WO2012129599A1

WO2012129599A1 - Transaction architecture

Info

Publication number: WO2012129599A1
Application number: PCT/AU2012/000316
Authority: WO
Inventors: Staffan Andreas HURTIG
Original assignee: Amh Malta Holding Ltd.; Atichian, Christian
Priority date: 2011-03-28
Filing date: 2012-03-28
Publication date: 2012-10-04
Also published as: GB201105165D0

Abstract

A method of managing transactions related to a series of events involving a plurality of user computers (4) networked together, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer (4) and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the networked computers (4,2), wherein each transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of user computers (4), wherein the method comprises: verifying the user computers (4) to be involved in a transaction-related event; electing one of the user computers (4) taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user (4) computers taking part in the event; tracking transactions made in accordance with the transaction protocol by each user computer (4) involved in the transaction-related event; and determining an outcome of each transaction-related event occurring between the elected user computer (4) and the other user computers (4) taking part in the event.

Description

Ref. P25180GB

Title: Transaction architecture

This invention relates to a transaction architecture and method of using the same.

Background

Most online gaming websites have become generic in nature over the years and offer an online user simple mimicry of conventional table games. The online gaming entity hosting the service acts as the house, banker, bank, dealer or chair. The users are networked to the online gaming entity and interact with the online gaming entity in a series of events: the games, or rounds of games or hands within games. Each game, round or hand provides an event outcome. The outcome determines how any wagers made by the users are settled with the online gaming entity. Settlement of this transaction between the users and the online gaming entity may involve monetary consideration passing from the players to the online gaming entity or monetary consideration passing from the online gaming entity to the players or possibly no transactional activity in the event of a neutral outcome between the online gaming entity and the users. Betting exchanges are known. In betting exchanges, the outcomes of events are traded between members of the exchange who can buy and sell contracts between one another.

Some online gaming entities attempt to secure the interest and maintain the attention of their customers in a number of ways. For example, online gaming entities provide new rules for the conventional table games or different skins so that the appearance of the games changes. However, on the whole, the online gaming industry has been relatively stagnant over the years only offering minor cosmetic changes to rules, layouts and user interaction.

One aspect of the present invention provides a method of managing transactions related to a series of events involving a plurality of user computers networked together, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the networked computers, wherein each transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of user computers, wherein the method comprises:

verifying the user computers to be involved in a transaction-related event;

electing one of the user computers taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event;

tracking transactions made in accordance with the transaction protocol by each user computer involved in the transaction-related event; and

determining an outcome of each transaction-related event occurring between the elected user computer and the other user computers taking part in the event.

A further aspect of the present invention provides a method of managing transactions related to a series of events involving a plurality of users, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user and an outcome of one or more of the transaction- related events occurring between the users, wherein each transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of users, wherein the method comprises:

verifying the users to be involved in a transaction-related event; electing one of the users taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other users taking part in the event; tracking transactions made in accordance with the transaction protocol by each user involved in the transaction-related event; and

determining an outcome of each transaction-related event occurring between the elected user and the other users taking part in the event.

Another aspect of the present invention provides a gaming transaction architecture for enabling game play between a plurality of networked user computers and operable to manage a series of transactions between the user computers in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the networked computers, wherein each

transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of user computers, the system being operable to:

verify the user computers to be involved in a transaction-related event; elect one of the user computers taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event;

track transactions made in accordance with the transaction protocol by each user computer involved in the transaction-related event; and

determine an outcome of each transaction-related event occurring between the elected user computer and the other user computers taking part in the event.

A further aspect of the present invention provides a method of managing transactions between a closed set of users involved in a transaction-related event, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with g transaction protocol and the outcome of the event distributes the result of the transactions amongst the closed set of users taking part in the event and a portion of the or each transaction is distributed to a hosting entity outside the closed set of users.

Another aspect of the present invention provides a process of setting up a transaction-related event involving a closed set of networked user computers, wherein transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the networked computers, wherein the method comprises:

establishing network connection between a plurality of user computers; verifying a selection of the user computers for participation in the transaction-related event, the selection comprising a closed set of user computers;

electing one of the user computers taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event; and

commencing the event only after election of one of the user computers to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event.

