Human ingenuity in inventing devices to appeal to the undeniable gambling instincts in man (and that term is used generically to include women and children as well) apparently knows no bounds, and the cases are replete with instance after instance of the continued efforts of slot machine manufacturers to get around the salutary provisions of our Penal Law which seek to protect our citizens from their own frailties ( People v. Gravenhorst, 32 N.Y.S.2d 760). In an effort to overcome the decision in Lyman v. Kurtz ( 166 N.Y. 274), which held illegal a machine in which the player by the insertion of a coin either lost the amount played or received moneys in varying amounts, slot machine manufacturers produced machines which omitted the "payoff" in money but substituted therefor either additional merchandise or tokens exchangeable for such merchandise. Meeting with judicial condemnation of the use of such machines in Matter of Cullinan ( 114 A.D. 654), People ex rel. Verchereau v. Jenkins ( 153 A.D. 512) and People v. Stein (146 N.Y.S. 852), the manufacturers next proceeded to produce machines which indicated exactly what the "payoff" or win would be. These, too, were held to violate the terms of the statute ( Green v. Enright, 208 A.D. 819; People v. Spitzig, 133 Misc. 508).