New Rival casinos - lost the bonus plot?

[felicie]

Royal Apollo

Whats the deal with Apollo and no USA? Anyone been there yet? Thank you

 

[casinojack]

I think some of the theories here are fun to read

But RTP, is based on a number of spins (in the case of slots) usually 1,000,000 so if you play 500 - 1000 spins means nothing. And yes I get the point of low and high variance...

In most cases, I would use 4.5% of wagered amount to figure out what a casino makes...(some are higher but we speaking conservative)

I am going to do some of my own number crunching this weekend...

 

[thelawnet]

I think some of the theories here are fun to read

But RTP, is based on a number of spins (in the case of slots) usually 1,000,000 so if you play 500 - 1000 spins means nothing. And yes I get the point of low and high variance...

This is not accurate. The RTP is not based on any number of spins. It is based on the exact theoretical return for a slot.

Example: a 5 reel slot with 30 symbols on each reel has 2.43 million combinations (30*30*30*30*30). If you cycle through each of those 2.43 million combinations and figure out what they pay to the player, add them up, and then divide by 2.43 million, that will be the return to player.

Or alternatively you can look at the number of symbols on each reel of each kind, multiply them together, and then derive it that way.

Example, if you have a slot with a 'Cherry' symbol, and 3 cherries pays 2, 4 cherries 10, and 5 cherries 100, then with 30 symbols on each reel, and on reel 1 - 10 cherries, reel 2 6 cherries, reel 3 - 6 cherries, reel 4 2 cherries, reel 5 -2 cherries, then the return from 5 cherries would be

10*6*6*2*2 (10 symbols on reel 1, 6 on reel 2, 6 on reel 3, 2 on reel 4, and then 2 on reel 5, will allow you to form 5 cherries) / 2.43 million * 100 = 5.93%

from 4 cherries: 10*6*6*2*28 (this is the same as 5 cherries, but we need the 28 NON-cherry symbols on reel 5, otherwise we would have not 4 cherries but 5)/ 2.43 million * 10 = 8.30%

and finally from 3 cherries
10*6*6*28*30/2.43million*2 = 24.89%

Add this up and you'll find that the cherry pays payout 39.22% (which is higher than a real slot, but this is just an example - a real slot would have many different kinds of symbol). Perform this same exercise for the other types of pays, add them up and you have the RTP.

In both cases is an EXACT figure. There is no need to use any other figure (and in fact 1 million spins would not be enough to get the RTP to a sufficient degree of accuracy for casino purposes - you'd only be in a margin of +-1% or so) - a slot machine should be designed using a spreadsheet to model the effect of changing the number of symbols or the payout for each one - the slot machine designer would have the probability of a given pay, the actual payout in coins, the return contributed by that pay, and the variance contributed.

If the designer wants a game that makes the player's money last longer, he will look to reduce the variance of pays with high variance (this will be high payout events that occur frequently (for reference, 5 wilds or the like, is usually very rare, and as such a 10,000 coin wild jackpot is not indicative of high variance, because there are usually few wilds on the reel, because they boost all pays, and as such the chance of getting five of them is generally minuscule)).


From the casino perspective, 500 spins on a game paying 95%, means the casino can expect to make 25 spins profit. The player might win, or might lose - it shouldn't matter to the casino, because the casino is the house and the winning and losing players will average out to that 95% RTP.

In most cases, I would use 4.5% of wagered amount to figure out what a casino makes...(some are higher but we speaking conservative)

'A casino' is a bit vague.

If you look at Old / Expired Link

they were making typically 2.5% - less for BJ, more for VP and slots (in both cases, the casino makes more than the theoretical RTP, because players do not play optimally in all cases)

Fast forward to 2008 Old / Expired Link

and the casino was making about 4.5%. The BJ had stayed the same, the VP had improved, but they realised that players wouldn't really notice the difference between 95% slots and 92-93%, so switched to the lower rate but with glossy licenses like Spiderman, and also their giant progressives - paying only 90%.

PS. There is sometimes cause to use inexact RTP figures - but for table games, not slots. For games involving complex decisions of strategy, the number of combinations can reach trillions - far more complex than any slot, even if the variance is much lower.

 

[chuchu59]

I have a proposition:

Chu, KK, Enzo and I meet back here at the CM Forums on the 12th September 2049 and compare our records.

I reckon that should settle it either way...

Sure Nifty,

I will save these records for my son. Even if I am still here, I doubt whether my eyes will still function.

 

[zebedy]

heres a good one from a new rival, royal apollo

 

[chuchu59]

Yep, they made this one up for people living in the moon.

 

[Nifty29]

Looks like the UK is now high risk

1.11. For Players from United Kingdom, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Romania, Hungary, Thailand, Malaysia, Latvia, Slovak Republic, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Costa Rica the minimum requirements before making a Withdrawal request is to play their Deposit and Play Bonus amount totaling four (4) times the regular minimum requirements for each Play Bonus.

Seems a bit silly to me really.

 

[zebedy]

Yep, they made this one up for people living in the moon.

it sounds like they are coming from Uranus

 

[vinylweatherman]

Looks like the UK is now high risk



Seems a bit silly to me really.

They really do NOT want customers from these countries, but their GREED means they just cannot bring themselves to outright BAN them, because there is money to be made.

These kinds of rules are unjustified. No matter WHERE a player comes from, they get the SAME overall RTP expectation from the game.

