element. On one's turn, a player chooses a remaining pile x, and from that pile, can remove from 1 to Cx elements. Mathematically, it is well known that for any initial set-up of N and Cj, an individual given the choice of going first or second, if playing optimally, will always win.
As another example, consider the game in which a single pile of N sticks is used. On one's turn, a player can remove from 1 to M sticks (where M is less than N). The game can be played with the object being to leave your opponent the last stick. If so, then the optimal strategy is to leave your opponent a number of sticks S, such that the quantity S−1 is evenly divisible by M+1. Thus, an individual given the choice of going first or second, if playing optimally, will always win.
As a casino game, the invention can utilize either of these puzzles in a format whereby the computer plays randomly, and the player is rewarded with X credits for winning the game and Y credits for losing. Alternatively, the computer, too, may play optimally. In still another embodiment, the player is awarded an amount of credits equal to the number of elements/sticks that he/she removed, plus a bonus should he/she win the game. Other variations will be evident to those familiar with this game, as will the calculation for BMAX and BMIN depending on the actual algorithm chosen.
A different type of puzzle game that is also conducive to this invention is tic-tac-toe. An optimal player in tic-tac-toe will never lose, whether going first or second. Thus, the object of the bonus game may be to play tic-tac-toe and at least draw. This can be achieved with certainty by a player with perfect knowledge regardless of the opponent's play. Clearly, the essential ingredient with a puzzle, when used as a knowledge-based game, is that some outcome is a certainty with proper play.
The puzzle may be two-player (as described above) or multi-player or solitary. An example of a solitary game might be the fitting of pieces of a puzzle together, or the Towers of Hanoi ring problem, perhaps with an associated timer. In principle, any puzzle with a known solution may be employed. A timer may be used to ensure the game is completed in a timely manner.
All of the knowledge-based games discussed above serve to illustrate the teachings of the present invention incorporating such games into a casino environment that is fair to the casino and to the player. Any knowledge-based game can be utilized and, therefore, the present invention is not limited to the game examples presented.
5. Stand-alone Knowledge-based Board Game
In Formula 1, for a stand-alone game, R=0 and f=1. Thus the house advantage for a stand-alone game is:
House Advantage=(X−B)/X FORMULA 9
X=Units Bet
B=Expected Return in Units
Again, the two extremes (a player with perfect knowledge and a player who simply guesses) guide the design of the stand-alone knowledge-based game of the present invention.
Consider a knowledge-based game in which a multiple choice question is asked and seven responses are given, only one of which is correct. Assume the wager, X, is ten coins to participate. As the question is presented to a player, a prize is displayed for getting the question correct. The prize determination is random according to the following weighted matrix shown in Table IV:
TABLE IV Prize (Units) Probability 8 0.33 10 0.66 100 0.01
Should a player be incorrect on the first guess, the player is eligible to win � of the displayed prize with a correct second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth guess. If incorrect after six guesses, the wager, X, is lost. Should a player have perfect knowledge, then BMAX=0.33�8+0.66�10+0.01�100=10.24 units. The corresponding House Advantage is (10−10.24)/10=−2.4%. That is, a player with perfect knowledge has a slight advantage over the house. A player with no knowledge, on the other hand, has a 1/7 chance of the displayed prize, a 5/7 chance of � of the prize, and a 1/7 chance of 0. Therefore, the expected return of this player of BMIN is 1/7�10.24+ 5/7�7.68=6.95. The corresponding House Advantage in this case is about 30.5%. Certainly, many other prize structures are possible under the teachings of the present invention.
By utilizing the design criteria set forth above for the present invention, the stand-alone knowledge-based game can be incorporated into a casino environment which assures the casino a house advantage having a predetermined acceptable value, even when played by a player having perfect knowledge. For players with no knowledge and who simply guess, the house advantage is even greater.
6. Knowledge-based Game Reward Varies from Game to Game
As in the example immediately above, the reward from game to game need not be the same. This is also true in all of the embodiments discussed above. Consider the PRICE IS RIGHT, FAMILY FEUD, and TRIVIAL PURSUIT conventional games discussed above. In one embodiment, each knowledge-based bonus game may be "worth" a fixed number of credits (e.g., one hundred credits). In this example, BMAX for a perfect player equals one hundred credits, and BMIN for a player with no knowledge is worth something less, such as Z credits. Hence, this game may be modified from time to time as follows. The bonus game may be "worth" one hundred credits 99% of the time, and one thousand credits 1% of the time, making the average value of BMAX for a player with perfect knowledge equal to 0.99�100+0.01�1000=109 credits. The same scaling factor is applicable for a player with no knowledge. Hence, BMIN for a player with no knowledge is now worth 1.09�Z credits. Many variations of this example are possible within the teachings of the present invention.
The value for a knowledge-based bonus casino game may be tied to the price of the object under consideration (i.e., guessing the price of a truck might be worth 1,000 credits, while guessing the price of a bottle of shampoo might be worth ten credits), but need not be. Indeed, in a limiting case, the value for a bonus game may be equal to the actual price (or a constant factor multiplied thereby) of the object under consideration.
7. Two-Level "Back and Forth" Knowledge-Based Game
The following is an example of this variation. The player plays an underlying (level 1) game of chance such as a slot machine. Each three-coin spin has an expected player return of two coins. On average, once every twenty games, the player randomly enters the secondary (level 2) knowledge-based bonus game.
In the knowledge-based game, the player wagers three coins per "play." Each play comprises a question and three answers. The player is rewarded in the following manner:
Correct on first guess
five coins
Correct on second guess
four coins
Correct on third guess
three coins
Hence in knowledge-based games, the player clearly has a positive expectation, even with no knowledge. A perfect knowledge player has BMAX=5 coins for a net win of two coins per secondary game, while a no knowledge player who simply guesses has BMIN=4 coins for a corresponding net win of one coin per game.
On average, after every ten knowledge-based games, the control reverts back to the underlying slot machine. Thus, on average, a player with perfect knowledge gains twenty coins (10�2) during the secondary sequence, while losing twenty coins (20�1) during the underlying sequence, leading to a house advantage of 0% for the combined game. On the other hand a player with no knowledge gains ten coins (10�1) during the secondary sequence, while losing twenty coins during the underlying game. Hence, the house advantage against this player is ⅔ (+⅓)+⅓ (−⅓)= 1/9=+11.1%. Many variations on this example are possible within the teachings of the present invention.
As another example of back and forth play between an underlying game and a bonus game, assume the game begins with the player in New York City. The player, upon the first visit to the bonus game, must answer a query regarding New York City. For example, it may be a true/false question with an award of 50 credits if correct, and 30 credits if incorrect. If the player is correct, he immediately advances to the next city, which may be random or predetermined. Whether correct or not, play returns to the base game. Upon the next visit to the bonus game, the player must answer a query regarding the current city. For example, if the current location is Buffalo, the question may relate to Niagara Falls. Assume that there are a total of five cities including the original and ultimate destination, and that the player (after answering five questions correctly, hence finishing the journey) is awarded a bonus of 100 credits.