Description of Invention

In order that the present invention may be more readily understood, embodiments thereof will now be described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

Figure 1 is a schematic overview of a system embodying the present invention;

Figure 2 is another schematic overview of the system of figure 1 ; Figure 3 is a schematic overview of another embodiment of a system embodying the present invention; and

Figures 4-8 are workflows illustrating games such as Blackjack, Caribbean Stud, Hold 'em, 7 Card Omaha and Craps Poker which can be provided by systems embodying the present invention.

Description The present invention relates to a transaction architecture configured to implement transactions between users of a system in accordance with a transaction protocol and as a result of an event outcome. Preferably, the transactions comprise wagers between users of the system who are participating in a particular event. Preferably, the events are games, rounds of games or hands within games. Conveniently, the events occur in the online environment and the users are networked together via their user computers.

Network setup

Referring to Figure 1 , a computer network 1 has a network host 2 associated with a hosting entity H. The host 2 is connected via a network such as the Internet 3 to a number of nodes 4 each comprising a user computer 4A - 4F each of which is in turn associated with a network user A-F. In the illustrated example there are six user computers 4 but any number of users from two to X is possible. Preferably X is between two and ten although as many as twelve or fourteen users can be networked together.

The network 1 includes a network host 2 in the example shown in Figure 1 but the network can also be configured without a network host 2 as a peer-to-peer network 1 as shown in Figure 3. There is no central network host 2 in that example. In a peer-to-peer network the role of the host computer 2 is either given to one of the user computers or is distributed amongst all or a selection of the user computers 4 in the network 1.

Event setup

The networked user computers 4 and the host computer 2 (or game server in a gaming environment) are configured to manage a series of events and record and effect a series of transactions related to the events occurring in the networked environment. Preferably, each event is a game, a round of a game or a hand within a game. Whatever the event, there is also an outcome to the event. The outcome may be one or more of the following: win, lose, draw, incomplete or a score result. There may be multiple outcomes to the same event.

In this example, the transactions are wagers between users of the system who are participating in a particular event. A wager may involve monetary consideration passing from one user to another depending on the outcome of the event.

In this example, the event is a Blackjack game involving six user computers and a host computer 2. The system for enabling the event and the

transactions related to the event is illustrated schematically in Figures 1 to 3.

All the users A-F have user computers 4 and are registered with the host computer 2 for participation in events within that network. A user computer 4 must first negotiate with the host computer 2 to join a lobby hosting a particular event. The user computer 4 makes an event selection from the choice of events within the hosted lobby and if there is a quorum of user computers 4 applying for that event, then an event is established and the user computers 4 enter the event and, in the terms of this specification, this is a "closed set" of user computers 4 which are now involved in a transaction-related event. The composition of the user computers making up the closed set is open to change as user computers 4 sit out a hand (an event) or drop out from the lobby altogether and/or as a new user computer 4 enters the lobby and joins an event. The system architecture stores, for each user computer 4: transaction balance data storage; protocol status identifier data storage; and a transaction related event log. The closed set of user computers 4 participating in this event is established and verified amongst the networked computers 4,2. In a conventional online environment, the online gaming entity hosting the event takes the role of the house, banker, bank, dealer or chair. In

accordance with embodiments of the present invention, there is not a separate house, banker, bank, dealer or chair. The attributes of the house, banker, bank, dealer or chair are taken by one of the closed set of user computers 4. This means that one of the closed set of user computers 4 is the house, banker, bank, dealer or chair for the current event being set up. This user computer is elected and takes on the house attributes or selected ones of the house attributes. The event data is logged and includes a record of the protocol status of each user computer 4. Preferably, if there is a host computer, then the protocol status for each user is stored at the host computer 2 and/or stored or flagged at each user computer 4. There is a default player protocol status and a house protocol status.

