I'm abandoning patents on my Roulette bets

I came to bite the bullet. I'm abandoning my own (formerly proprietary) Roulette patents, as the year is up on my provisional patents, and I don't see the financial return in converting them to Utility patents.
I did pitch them, got some good feedback, but got no contracts or commitments, which is where the rubber hits the road.
The bets are these:
1. A bet where you can bet two to eight different numbers to come in before a zero or double zero occuring (where you "zero-out", similar to sevening out at craps), but specific to Roulette.
2. A bet where you bet two to eight different numbers to come in within a variable number of spins (up to 8), similar to Keno but specific to, and formerly prorietary to Roulette.

There were no infringement or patent conflicts, (as far as we could tell) because:
a) the number of spins to win on the numbers did not have to be consecutive in either version, (as descibed or claimed by some differing patents) and;
b) the bets mandated different numbers, - and as chosen by the player - and not a repeating number that was already spun, or is about to be spun.

These types of bets were next to impossible to implement or track manually for the dealer (unlike repeating numbers), and there were no electronics set up to implement the bet, be it from the tally board on a live wheel, or in the Bally's type of "Roulette tower," or SMI's Rapid Roulette.

If someone does try to use these mechanisms, they can do so without paying me or anyone royalties, but neither can they themselves claim sole ownership via a patent. (Once a provisional patent is filed and abandoned, no one else can later re-claim the idea as novel and patentable. It's just a "public domain" invention now, like the automotive tire: Goodyear cannot claim infringement against Firestone on the basic design: "We have patents on 'having tread.' You have to go bald".) Unless of course, someone comes out of the woodwork with a utility patent that was hidden or undiscovered. But we looked.

If I had gotten a bite, I would have "utilitized the patents" and taken it from there with the interested party.

Those with a "repeating the same number" version might fare better, as that is easy to implement and quicker to deal.

Wouldn't the casinos absolutely hate this because it takes so much longer to resolve a bet?

Yes, that was a problem with multiple numbers, with each player picking thier own favorites. Impossible to keep track of it all easily.

If we had an electronic console like the G3 hooked up to the tally board, then it could have been automated.
But it didn't happen.

If a new game or side bet isn't truly easy for the dealer and for casino, it's not happening.

It might reappear on something automated, but not on the layout.
What can you do? I had to abandon it.

I think you are on the right track.
The game certainly needs something to make it more interesting.
I liked the double wheel from SA - complicated but more entertaining.

I like the "zero-out". It also sounds good.

Thanks!
I did too, but it was the type of bet that could take 17 or more spins to resolve. Doable on an electronic Roulette game (Internet casino, tower slot machine) but not on a live table with one spin per minute or more. The Keno type bet was much faster, with as few as four spins.

I've got other goodies in the hopper....

But I DID like this one, and wanted it to get birthed....so, a little confession here...

I wanted:
1. To see it go live by some "Electronic Assist" on a roulette wheel, a la a G3 type console type betting mechanism, or have Shufflemaster pick it up for their rapid Roulette. I Did submit this idea to DEQ (who has the G3 electronic side bet console), and to Shufflemaster, who has rapid Roulette. DEQ said "almost, but no," because it would have been a big investment to add G3 to Roulette tables, as it is geared to Blackjack and Pai Gow and other card-based tables. Roulette and Crap tables are no place now for G3 type consoles. Shufflemaster also said No through their formal chanels, and were very professional and gracious about their research into this, via Dan Diana and Russell Chumas. Both DEQ and SMI did a good faith review, and felt It's an interesting idea, but now is not the time to pump money into a Roulette side bet that would require new infrastructure or reprogramming and field testing. Okay. If you want the applications numbers, PM me.

2. To have online casinos do it by simple programmatic additions to their existing Roulette offerings. But Online casinos (Bodog et al) are outise of the U.S. patent and accoutancy jurisdictions, operating offshore, so there'd be no way to have an enforceable contract agreement.

3. If in the near future table game technology and online tech allows these Roulette features to easily happen, then they can take and use these ideas freely as public domain: no royalties or money for me or anyone, or claims from me at this point. Knock yourselves out. It would be a little bit like seeing your second-born son leave home and forget about family with no obligation to the inventor, aside from just getting out there and doing okay. I knew you when kind of thing. Besides, for me it is "EZ Pai Gow" that is the "official child:" Go forth and prosper, and visit Dad, unlike the "other one" who hasn't done anything yet anyway, but may. Doesn't matter now...

Again I have to remind myself of Rob Scott's apt quote:

"There are a hundred GREAT games that never got out, and never will, for one reason or another. And there are many other games are great only in the inventor's mind." The Golden child may die a crib death, and the Tin child will certainly die a crib death.

To add to this: The Silver child might make it later - and with no obligations to his family. Some good games fall into the public domain area, completely free of its source.
I guess I forgot about him...Yes, it may be good...and no, it's out of my hands, - doesn't matter if it goes nowhere or everywhere or anywhere now. I would care to see it do well, but no effect on my bottom line.