In this case the player with perfect knowledge will require only one visit to each city to complete the journey. The entire journey will be worth 5�50+100=350 credits and take 5 bonus game visits. Hence, on average, each visit to the bonus round garners 70 credits.
The player with no knowledge will require, on average, two visits to each city to get a correct response. Hence, the entire journey will take 10 bonus game visits and be worth 5�80+100=500 credits. On average, each visit to the bonus round garners 50 credits.
In another variation, the player's query would be chosen randomly upon visiting the bonus game, rather than immediately after answering a query correctly. So, for example, after correctly answering New York City, the next visit to the bonus game might have the following sequence occur: randomly select the proposed next city (e.g., one of Buffalo, Boston, and Atlantic City) and query the player. If the player is correct, he moves to the appropriate city. If incorrect, he stays in New York. Upon the next visit to the bonus game, a random city is chosen relative to the player's current location.
The two-level game can also utilize a varying reward as described above. It can also utilize a secondary knowledge-based game in which an additional wager is not required.
8. Method of Operation
What has been described in the foregoing sets forth novel methods for a knowledge-based bonus game in combination with an underlying casino game, a stand-alone knowledge-based casino game, and a back-and-forth casino game based upon a conventional game of chance and a knowledge-based game.
A method 200 has been presented herein, as shown in
Playing the knowledge-based bonus game occurs in stage 222. The present invention may or may not require an additional wager from the player along with the occurrence of the condition to play the bonus game. The player plays the bonus game in stage 222 through conventional input devices in stage 224 which may or may not be the same input devices used in stage 214. Such input devices are conventional in the gaming industry and may comprise touch screens, keyboards, microphones, mouse inputs, switches, etc. Likewise payoffs in the bonus game stage 222 are delivered in stage 226 which may or may not use the same payoff devices as found in stage 216. Such payoff devices are conventional in the gaming industry and include credit meters, coin-out, tickets, entries on smart cards, etc. The actual delivered payoffs in stage 226 are determined under the teachings of the present invention along with the payoffs in stage 216 provides a House Advantage that varies in a set range dependent upon the knowledge of the player in stage 222. The knowledge-based bonus game can be based on any algorithmic game model such as, but not limited to questions having multiple choice answers in which only one of the multiple choices is correct or in which at least of the multiple choices is correct. Or, the knowledge-based game could be based on a question requiring a proximate answer or a puzzle having a forced outcome. In truth, it is to be expressly understood that the game algorithmic model selected can be any game which is knowledge-based. Several examples have been set forth above, but such examples by no means limit the nature and type of the algorithmic knowledge-based game model.
After play is completed in stage 222, play returns to the start stage 210. When the combined knowledge-based bonus game and underlying casino game is considered as a whole, the resulting House Advantage for any given player is within a predetermined range. One end of the range occurs when a player with perfect knowledge always answers all queries in the knowledge-based bonus game correctly. When this occurs, the House Advantage in the range is at least a first set limit determined by the casino according to the teachings of the present invention. Likewise, when a player simply guesses at the queries to the knowledge-based game, the House Advantage is at most a second set limit of the range. In one embodiment of the present invention, the method pays a player a first amount for the correct answer and pays the player a second amount for an incorrect answer. This provides a positive feedback to the player in playing the bonus game since even if the player is wrong, the player receives a payback. In this embodiment of the method, the player continues to play the underlying casino game since when the bonus round occurs, a larger payout is made for the correct answer during the bonus round and, even if incorrect, the player receives a payback. In another embodiment, when the player is wrong nothing is paid.
The method 300 for playing the stand-alone knowledge-based casino game of the present invention shown in
Finally, the method 400 of the present invention in
It is to be expressly understood that all of the methods set forth above are functional descriptions of the present invention which can be programmed into a conventional microprocessor such as any of those commercially available personal computers available in the marketplace. Furthermore, the design, construction, and operation of casino games are well known.
The above disclosure sets forth a number of embodiments of the present invention. Those skilled in this art will however appreciate that other arrangements or embodiments, not precisely set forth, could be practiced under the teachings of the present invention and that the scope of this invention should only be limited by the scope of the following claims.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|11 Oct 1973
|10 Dec 1974
|L Reiner
|Combined game of chance and skill
|15 Jan 1973
|15 Apr 1975
|Aurora Prod Corp
|Combined game of chance and skill
|4 Feb 1974
|2 Dec 1975
|Brady William A
|Combined game of chance and skill
|9 Jun 1975
|15 Mar 1977
|Hendrik Liket
|Game of skill and chance
|25 Jul 1977
|12 Dec 1978
|Mager Eric L
|Self-limiting board game combining chance and skill
|31 Jul 1980
|14 Dec 1982
|D. Gottlieb & Co.
|Time based pinball game machine
|21 Jun 1984
|5 Nov 1985
|Ortiz Ralph O
|Cube game of skill and chance
|4 Jan 1984
|15 Apr 1986
|Bally Manufacturing Corporation
|Illusion of skill game machine for a gaming system
|29 Apr 1985
|6 May 1986
|Mcneight David L
|Competitive game
|19 Mar 1984
|10 Jun 1986
|Syntech International, Inc.
|Player interactive video gaming device
|23 Jul 1984
|7 Oct 1986
|Moss Robert J
|Oil game of skill and chance
|6 Mar 1985
|21 Oct 1986
|Kabushiki Kaisha Universal
|Game machine with selective stop means for moving display
|4 Jan 1984
|24 Mar 1987
|Bally Manufacturing Corporation
|Video gaming system with pool prize structures
|31 Jul 1985
|19 May 1987
|Hamilton Clarence Q
|Apparatus for playing
|7 Mar 1986
|22 Sep 1987
|Bally Manufacturing Corporation
|Gaming device having player selectable winning combinations
|26 Feb 1987
|12 Jul 1988
|Promotional Marketing Corporation
|Playing surface with answers in first field providing answer in second field
|2 Aug 1984
|27 Sep 1988
|Kabushiki Kaisha Universal
|Slot machine with stop switch enablement after attainment of minimum reel speed
|24 Oct 1986
|1 Nov 1988
|Mcvean Charles D
|Hybrid sporting event and game show
|8 Jul 1988
|6 Jun 1989
|Dire Felix M
|Game with multiple winning ways
|29 Mar 1988
|15 May 1990
|Sidley Joseph D H
|Computerized gaming system
|3 Jan 1989
|26 Jun 1990
|Rader Robert E
|Board game combining chance and skill
|8 Jun 1989
|14 Aug 1990
|Elton Fabrications Limited
|Machines for gaming, amusement, education and the like
|15 May 1989
|23 Oct 1990
|Longview Corporation
|Variably scored skill game
|22 Dec 1989
|19 Mar 1991
|Hall Tipping Justin
|Video game difficulty level adjuster dependent upon player's aerobic activity level during exercise
|3 Aug 1988
|21 Jan 1992
|John A. Klayh
|Tournament data system with game score communication between remote player terminal and central computer
|7 Jun 1990
|28 Jan 1992
|Interactive Network, Inc.