House attributes which may belong to the house protocol status include and are not limited to:

1 ) a different level of loss/benefit exposure and liability to the other user computers in the closed set. i.e. Figure 1 example: in an event with six users 4A-4F participating, the user computer 4F with the house exposure attribute will be entering into transactions with all the other users 4A-4E in the closed set whereas all the other users 4A-4E will only each be entering into a single transaction with the user 4F with the house attribute; and 2) a different event rule set liability to the other user computers in the closed set. For example (also Figure 1 ): in the game of Blackjack, the user 4F with the house attribute MUST stay on "17", whereas the other user computers 4A-4E are not constrained by the same rule.

The election one of the user computers 4 from the closed set as having a different protocol status (the house protocol status) to the protocol status of the other user computers (having the default player protocol status) taking part in the event is by a number of mechanisms:

election is a random and automatic process and there is no user computer choice;

election is a choice offered to each of the user computers taking part in the event;

election is sequentially applied to each user computer taking part in the event and each subsequent event;

election is sequentially applied to user computers taking part in the event and also offered to user computers that are entitled to take part in the event but are not yet taking part in the event; and/or

election of a particular user computer is operable to be skipped and to pass the opportunity for election to another user computer.

The election process is critical to establishing or setting up the event. Without the set up procedure to elect one of the closed set of user computers with a different protocol status to the other user computers, the event cannot be initialised and the transactions cannot take place. Protocol status election also performs a useful security function and ensures that all the user computers, including the elected user computer accept the terms of the transactions about to be conducted and the outcome of those transactions. In particular, election or conferring of the house protocol status to one of the user computers in the closed set within the network environment is a critical action to the set up, establishment and validation of a networked event, without which the event cannot take place.

The system architecture can also continually check that the elected user computer remains involved in the event and if at any stage the elected user computer opts out or drops out of the event, then any transaction in which the elected user computer is involved with is forfeited to the benefit of the other users in the closed set. Thus, the gaming transactions are constantly being validated by confirming that the elected user computer is online, is active and present.

After the event in Figure 1 has terminated, the next event is set up in accordance with the set up procedure. As a result of that set up procedure the house protocol status is moved from user computer 4F in Figure 1 to user computer 4A in Figure 2.

The election process and ability to have an election process captures user interest in the event and subsequent events as users opt in and/or out of election to the different protocol status. Some users will be positively attracted to the prospect of taking on the extra risk reward that comes with election to the different protocol status whereas other users will shy away from the extra risk/reward but relish the prospect of securing a positive outcome in the event.

The system architecture is configured to monitor the protocol status of the user computers in the closed set and to prohibit an event taking place until the different protocol status is conferred on one of the user computers in the closed set.

Event transactions

Once the event is set up and the different protocol status is conferred on one (4F) of the user computers in the closed set (4A-4F), the user computers (4A- 4E) with the default player protocol status can then enter into transactions with the user computer (4F) with the house protocol status (using the reference numerals from Figure 1). Each of those transactions is logged in the system architecture in accordance with the transaction rules or protocol for the respective event. Each of the transactions is therefore associated with an event and is undertaken in accordance with the protocol for that particular event and in dependence on the protocol status of each user computer in the closed set.

A user computer 4 sitting out or dropping out of an ongoing event will forfeit a result of any transaction entered into. A user computer 4 joining an ongoing event will not be able to participate in the ongoing event and would normally only be able to participate in the next event.

The transactions may be updated as the event proceeds if the transaction protocol for that event allows. Transactions can be conducted mid-event. Transactions will be prevented after a cut-off time period after the event has been set up. The cut-off time for submitting transactions may be set or variable, again in accordance with the transaction protocol for the particular event.

Event process

The event in which the closed set of user computers 4A-4F are participating is conducted in accordance with the event rules which are substantially irrelevant to the present invention. Figures 4-8 are workflows illustrating how events such as the games of Blackjack, Caribbean Stud, Hold 'em, 7 Card Omaha and Craps Poker can be configured for inclusion in the system architecture embodying the present invention.

