These two paragraphs are from a 11/30/98 judgement by the California 2nd Appelate District Court in a case called "Jack M Janis et. al. vs the California State Lottery Commission" ------- In November 1992, the California State Lottery (CSL) began operating a Keno game. Several private gaming interests immediately challenged the legality of Keno, seeking to have its operation enjoined and the game declared illegal. During the litigation, CSL continued to operate Keno. The trial court and the court of appeal upheld the legality of Keno. On June 24, 1996, however, the California Supreme Court ruled the Keno game constituted illegal gambling. CSL stopped operating Keno later that day. On June 25, 1996, Janis filed an administrative claim with State Board of Control (BOC). Janis purported to represent a class of individuals who played CSL's Keno. Janis sought the return of all funds wagered on Keno, arguing CSL unlawfully promoted and profited from the illegal game. In mid-July 1996, the BOC notified Janis the administrative claims were incomplete and requested additional information. Janis did not respond to BOC's request.... ------ I remember when this Keno game came out. The way I recall it, you could buy a ticket for $1. The exact numbers involved may be inaccurate in what follows, but basically it was like this: You selected from 2 to 10 numbers out of 80 possible. Whether you chose 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, or 10 numbers was up to you. Then twenty numbers were chosen at random by the lottery. The thing that caught my attention was that the game published an exact, guaranteed and fixed prize for all possible outcomes: for example, you knew that if you picked 7 numbers, and got 6 right, you would win a particular $ prize. Naturally the highest prize was obtained if you elected to select 10 numbers and then got them all right. There was no dependency on how many others might also have gotten it right---the prize was published and fixed. This made it possible to calculate the expected value of a ticket, once purchased. I calculated them for each possible choice 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and found them to differ almost by a factor of two, for example, one ticket was only worth about 32 cents, while another was worth 64 cents or so. I have an indistinct memory that the reason the challenge to this game was successful was that one's ability to calculate a 'better' play amongst possible presented options made the game into a "game of skill," and not a "lottery." However I never found a good write up of the arguments before the California Supreme Court in the newspapers Anyway, does anyone else remember this thing? Thane Plambeck 650 321 4884 office 650 323 4928 fax http://www.qxmail.com/home.htm