|Game of skill or chance playable by several participants remote from each other in conjunction with a common event
|20 Feb 1991
|19 May 1992
|Arachnid, Inc.
|System for automatic collection and distribution of player statistics for electronic dart games
|2 Jul 1991
|26 May 1992
|Mikohn, Inc.
|Progressive jackpot gaming system linking gaming machines with different hit frequencies and denominations
|8 Feb 1991
|12 Jan 1993
|Tutor Toys, Inc.
|Electronic puzzle game with unknown random time of play
|27 Apr 1992
|27 Apr 1993
|Takasago Electric Industry Co., Ltd.
|Electronic gaming machine
|8 Jun 1990
|8 Jun 1993
|First Data Resources Inc.
|Telephonic-interface game control system
|6 Feb 1992
|25 Jan 1994
|Mikohn, Inc.
|Gaming system with progressive jackpot
|23 Jun 1992
|5 Apr 1994
|Atari Games Corporation
|Vehicle simulator including cross-network feedback
|21 Sep 1992
|3 May 1994
|Bridgeman James L
|Draw poker with random wild-card determination
|7 Aug 1992
|23 Aug 1994
|Freeman Michael J
|Real-time interactive conversational apparatus
|8 Apr 1992
|30 Aug 1994
|Bally Gaming International, Inc.
|Touch screen video gaming machine
|3 Mar 1993
|30 Aug 1994
|Michael Wichinsky
|Gaming machine with skill feature
|21 Jul 1993
|30 Aug 1994
|Rafael Giovannetti
|Red tape a game of skill and chance
|14 Feb 1994
|3 Jan 1995
|D&D Gaming Patents, Inc.
|Methods and apparatus for playing casino card games including a progressive jackpot
|7 Feb 1992
|28 Feb 1995
|Marnell, Ii; Anthony A.
|Electronic gaming apparatus and method
|3 Jan 1994
|25 Apr 1995
|Lazer-Tron Corporation
|Arcade game
|7 Sep 1994
|2 May 1995
|Normandie Casino
|Game of skill and chance
|14 Feb 1994
|10 Oct 1995
|Antoniak; Peter R.
|Knowledge testing computer game method employing the repositioning of screen objects to represent data relationships
|29 Sep 1994
|2 Jul 1996
|Sevens Unlimited, Inc.
|Double poker
|26 Sep 1994
|16 Jul 1996
|Mikohn Gaming Corporation
|Progressive system for a match number game and method therefor
|23 Sep 1994
|6 Aug 1996
|Universal Distributing Of Nevada, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for randomly increasing the payback in a video gaming apparatus
|14 Feb 1995
|13 Aug 1996
|Shuffle Master, Inc.
|Multi-tiered wagering method and game
|17 Feb 1995
|18 Mar 1997
|Bally Gaming International, Inc.
|Gaming machine having compound win line
|19 Jan 1995
|13 May 1997
|La Francaise Des Jeux
|Game system including an instant win game and a second game initialized by a winning instant win game ticket
|31 May 1995
|1 Jul 1997
|Interactive Network, Inc.
|Game of skill or chance playable by remote participants in conjunction with a common game event including inserted interactive advertising
|20 Oct 1995
|8 Jul 1997
|Helix Information Services, Inc.
|Method of playing a card game
|23 Aug 1995
|8 Jul 1997
|Sega Enterprises, Ltd.
|Gaming system that pays out a progressive bonus using a lottery
|12 Mar 1996
|15 Jul 1997
|Slingo, Inc.
|Apparatus for playing bingo on a slot machine
|29 Aug 1995
|16 Sep 1997
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Roll-down arcade game
|8 May 1996
|7 Oct 1997
|Vancura; Olaf
|Method of playing a casino blackjack side wager
|16 May 1995
|14 Oct 1997
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Arcade games
|17 Jan 1995
|16 Dec 1997
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Redemption-type arcade game with game token return
|21 Apr 1995
|23 Dec 1997
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Ticket redemption arcade game
|7 Feb 1997
|23 Dec 1997
|Williams Electronics Games, Inc.
|Amusement device integrating games of skill and chance
|9 Nov 1994
|6 Jan 1998
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Arcade game with color sensing apparatus
|6 Dec 1996
|13 Jan 1998
|Place; Vaughn
|Method and apparatus for random prize selection in wagering games
|6 Feb 1997
|17 Feb 1998
|Keller, Jr.; Claude Emery
|Method of combining a casino game with a game of skill
|7 Mar 1995
|3 Mar 1998
|Eagle Co., Ltd.
|Slot machine having two distinct sets of reels
|25 Apr 1996
|31 Mar 1998
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Boxing arcade game
|7 Aug 1996
|28 Apr 1998
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Multi-game system with progressive bonus
|2 Jul 1997
|28 Apr 1998
|Lafferty; William M.
|Method of making a side bet during blackjack
|16 Aug 1996
|28 Apr 1998
|B.C.D. Mecanique Ltee.
|Auxiliary game with random prize generation
|19 Sep 1996
|26 May 1998
|Ptt, Llc
|Modified poker card/tournament game and interactive network computer system for implementing same
|6 Aug 1996
|16 Jun 1998
|Video Lottery Technologies
|Device and method for displaying a final gaming result
|24 Sep 1996
|23 Jun 1998
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Arcade game for stacking directed playing pieces
|30 Sep 1996
|23 Jun 1998
|International Game Technology
|Symbol fall game method and apparatus
|25 Mar 1996
|30 Jun 1998
|Casino Data Systems
|Interactive gaming device
|22 Mar 1996
|4 Aug 1998
|International Game Technology
|Electronic game method and apparatus with hierarchy of simulated wheels
|17 Sep 1996
|8 Sep 1998
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Arcade game having multiple score indicators
|12 Feb 1997
|22 Sep 1998
|Jester Games International, L.L.C.
|Method of playing a poker game
|14 Nov 1996
|6 Oct 1998
|Rlt Acquistion, Inc.
|Prize redemption system for games
|25 Mar 1996
|20 Oct 1998
|Anchor Gaming
|Method of playing game and gaming device with an additional payout indicator
|28 Aug 1996
|10 Nov 1998
|International Game Technology
|System for playing electronics card game with player selection of cards in motion on display
|20 May 1997
|17 Nov 1998
|Ptt, Llc
|Method of playing a modified twenty-one card game
|8 Aug 1997
|15 Dec 1998
|Anchor Gaming
|Method of playing game and gaming games with an additional payout indicator
|30 Sep 1996
|22 Dec 1998
|International Game Technology
|Game with bonus display
|5 Sep 1996
|19 Jan 1999
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Golfing game including object sensing and validation
|29 Mar 1996
|16 Feb 1999
|Walker Asset Management Limited Partnership
|Off-line remote system for lotteries and games of skill
|14 Nov 1996
|23 Feb 1999
|Bally Gaming International, Inc.