Event outcome Irrespective of the rules of the event, there will be an outcome at the termination of the event. The transactions which may have taken place between the closed set of user computers (possibly posted in anticipation of the event, before the event) during the event but not after the event are in accordance with the transaction protocol for that particular event.

The outcome refers to the outcome of the event taking place between the user computer 4F with the house protocol status and a respective one of the other users 4A-4E. If there are more than two user computers networked into the event as in the Figure 1 example, then there are multiple outcomes: one outcome between each pair of user computers but always involving the user computer with the house protocol status.

There may be multiple outcomes for one user computer for the one event. For example, in a game of Blackjack between two users each with one hand, one of the users may draw a card allowing the possibility to split the hand so that one user has two hands, each of which are being played against the other user. There will be two outcomes in this scenario: user 1 , hand 1 vs user 2 hand 1 AND user 1 , hand 1 vs user 2, hand 2.

Transaction result distribution

At the termination of the event, the outcomes are all known and the status and standing of all of the user computers are known together with the transaction protocol under which the transactions were entered into by the closed set of user computers. The results of the transactions are distributed amongst the closed set of user computers who participated in the event in dependence upon the outcome of each transaction-related event occurring between the elected user computer and the other user computers taking part in the event. Transaction protocol The transaction protocol varies depending on the nature of the event being conducted. The transaction protocol is thus specific to the particular event. Some events have a simple transaction protocol where only one transaction is entered into between the house protocol status user computer and each of the other user computers in the closed set. In a gaming environment, this transaction comprises the ante. The transaction protocol may allow further transactions as the event proceeds after the ante so that some transactions can be conducted during the event. The transaction protocol includes a cut-off time period after the event has been set up. When the cut-off time period has expired, no further transactions can be entered into unless the protocol allows for an additional round of transactions. The cut-off time for submitting transactions may be set or variable.

In embodiments of the invention in the gaming environment, player(s) in the closed set adopt the house role and conduct bank transactions with other players, in this environment, all the players play against everybody at the same time. See particularly the examples in Figures 4, 5 and 6: Caribbean, 7 Card Omaha and Hold 'em. In a conventional gaming environment the players have to beat the house whereas in embodiments of the invention, the players have to beat all the other players participating in the event.

In a conventional gaming environment it can be impossible to win because the players are playing against the house. In embodiments of the invention, players play against other players and all the players take turns being the house/bank. This means players can win money simply by being better players than the opponents in the closed set. See particularly Figure 7: Blackjack. In embodiments of the present invention where there is no game play or intervention by a house computer, all the events unfold without any decision being taken by a computer: players are playing against players only. Every decision within the event, transaction decisions and event decisions are made by a person. The more skilled player will beat the less skilled player. Every decision taken may change the conditions for the other players involved in the event.

This means players cannot look to a "how to play the right way" guide, model or program to make the "right" decisions for them. All the players are playing against other players/humans who may not play in accordance with "the right way to play".

A random number generator such as a Mersenne twister model can be used to set the conditions for starting any event and setting conditions for elements within an event.

Embodiments of the invention establish events and transactions are entered into by the players in the closed set. There may be no "house" as such nut the event is still being hosted and an entity is still carrying the overhead of maintaining the system architecture and developing the engine behind the system. Because the players are all pitted against each other, the hosting entity does not benefit from the transactions so instead the hosting entity takes a proportion of the transactions directly and the remainder comprises the result of the transaction which is distributed amongst the user computers in accordance with the outcome, the transaction protocol and the protocol status. Thus, instead of playing against a house edge the players play against other players and the transactions being recorded during play are being raked with the raked portion going to the hosting entity. See particularly Figure 8: Craps Poker. When used in this specification and claims, the terms "comprises" and "comprising" and variations thereof mean that the specified features, steps or integers are included. The terms are not to be interpreted to exclude the presence of other features, steps or components.

The features disclosed in the foregoing description, or the following claims, or the accompanying drawings, expressed in their specific forms or in terms of a means for performing the disclosed function, or a method or process for attaining the disclosed result, as appropriate, may, separately, or in any combination of such features, be utilised for realising the invention in diverse forms thereof.

