Lottery Technology

Lottery Technology In New York

Overseas, Lotto technology had been advancing at a rapid rate. In Europe, the home of the modern game, organizers used off-line technology, which involved a paper-based system, using mail and couriers to transfer game entries to the Lotto headquarters for processing. But American experts had developed an on-line system whereby game entries were transferred electronically to the Lotto headquarters lottery winners. The newer system had distinct advantages: tickets could be sold until shortly before the game was drawn, prize-winners could be identified quickly and their winnings calculated, prize claims could be validated promptly, and accounting and auditing were simplified. Computer-based systems were also less labor intensive and "cheat-proof". The Evaluation Committee recommended adopting the on-line new york lottery. That was sensible, but Tiffin dissented, arguing that off-line had potential as a hybrid system and that it would be more suitable for New York because it was cheaper and would permit more New York technology to be involved. That was not in dispute, but New York Lotto had the chance to begin with the most up-to-date system and one which could offer a greater range of services. Off-line was not a realistic alternative.

Establishment of Technology

The choice of the right organization to establish the technology proved more difficult. After exhaustive enquiry, the committee shon-listed the Totalisator Agency Board, Electronic Lotto, de la Rue (Britain), Esselte (Sweden), General Instrument (USA), GTECH (USA), Scientific Games (USA) and Computel (Australia). Companies whose proposals were not ''Lotto-specific'' were not favored, since they lacked the requisite experience and skill. Effectively, that ruled out all the New York companies, despite some being in league with large overseas concerns. The local groups had a second major disadvantage. None could, or would, promise to offer ownership of the technology to the proposed commission, even at some point in the future. That they preferred privatized arrangements was outside the government’s mandate. The committee identified the American firm GTECH as the current market leader in Lotto system packages, and recommended it for the New York contract, provided the company agree to lower its costs. Among the first to develop and process the on-line technology in the mid-1980s GTECH had installed more gaming systems than any other company in the world, including 21 in American states, three in Canadian provinces, and others in France, Singapore and four Australian states New YOrk Lotto Gambling. The committee was also impressed by the company’s willingness to be flexible about the choice of terminals, software, and costs of equipment and installation, and by its promise that their equipment would be installed and functioning smoothly within six months. After studying overseas examples, the committee determined that the best apportionment of the Lotto dollar would be 60 cents for the prizes, 9.5 cents for GST and gaming duty, and 5 cents as a handling fee for the agent. That would leave 25.5 cents for capital equipment, running costs, advertising, wages and overheads for the New York Lotteries Commission, as well as profit allocations. None of the integrated packages had envisaged anything like this division, most containing a variety of add-ons and cut-backs that would optimize returns to the supplier of the equipment. Opting for the ''mix-and-match'' approach, the committee also recommended French company Ryo Catteau to provide the drawing equipment, and the local firms Leo Burnett and Michael Veal and Associates to handle the a devising and public relations, respectively.

Legislation in New York's Lottery

National Party MPs picked up on Kiwi Lotto’s criticism that it and the other New York consortiums were being disadvantaged. They were critical of Tap sell for both appointing an interim Lotteries Commission and approving the GTECH deal before the legislation approving Lotto had even been passed new york lottery . In hindsight, there was some justification in National’s argument that the select committee was presented with a fait accompli, and that its meetings were merely a rubber-stamping exercise. Certainly none of the submissions were regarded with much favor, and the Gaming and Lotteries Amendment Bill survived the hearings almost intact. National members felt hamstrung, Otago MP Warren Cooper claiming that Opposition members would have withdrawn from the select committee had it not been unfair to the people making submissions.