|Gaming machine having truly random results
|8 Sep 1997
|16 Mar 1999
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Skill-based card game
|30 Sep 1996
|16 Mar 1999
|Anchor Gaming
|Method of playing game and gaming device with at least one additional payout indicator
|28 Apr 1998
|30 Mar 1999
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Interactive funnel amusement device
|29 Jan 1997
|8 Jun 1999
|Konami Co., Ltd.
|Competition game apparatus
|5 May 1997
|24 Aug 1999
|Gamecraft, Inc.
|Computer gaming system
|24 Jul 1992
|14 Sep 1999
|International Game Technology
|Gaming machine and method using touch screen
|22 Dec 1997
|19 Oct 1999
|Rlt Acquisitions, Inc.
|Multi-player ticket redemption arcade game
|23 Jul 1997
|30 Nov 1999
|Strider; Walter
|Video game for simulating a low rider vehicle
|17 Mar 1998
|28 Dec 1999
|Rlt Acquisitions, Inc.
|Skill based prize games for wide area networks
|17 Jun 1998
|11 Jan 2000
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Skill-based water gun game
|29 Sep 1997
|18 Jan 2000
|Rlt Acquisition, Inc.
|Prize redemption system for games
|24 Jan 1997
|18 Jan 2000
|Aristocat Leisure Industires Pty. Ltd.
|Indicia selection game
|5 Aug 1996
|1 Feb 2000
|Konami Co., Ltd.
|Competitive game simulation machine
|14 Nov 1997
|1 Feb 2000
|Shuffle Master, Inc.
|Multi-tiered wagering method and game
|2 Mar 1999
|7 Mar 2000
|Mikohn Gaming Corporation
|Gaming machines with bonusing
|17 Jun 1998
|11 Apr 2000
|Mikohn Gaming Corporation
|Pachinko stand-alone and bonusing game
|Butterworths Annotated Legislation Service, Statutes Supplement No. 171, The Gaming Act 1968, Eddy and Loewe, London, 1969, pp. 209-212.
|International Search Report, 3 pages, Dec. 23, 1999.
|Machine Guidelines Jul. 99, www.gbgb.org.uk/consol.htm, Feb. 7, 2001, pp. 1-11.
|Regulations of the Nevada Gaming Commission, Carson City, Nevada, Nov. 1998 pp. 953-954.
|Scarne's Complete Guide to Gambling, by John Scarne (New York: Simon and Schuster) pp. 16-21 and 330-339, 1961.
|Win95 Games: Cards & Gambling web site at: http://www.aclass.com/WOFT/gamese.html, "Slots of Trivia", see entire disclosure, 17 pages.
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|15 Mar 2007
|3 Jul 2012
|Gaming device having an award level determination competition
|25 Aug 2009
|31 Jul 2012
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for providing a player an opportunity to win a designated award based on one or more aspects of the player's skill
|13 Nov 2009
|7 May 2013
|Gaming systems, gaming devices and methods for providing progressive awards
|11 Jul 2012
|2 Jul 2013
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for providing a player an opportunity to win a designated award based on one or more aspects of the player's skill
|25 Apr 2008
|14 Jan 2014
|Return-driven casino game outcome generator
|22 Jun 2012
|29 Apr 2014
|Gaming system and method providing a collection game including at least one customizable award collector
|25 Apr 2008
|17 Jun 2014
|Return-driven casino game outcome generator
|27 Jun 2013
|1 Jul 2014
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for providing a player an opportunity to win a designated award based on one or more aspects of the player's skill
|15 Mar 2007
|15 Jul 2014
|Gaming device having an award level determination competition
|25 Apr 2008
|14 Oct 2014
|Return-driven casino game outcome generator
|24 Apr 2013
|6 Jan 2015
|Gaming systems, gaming devices and methods for providing progressive awards
|30 Aug 2011
|31 Mar 2015
|Gaming system, gaming device and method employing audio/video programming outcome presentations
|18 Nov 2015
|30 Aug 2016
|Gaming system and method for providing a symbol matrix with a moveable symbol display window
|15 Mar 2007
|19 Jul 2007
|Gaming device having an award level determination competition
|15 Mar 2007
|9 Aug 2007
|Gaming device having an award level determination competition
|25 Apr 2008
|5 Mar 2009
|Cyberview Technology, Inc.
|Return-driven casino game outcome generator
|16 May 2008
|21 May 2009
|Cyberview Technology, Inc.
|Method and system for time gaming with skill wagering opportunities
|29 Mar 2010
|22 Jul 2010
|Jean-Marie Gatto
|Method and system for time gaming with skill wagering opportunities
|19 Feb 2009
|13 Jan 2011
|Ignacio Gerson
|System for Incorporating Chance Into Interactive Games Requiring the Application of Intellectual or Motor Skills
|27 Dec 2010
|21 Apr 2011
|Gaming device having competition configuration, attack and countermeasure game
|30 Aug 2011
|22 Dec 2011
|Gaming system, gaming device and method employing audio/video programming outcome presentations
|30 Aug 2011
|8 Mar 2012
|Gaming system, gaming device and method employing audio/video programming outcome presentations
|U.S. Classification
|463/20, 273/430, 273/274, 463/16
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|25 Apr 2002
Owner name: FOOTHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA
Free format text: SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:MIKOHN GAMING CORPORATION;CASINO EXCITEMENT, INC.;MGC, INC.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:013011/0233
Effective date: 20020214
|5 Apr 2006
Owner name: MIKOHN NEVADA, NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
Owner name: GAMES OF NEVADA, INC., NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
Owner name: MGC, INC., NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
Owner name: MIKOHN GAMING CORPORATION, NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
Owner name: CASINO EXCITEMENT, INC., NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
Owner name: MIKOHN INTERNATIONAL, INC., NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
Owner name: PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC., NEVADA
Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC;REEL/FRAME:017427/0219
Effective date: 20060404
|7 Apr 2006
Owner name: CAPITALSOURCE FINANCE LLC, MARYLAND
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL, INC.;REEL/FRAME:017441/0635
Effective date: 20050502
|23 May 2006
Owner name: PROGRESSIVE GAMING INTERNATION CORPORATION, NEVADA
Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:MIKOHN GAMING CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:017661/0979
Effective date: 20060322
|9 Oct 2007
Owner name: PROGRESSIVE GAMING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NEVA
Free format text: CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE ASSIGNEE NAME PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 017661 FRAME 0979;ASSIGNOR:MIKOHN GAMING CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:019935/0309
Effective date: 20060322
|10 Oct 2007
Owner name: IGT, NEVADA
Free format text: EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:PROGRESSIVE GAMING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:019938/0364
Effective date: 20060504
|3 Dec 2007
Owner name: MIKOHN GAMING CORPORATION, NEVADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:VANCURA, OLAF;REEL/FRAME:020188/0508
Effective date: 19990810
|15 Aug 2008
Owner name: PRIVATE EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP FINANCIAL CORPORAT
Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNORS:PGIC NV;MGC, INC.;PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:021398/0057
Effective date: 20080815
|18 Aug 2008
Owner name: INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, AS AGENT, NEVADA
Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNORS:PGIC NV;MGC, INC.;PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:021398/0485
Effective date: 20080815
Owner name: INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, AS AGENT,NEVADA
Free format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNORS:PGIC NV;MGC, INC.;PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:021398/0485
Effective date: 20080815
|12 Feb 2009
Owner name: IGT, NEVADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:PRIVATE EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP FINANCIAL CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:022246/0352
Effective date: 20090116
|26 Mar 2009
Owner name: PRIVATE EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP FINANCIAL CORPORAT
Free format text: FORECLOSURE OF SECURED PARTY S SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:PROGRESSIVE GAMING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:022449/0419
Effective date: 20090116
|11 Feb 2013
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4


text:
Ten people were killed and 22 others wounded Friday in bombings and shooting attacks in greater Baghdad, Iraqi security sources told Efe.