Claims

CLAIMS:

1. A method of managing transactions related to a series of events involving a plurality of user computers networked together, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer and an outcome of one or more of thetransaction-related events occurring between the networked computers, wherein each transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of user computers, wherein the method comprises:

verifying the user computers to be involved in a transaction-related event;

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising distributing a result of the transactions amongst the user computers taking part in the event in dependence upon the outcome of each transaction-related event occurring between the elected user computer and the other user computers taking part in the event.

3. _, The method of any preceding claim further comprising establishing a peer-to-peer network for the user computers; OR establishing a hosted network for the user computers.

4. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein the transaction- related event is a gaming event and involves only the closed set of user computers and does not involve an entity outside the closed set of user computers acting as house, banker, bank, dealer or chair.

5. The method according to claim 4, wherein a host exists in addition to the closed set of user computers involved in the transaction-related event and the host receives a portion of the transactions between the user computers.

6. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein the protocol status of the elected user computer apportions the result of the transactions between the user computers taking part in the event so that the elected user computer acts as a bank to pay out the results of the transactions between the user computers to the other user computers and/or to receive the results of the transactions between the user computers in dependence upon the outcome of the transaction-related event.

7. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein each transaction is a wager and each transaction-related event is a gaming event.

8. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein the process of electing one of the user computers to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event is an automatic process.

9. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the process of electing one of the user computers to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event is a choice offered to each of the user computers taking part in the event.

10. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the process of electing one of the user computers to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event is sequentially applied to each user computer taking part in the event.

11. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein the process of electing one of the user computers to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event is sequentially applied to user computers taking part in the event and also to user computers that are entitled to take part in the event.

12. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein a user computer involved in the transaction-related event which is elected to have the different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers is operable to skip the election and pass the opportunity to another user computer taking part in the event to adopt the different protocol status.

13. The method according to any preceding claim further comprising switching the different protocol status between user computers after each event.

14. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein there is a default protocol status applied to all the user computers with the exception of the different protocol status which is applied only to the elected user computer.

15. The method according to any preceding claim further comprising displaying icons representative of each user computer participating in the transaction-related event; and applying a visual distinction to the icon representative of the user computer elected to the different protocol status so that icon is visually distinguished from the icons representative of the other user computers in the closed set.

16. The method according to any preceding claim further comprising displaying to all the user computers in the closed set the identity of the user computer elected to the different protocol status.

17. The method of any preceding claim, wherein a risk factor for the transactions is tied to the protocol status and the different protocol status carries a different risk factor to a default protocol status.

18. A method of managing transactions related to a series of events involving a plurality of users, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the users, wherein each transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of users, wherein the method comprises:

verifying the users to be involved in a transaction-related event;

electing one of the users taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other users taking part in the event; tracking transactions made in accordance with the transaction protocol by each user involved in the transaction-related event; and

19. A gaming transaction architecture for enabling game play between a plurality of networked user computers and operable to manage a series of transactions between the user computers in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the networked computers, wherein each transaction-related event involves a closed set of only the plurality of user computers, the system being operable to:

20. The system according to claim 19, wherein the system stores, for each user computer: transaction balance data storage; protocol status identifier data storage; and a transaction related event log.

21. A method of managing transactions between a closed set of users involved in a transaction-related event, wherein the transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol and the outcome of the event distributes the result of the transactions amongst the closed set of users taking part in the event and a portion of the or each transaction is distributed to a hosting entity outside the closed set of users.

22. A process of setting up a transaction-related event involving a closed set of networked user computers, wherein transactions are managed in accordance with a transaction protocol, a protocol status of each user computer and an outcome of one or more of the transaction-related events occurring between the networked computers, wherein the method comprises: establishing network connection between a plurality of user computers; verifying a selection of the user computers for participation in the transaction-related event, the selection comprising a closed set of user computers; electing one of the user computers taking part in the event to have a different protocol status to the protocol status of the other user computers taking part in the event; and