A bomb blast in the southern suburb of al-Madaen left three people dead and six injured.
All of the casualties were civilians.
Three members of a Sunni pro-government militia died and three of their comrades were wounded by a roadside bomb in al-Tarmiya, north of the capital, the sources said.
The Sunni tribal militias, known as Sahwa, arose in 2006 to fight al Qaeda and are seen as defacto allies of Iraq's Shiite-led government.
Two people were killed and more than a dozen others hurt in separate bombings at Sunni mosques in al-Sayedia and Abu Ghraib, respectively.
A physician died when a limpet mine attacked to his car exploded, while a police colonel was gunned down in front of his home.
The violence in and around the capital came a day after a car-bomb strike at a market in the eastern province of Diyala claimed 30 lives.
Political and sectarian violence has surged this year in Iraq, with security forces and the country's Shiite Muslim majority the main targets.
Nearly a thousand people were killed last month, according to figures from the U.N. mission in Baghdad. EFE

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Washington, D.C. Holiday Season Celebration & Fundraiser
Event Details
Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 6:30pm - 9:00pm
The Board of the Washington Area LBJ School Alumni Chapter invite you to its
2011 Holiday Season Celebration & Fundraiser
benefiting the Ricardo Gomez Memorial Fellowship and the LBJ School of Public Affairs General Fund
December 8, 2011 from 6:30 – 9:00 PM
Association of Public and Land Grant Universities
1307 New York Avenue, NW
Minimum Donation, $40 Per Person
Please RSVP here by December 5
Established by the Class of 1992 in memory of their classmate, who passed away of cancer in 2005, the Ricardo Gomez Memorial Fellowship will support LBJ students. Please join us in helping the Fellowship reach endowed status ($50,000) by year's end. Invitees are also welcome to designate that their contribution go to the LBJ School's General Fund.
The WALSAC Board has worked very hard to make this event a zero-cost event; meaning 100% of your admission donation will go toward endowing the Gomez Fellowship or to support programming at the LBJ School. The suggested donation, to be collected at the door, is $40. We invite each and every one of you will give at whatever level you feel is appropriate. The DC-based community of LBJ alumni is diverse, proud, and engaged, and we want to encourage each and every one of you to help us give back to the school and a deserving student in Austin.
From all of us on the WALSAC Board, we look forward to celebrating the holiday season with you, your family and friends!
Beth Casey, MPAff 2010
Sarah Williams, MGPS 2010
Katherine (Samuels) Groves, MPAff 2009
Travis Allen, MPAff 2008
Yael Cohen, MPAff 2006
Fernando Rodriguez, MPAff 2005
Erik Peterson, MPAff 2000
Chris Bjornson, MPAff 1996
If you have questions, are interested in making an in-kind contribution, or wish to contribute despite not being able to attend,
please contact us by email. All contributions are tax deductible.
For more information visit: http://bit.ly/vO0EfY.


text:
A survey of physicians, pharmacists, and nurses working in healthcare facilities found an increasing number of frustrating drug shortages. Worse:
- One out of three reviewed facilities had a serious error that was caught in time — a near miss.
- One out of four had an actual medication error resulting from the shortages.
- One out of five reported actual adverse outcomes for patients.
This may only be the tip of the iceberg according to the health care professionals surveyed. Many felt that errors and bad patient outcomes aren't always shared so there maybe many more.
The Institute for Safe Medication Practices surveyed more than 1,800 healthcare staff, nearly seven out of ten pharmacists, to find out what impact the drug shortage was having in their own facilities.
The September 23, 2010 issue of the ISMP Medication Safety Alert reported that survey respondents were alarmed by the
- ever increasing numbers of critically necessary medications in short supply
- need to use unfamilar alternative drugs — often expensive.
- potential for mistakes and patient adverse events associated with alternative drugs or doses.
- lack of advance warning about impending shortages.
- time lost managing drug shortages that was not available for clinical work with patients.
Finding out about a drug shortage was a particular concern for the survey respondents. About half of the pharmacists and pharmacy technicians only knew a drug was in shortage when an ordered medicine wasn't delivered. Word of mouth, buying groups, wholesale distributors and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists helped another three out of ten.
Doctors and nurses often found out that a drug was in shortage after ordering it and being told by the pharmacist that it wasn't available.
Some people who responded to the survey believed drug manufacturers withheld information to avoid hoarding.
Gray markets were another concern, sources of medicines in shortage that were somehow available at exorbitant prices. Pharmacists worried about the quality and safety of such drugs and the ethical implications of gray markets when a drug is a life-saving medication.
Among reported errors of concern to people with colorectal cancer were:
Physician prescribed the wrong dose when levoleucovorin was substituted for leucovorin.
Substituting XELODA (capecitabine) for leucovorin has resulted in serious gastrointestinal toxicity in many patients.
Cancer patients are also put at risk when supportive medicines like heparin, ondansetron,morphine and antibiotics are in short supply or unavailable completely. Dosing mistakes can arise from confusion of dose, labeling, and even the bin where the unfamiliar drug is placed for nurses to use.
If you'd like to take action to reduce the impact of the drug shortage, ask your US Senators and members of Congress to support the Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act (S 296 and HR 2245). Fight Colorectal Cancer has a simple way you can do that directly through our website.


text:
|Northern Vegetation Ecology
Research Group
|| ualberta.ca | Faculty of Agricultural, Environmental and Life Sciences | Renewable Resources
( indicates Adobe Acrobate PDF file of entire paper, otherwise links are to abstracts)
Burton, P.J. and S.E. Macdonald. 2012. The Restorative Imperative: Challenges, objectives and approaches to restoring naturalness in forests. Silva Fennica 45 (5): 843-863.
Chavez, V., and S.E. Macdonald. 2012. Partitioning vascular understory diversity in boreal mixedwood forests: the importance of mixed canopies for diversity conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 271: 19-26.
Crisfield, V., S.E. Macdonald, J. Gould. 2012. Effects of recreational traffic on alpine plant communities in the northern Canadian Rockies. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research (accepted)
McIntosh, A., S.E. Macdonald, and M. Gundale. 2012. Tree species versus regional controls on ecosystem properties and processes: an example using introduced Pinus contorta in Swedish boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42: 1228-1238.
Schmiedinger, A., J. Kreyling, M.J. Steinbauer, S.E. Macdonald, A. Jentsch, C. Beierkuhnlein. 2012. A continental comparison indicates long-term effects of forest management on understory diversity in coniferous forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42: 1239-1252..
Cavard, Xavier, S.E. Macdonald, Y. Bergeron and H. Chen. 2011. Are mixedwoods important for biodiversity conservation in boreal and temperate forests? Environmental Reviews 19: 142-161.
Gärtner, S.M., V.J. Lieffers and S. E. Macdonald. 2011. Ecology and management of natural regeneration of white spruce in the boreal forest. Environmental Reviews 19: 461-478.
Harper, K.A. and S.E. Macdonald. 2011. Quantifying distance of edge influence: A comparison of methods and a new randomization method Ecosphere 2(8): art94. DOI: 10-1890/ES11-00146.1.
Lilles, E.B., B.G. Purdy, S. Chang, and S.E. Macdonald. 2010. Soil and groundwater characteristics of saline sites supporting boreal mixedwood forests in northern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 90: 1-14.
Martin-DeMoor, J., V.J. Lieffers and S.E. Macdonald. 2010. Natural regeneration of white spruce in aspen-dominated boreal mixedwoods following harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 585-594.
Caners, R., S.E. Macdonald and R. Belland. 2010. Viability of epiphytic bryophytes depends on forest structure along a gradient of partial harvesting. Botany 88: 315-328.
Chavez, V., and S.E. Macdonald. 2010. The influence of canopy patch mosaics on understory plant community composition in boreal mixedwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1067-1075.
Chavez, V. and S.E. Macdonald. 2010. Understory species interactions in mature boreal understory plant communities. Botany 88: 912-922.
Craig, A., S.E. Macdonald. 2009. Threshold effects of variable retention harvesting on understory plant communities in the boreal mixedwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 2619-2627.
Cumming, S., M. Trindade, D. Greene, S.E. Macdonald. 2009. Canopy and emergent white spruce in "pure" deciduous stands: frequency, predictive models and ecological importance. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 1997-2004.
Kemper, J. T. and S.E. Macdonald. 2009. Directional change in low-arctic upland tundra plant communities 20-30 years following seismic exploration disturbance. Journal of Vegetation Science 20: 557-567.
Kemper, J. T. and S.E. Macdonald. 2009. Effects of contemporary winter seismic exploration on low arctic plant communities and permafrost. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 41: 228-237.
Islam, M.A. and S.E. Macdonald. 2009. Current uptake of 15N-labeled ammonium and nitrate in flooded and non-flooded black spruce and tamarack seedlings. Annals of Forest Science 66: 102 (11 pages) [DOI: 10.1051/forest:200807] .
Caners, R., S.E. Macdonald and R. Belland. 2009. Recolonization potential of bryophyte diaspore banks in harvested mixedwood boreal forest. Plant Ecology 204: 55-68.
Kreyling, J., Schmiedinger, A., Macdonald, S.E., Beierkuhnlein, C. 2008. Slow understory redevelopment after clearcutting in high mountain forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 2339-2355.
Kreyling, J., A. Schmiedinger, S.E. Macdonald, and C. Beierkuhnlein. 2008. Potential for natural tree regeneration after clearcutting in subalpine forests. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 23: 46-52.
Lazaruk, L., S.E. Macdonald, G. Kernaghan. 2008. The effect of mechanical site preparation on ectomycorrhizae of planted white spruce seedlings in conifer-dominated boreal mixedwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 2072-2079.
Greene, D.F., S.E. Macdonald, S. Haeussler, S. Domenicano, J. Noël, K. Jayen, I. Charron, S. Gauthier, S. Hunt, E.T. Gielau, Y. Bergeron, and L. Swift. 2007. The reduction of organic-layer depth by wildfire in the North American boreal forest and its effect on tree recruitment by seed. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 1012-1023.
Harper, K.A., L. Mascarúa-López, S.E. Macdonald, and P. Drapeau. 2007. Interaction of edge influence from multiple edges: examples from narrow corridors. Plant Ecology 192: 71-84.
Kurulok, S.E. and S.E. Macdonald. Impacts of post-fire salvage logging on understory plant communities of the boreal mixedwood forest 2 and 34 years after disturbance. 2007. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 2637 – 2651.
Macdonald, S.E., and T.E. Fenniak. 2007. Understory plant communities of boreal mixedwood forests in western Canada: Natural patterns and response to variable-retention harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 242: 34-48.
Macdonald S. E. 2007. Effects of partial post-fire salvage harvesting on vegetation communities in the boreal mixedwood forest region of northeastern Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 239: 21-31.
Shepherd, L., F. Schmiegelow, and S.E. Macdonald. 2007. Managing fire for woodland caribou in Jasper and Banff National Parks. Rangifer 17: 129-140.
Macrae, M.L., I.F. Creed, S.E. Macdonald, and K.J. Devito. 2006. Relation of soil nitrogen distribution and surface and ground water nitrogen concentrations in harvested and unharvested portions of an aspen-dominated catchment in the Boreal Plain. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 2090-2103.
Macdonald, S.E., B. Eaton, C.S. Machtans, C. Paszkowski, S. Hannon, S. Boutin. 2006. Is forest close to lakes ecologically unique? Analysis of vegetation, small mammals, amphibians, and songbirds. Forest Ecology and Management 223: 1-17.
MacIsaac, D.A.. P.G. Comeau, and S.E. Macdonald. 2006. Gap dynamics of regeneration following harvest of aspen stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 1818-1833.
Peters, V.S., S.E. Macdonald, and M.R.T. Dale. 2006. The importance of initial versus delayed regeneration of white spruce in boreal mixedwood succession. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 1597-1609.
Islam, M. A. and S. E. Macdonald. 2005. Effects of variable nitrogen fertilization on growth, gas exchange, and biomass partitioning in black spruce and tamarack seedlings. Canadian Journal of Botany 83:1574-1580.
Greene, David F., S. Ellen Macdonald, Steve Cumming, and Lynn Swift. 2005. Seedbed variation from the interior through the edge of a large wildfire in Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 35(7): 1640-1647.
Harper, K.A., S.E. Macdonald, P.J. Burton, J. Chen, K. Brosofske, S. Saunders, E. Euskirchen, D. Roberts, M. Jaiteh, P.-A. Esseen. 2005. Towards a theory of edge influence: Forest structure and composition at created edges. Conservation Biology 19: 768-782.
Lazaruk, Lance W., Gavin Kernaghan, S. Ellen Macdonald, and Damase Khasa. 2005. Effects of partial cutting on the ectomycorrhizae of Picea glauca forests in northwestern Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 35(6): 1442-1454.
Mills, S.E., and S.E. Macdonald. 2005. Factors influencing bryophyte assemblage at different scales in the western Canadian boreal forest. Bryologist 108: 86-101.
Peters, Vernon S., S. Ellen Macdonald and Mark R. T. Dale. 2005. The interaction between masting and fire is key to white spruce regeneration. Ecology 86(7): 1744–1750.
Purdy, B.G., S.E. Macdonald, V.J. Lieffers. 2005. Naturally saline boreal communities as models for reclamation of saline oil-sand tailings. Restoration Ecology 13(4): 667-677.
Peters, V.S., S.E. Macdonald and M.R.T. Dale. 2004. Reply to comment on "Aging discrepancies of white spruce affect the interpretation of static age structure in boreal mixedwoodsâ€. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 1365-1367.
Peters, S.H., S.E. Macdonald, S.A. Boutin and R.A. Moses. 2004. Post-dispersal seed predation of white spruce in cutblocks in the boreal mixedwoods: A short-term experimental study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 907-915.
Mills, S.E., and S.E. Macdonald. 2004. Predictors of moss and liverwort species diversity of microsites in conifer-dominated boreal forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 189-198.
Macdonald, S. Ellen, Carl J. Burgess, Garry J. Scrimgeour, Stan A. Boutin, Sharon Reedyk, Brian Kotak. 2004. Should riparian buffers be part of forest management based on emulation of natural disturbance? Forest Ecology and Management 187: 185-196.
Islam, M.A. and S.E. Macdonald. 2004. Ecophysiological adaptations of black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina) seedlings to flooding. Trees: Structure and Function 18: 35-42.
Tupker, K., B.R. Thomas and S.E. Macdonald. 2003. Effects of elevated CO2 on different trembling aspen and hybrid poplar clones in the greenhouse. Agroforestry Systems 59: 61-71.
Islam, M.A., S.E. Macdonald and J.J. Zwiazek. 2003. Responses of black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina) to flooding and ethylene treatments. Tree Physiol. 23:545-552.
Peters, S. H., Boutin, S. and Macdonald, S. E. 2003. Pre-dispersal seed predation of white spruce cones in logged boreal mixedwood forest. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 33-40.
Rhemtulla, Jeanine M., Ronald J. Hall, Eric S. Higgs, and S. Ellen Macdonald. 2002. Eighty years of change: The montane vegetation of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 2010-2021.
Hannon, Susan J., C. A. Paszkowski, S. Boutin, J. DeGroot, E. Macdonald, M. Wheatley and B. Eaton. 2002. Influence of varying riparian buffer strip widths on abundance and species composition of amphibians, small mammals and songbirds in the boreal mixedwood forest of Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 1784-1800.
Peters, V., S.E. Macdonald & M. Dale. 2002. Aging discrepancies of white spruce affect the interpretation of recruitment processes in the boreal mixedwood. Can. J. For. Res. 3: 1496-1501.
Harper, K. & S.E. Macdonald. 2002. Structure and composition of edges next to regenerating clearcuts in the mixedwood boreal forest. J. Veg. Science 13: 535-546.
Purdy, B.G., S.E. Macdonald and M.R.T. Dale. 2002. The regeneration niche of white spruce following fire in the mixedwood boreal forest. Silva Fennica 36(1): 289-306.
Hodgetts, R., A. Brown, C. Clark, E. Macdonald, M. Aleksiuk, and D. Khasa. 2001. Development of microsatellite markers for white spruce (Picea glauca) and related species. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102: 1252-1258.
Macdonald, S.E., B.R. Thomas, D.M. Cherniawsky, and B.G. Purdy.2001. Managing genetic resources of lodgepole pine in west-central Alberta: patterns of isozyme variation in natural populations and effects of forest management. For. Ecol. Mgmt. 152: 45-58.
Yao, X., S.J. Titus, and S.E. Macdonald. 2001. A generalized logistic model of individual tree mortality for aspen, white spruce, and lodgepole pine in Alberta mixedwood forests. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 283-291.
Harper, K.A. and S.E. Macdonald. 2001. Structure and composition of riparian boreal forest: new methods for analyzing edge influence. Ecology 82: 649-659.
Jones, M.H., S.E. Macdonald, and G.R.H. Henry. 1999. Gender- and habitat- specific responses of a high arctic willow, Salix arctica to experimental climate change. Oikos 87:129-138.
Macdonald, S.E., and F.Y. Yin. 1999. Factors influencing size inequality in peatland black spruce and tamarack: Evidence from post-drainage release growth. J. Ecol. 87: 404-412.
Mugasha, A.G., D.J. Pluth, and S.E. Macdonald. 1999. Effects of fertilization on seasonal patterns of foliar mass and nutrients of tamarack and black spruce on undrained and drained minerotrophic peatland sites. For. Ecol. Mgmt. 116: 13-31.
Thomas, B.R., S.E. Macdonald, M. Hicks, D.L. Adams and R.B. Hodgetts. 1999. Effects of reforestation methods on genetic diversity of lodgepole pine: An assessment using microsatellite and randomly amplified polymorphic DNA markers. Theoret. Appl. Genet. 98: 793-801.
Hicks, M., D. Adams, S. O'Keefe, E. Macdonald, and R. Hodgetts. 1998. The development of RAPD and microsatellite markers in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia). Genome 41: 797-805.
Macdonald, S.E., M.G. Schmidt, and R.L. Rothwell. 1998. Impacts of mechanical site preparation on foliar nutrients of planted white spruce seedlings on mixed-wood boreal forest sites in Alberta. For. Ecol. Mgmt. 110: 35-48.
Thomas, B.R., S.E. Macdonald, and B.P. Dancik. 1997. Variance components, heritabilities and gain estimates for growth chamber and field performance of Populus tremuloides: growth and yield parameters. Silvae Genetica 46: 317-326.
Thomas, B.R., S.E. Macdonald, and B.P. Dancik. 1997. Variance components, heritabilities and gain estimates for growth chamber and field performance of Populus tremuloides: gas exchange parameters. Silvae Genetica 46: 309-317.
Mugasha, A.G., S.E. Macdonald and D.J. Pluth. 1996. Needle litter responses of peatland tamarack and black spruce to fertilization of minerotrophic peatlands. For. Ecol. Mgmt. 87: 257-264.
Schmidt, M.G., S.E. Macdonald, and R.L. Rothwell. 1996. Impacts of harvesting and mechanical site preparation on soil chemical properties of mixed-wood boreal forest sites in Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci.76: 531-540.
Jiang, Y. S.E. Macdonald, and J.J. Zwiazek. 1995. Effects of cold storage and water stress on water relations and gas exchange of white spruce seedlings. Tree Physiol. 15: 267-273.
Jiang, Y, Zwiazek, J.J., and S.E. Macdonald. 1994. Effects of prolonged cold storage on carbohydrate and protein content and field performance of white spruce bareroot seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1369-1375.
Purdy, B.G., Bayer, R.J., and S.E. Macdonald. 1994. Genetic variation, breeding system evolution and conservation of the narrow sand dune endemic Stellaria arenicola and the widespread S. longipes. Amer. J. Bot. 81: 904-911.
Urban, S.T., Lieffers, V.J., and S.E. Macdonald. 1994. Release in radial growth in the trunk and structural roots of white spruce as measured by dendrochronology. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1550-1556.
Macdonald, S.E., and V.J. Lieffers. 1993. Rhizome plasticity and clonal foraging of Calamagrostis canadensis in response to habitat heterogeneity. J. Ecol. 81: 769-776.
Lieffers, V.J., S.E. Macdonald, and E.H. Hogg. 1993. Ecology of and control strategies for Calamagrostis canadensis in boreal forest sites. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 2070-2077.
Lieffers, V.J., A.G. Mugasha, and S.E. Macdonald. 1993. Ecophysiological responses of shade needles of white spruce saplings to brush removal and degree of prior shading. Tree Physiol. 12: 271-280.
Wang, Z.M. and S.E. Macdonald. 1993. Peatland and upland black spruce in Alberta: Morphology and ecophysiology. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 33-40.
Greenway, K.J., S.E. Macdonald and V.J. Lieffers. 1992. Is long-lived foliage in Picea mariana an adaptation to nutrient-poor conditions? Oecologia, 91: 184-191.
Wang, Z.M., and S.E. Macdonald. 1992. Peatland and upland black spruce populations in Alberta, Canada: Isozyme variation and seed germination ecology. Silvae Genet. 41: 117-122.
Dang, Q.L., V.J. Lieffers, R.L. Rothwell, and S.E. Macdonald. 1991. Diurnal variation and interrelations of ecophysiological parameters in three peatland woody species under different soil and weather conditions. Oecologia, 88: 317-324.
Macdonald, S.E., and V.J. Lieffers. 1991. Population variation, outcrossing, and colonization of forest cutover areas by Calamagrostis canadensis: evidence from allozyme analysis. Amer. J. Bot. 78: 1123-1129.
Macdonald, S.E., and V.J. Lieffers. 1990. Photosynthesis, water relations and foliar nitrogen of Picea mariana and Larix laricina from drained and undrained peatlands. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 995-1000.
Lieffers, V.J., and S.E. Macdonald. 1990. Growth and foliar nutrient status of black spruce and tamarack in relation to depth of water table in some Alberta peatlands. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 805-809.
Cai, Q., S.E. Macdonald, and C.C. Chinnappa. 1990. Studies on the Stellaria longipes complex (Caryophyllaceae): Isozyme variability and the relationship between Stellaria longipes and S. longifolia. Plant Syst. Evol. 173: 129-141.
Macdonald, S.E., and C.C. Chinnappa. 1989. Population differentiation for phenotypic plasticity in the Stellaria longipes complex. Amer. J. Bot. 76: 1627-1637.
Macdonald, S.E., C.C. Chinnappa, and D.M. Reid. 1988. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity in the Stellaria longipes complex: Comparisons among cytotypes and habitats. Evolution 42: 1036-1046.
Macdonald, S.E., C.C. Chinnappa. 1988. Patterns of variation in the Stellaria longipes complex: The effects of polyploidy and natural selection. Amer. J. Bot. 75: 1191-1200.
Macdonald, S.E., C.C. Chinnappa, D.M. Reid, and B.G. Purdy. 1987. Population differentiation of the Stellaria longipes complex within Saskatchewan's Athabasca sand dunes. Can. J. Bot. 65: 1726-1732.
Macdonald, S.E., D.M. Reid, and C.C. Chinnappa. 1986. Studies on the Stellaria longipes complex: Phenotypic plasticity. II. Phytohormones and stem elongation. Can. J. Bot. 64: 2617-2621.
Macdonald, S.E., C.C. Chinnappa, and D.M. Reid. 1984. Studies on the Stellaria longipes complex: Phenotypic plasticity. I. Response of stem elongation to temperature and photoperiod. Can. J. Bot. 62: 414-419.


text:
Holiday recycling reminder
The Columbus Dispatch - December 20, 2013 04:04 PM
It feels good to recycle, but there's no sense tossing stuff in the bin that doesn't belong there.
With the holidays here, Rumpke Recycling, the company that processes what comes out Columbus' curbside recycling bins, sends along reminders on what is and isn't recyclable.
Why these rules? It has a lot to do with two things: The automated processes that Rumpke uses to process material and the market for that material.
Here's how I remember what's bin-worthy and what's not:
If it's paper and you can tear it, Rumpke will take it.
So put all the gift wrap, catalogs, cards, junk mail, cake boxes and shipping boxes you want into the bin. But Rumpke can't take bows, ribbons or foil wrapping. Throw those in the trash.
Paper contaminated with food waste, such as carryout food cartons, is also not recyclable. You can recycle the top half of a pizza box but throw away the greasy bottom half.
Milk cartons and juice boxes are recyclable.
If it's plastic and bottle-shaped, Rumpke will take it.
Forget about the recycling numbers and symbols imprinted on plastic containers. If it's not bottle-shaped, you can't recycle it. That means that all that plastic clamshell and blister packaging that piles up on Christmas morning is, alas, not recyclable. Neither are microwave food trays or plastic toys.
Likewise, you can't recycle bubble wrap or packing peanuts. But you can reuse them.
Plastic bags are not recyclable at Rumpke (and in fact clog the equipment) but many grocery stores take them.
If it's a glass bottle or jar or a metal can, it's recyclable.
But window glass is not recyclable at Rumpke.
And don't toss electronics in the recycling - there are other ways to recycle those. Here's a
list of where
to recycle a variety of other items from the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio.


text:
Our Favorite Things
Welcome Back, Family!
The holidays are here and so are we, celebrating Our Favorite Things during this very special season! There's some new features here just for you, to enjoy and share:
- New All-Star Audio Special
- New Videos
- New Stars
- New Music
- All-Star Kids Space
We always love spending the holidays with you and being a part of your holiday entertainment!


text:
I am a third-year math graduate student at Stanford University interested in geometric representation theory. My advisor is Zhiwei Yun.
- Stanford math grad student directory
- Other Stanford math grad students my year with websites: Brian, Christos, Evan, Jesse, Niccolo', Zeb
- During 2013-14, I co-organized FARS (Faculty Area Research Seminar), a seminar for first- and second-year math grad students at Stanford.
I graduated from Princeton University (B.A. in Mathematics) in 2012. My senior thesis (see Research) advisor was Peter Sarnak.
- "There are many more theories than fundamental objects in mathematics." -Yves Benoist, quoted by Olivier Schiffmann