One or two reps have indicated these kinds of terms are due to the increased FRAUD risk, which means they receive more "chargebacks" than usual from these countries, or lose money by paying fraudulent players, and need to balance the books. It is NOT RIGHT though, that the HONEST players are made to subsidise the fraudsters. They should instead improve their anti-fraud measures, and perhaps have rules that require players from high risk countries to pass security checks BEFORE they become eligible for the bonuses, but once they have proved themselves as being genuine players, should receive the bonuses on the SAME terms as the rest.
It is also immoral that the term requiring these players to wager 4x the "normal" amount is split off to form part of "general" terms, rather than being explicitly stated in the SAME PLACE as the information on WR for the bonus. This only leads to players finding out TOO LATE that they are deemed "high risk", and it is only fair that players are presented with this information BEFORE they deposit.

I would like to know WTF is up with MY G8 and "first world" country being lumped in with a list of countries that are suffering from a degree of internal political instability, chiefly ex Soviet bloc states, and some "third world" countries where criminal networks have taken advantage of a laxity in law enforcement. I bet if the US was in that list, there would be quite a stir!

I have a policy of NOT playing in a casino that has ANY "special restrictions" for my country - I would be at a disadvantage before I started, and beyond the obvious policy on bonuses, there is the risk that behind the scenes I would be constantly under enhanced scrutiny, and continually suffering "document checks" and "account audits" even if I played without any of the offers.

 

[4 of a kind]

Reading this thread reminds me why I hate bonuses. I couldn't imagine taking all of this crap into consideration before making a deposit. And that's exactly what I mean 95% of the time, a deposit.

I also have a question here for the casino reps. that reply. Do casinos make more money from people taking ridiculous play through bonuses, or from straight up depositors? Also which type of depositor deposit more money?

 

[NicolasJohnson]

Reading this thread reminds me why I hate bonuses. I couldn't imagine taking all of this crap into consideration before making a deposit. And that's exactly what I mean 95% of the time, a deposit.

I also have a question here for the casino reps. that reply. Do casinos make more money from people taking ridiculous play through bonuses, or from straight up depositors? Also which type of depositor deposit more money?

You are taking it from a players point of view, which is understandable, but if you want a reply from an operator, I'll have to explain our view, and see if that helps.

We honestly, don't care if a player makes a high bonus/high restriction deposit, or a low bonus/low restriction deposit, or a standard no bonus/no restrictions deposit. We make higher bonuses have higher restrictions so as to maintain a certain hold. Lower bonuses have lower restrictions to have about the same certain hold. And if a player plays without a bonus we will also have a certain hold. As a business we need to make sure that is the case.

To us at Vegas Regal Casino it all boils down to Customer Satisfaction. We try to offer all 3 options to keep customers satisfied no matter what their preference. About who deposits more and who is more profitable, I can't really comment on those specifics; but I will tell you that those numbers will vary greatly depending on the casino, the promotions, and the audiences the different casinos attract. I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

 

[vinylweatherman]

You are taking it from a players point of view, which is understandable, but if you want a reply from an operator, I'll have to explain our view, and see if that helps.

We honestly, don't care if a player makes a high bonus/high restriction deposit, or a low bonus/low restriction deposit, or a standard no bonus/no restrictions deposit. We make higher bonuses have higher restrictions so as to maintain a certain hold. Lower bonuses have lower restrictions to have about the same certain hold. And if a player plays without a bonus we will also have a certain hold. As a business we need to make sure that is the case.

To us at Vegas Regal Casino it all boils down to Customer Satisfaction. We try to offer all 3 options to keep customers satisfied no matter what their preference. About who deposits more and who is more profitable, I can't really comment on those specifics; but I will tell you that those numbers will vary greatly depending on the casino, the promotions, and the audiences the different casinos attract. I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

What is it though, that makes us UK players FOUR times "better at slots" that the majority. Surely the bonus is designed, as you say, to offer a st "hold" for the casino. It surely does not matter what country a deposit comes from, this "hold" expectation remains the same.

By increasing the WR for a group of players, you are INCREASING the "hold" from these players, who in effect are subsidising the OTHER players who are given offers with the original expected "hold". Arguments from operators based on, say, "UK players play the slots better than those from the US....." are total BULLSHIT. This is the INTERNET, and players from ANYWHERE have access to information that might give them an "edge" on a particular game type, or even a particular promotion concept.

The UK government has PIONEERED the acceptance of "remote gambling" by other EU states, yet us UK citizens are increasingly being "driven out of town" when it comes to our participation online. Playtech, for example, has the UK in a group all of it's own, as "superfrauds", yet does not mind many of the other countries normally associated with player fraud playing on "normal terms". We (the UK) let Playtech in (stockmarket listing, regulatory framework giving them the chance to advertise legally throughout the EU), yet they bite our hand off

It is surely fairer to give ALL players (once verified of course) the chance of beating the SAME "hold", since no one group of LEGITIMATE players is going to be better at playing a RANDOM game than any other.

Whilst there may be more FRAUD coming from certain regions compared to others, this has NOTHING TO DO with WR on a bonus. A FRAUDULENT player is NOT PAID, rather than being permitted to commit fraud provided he plays 4x the usual WR.

Players who play without bonuses do NOT receive any kind of replacement benefits either, which is why the issue becomes so contentious. IF players could, say, play slots at 95% with a bonus, but could have them at 98% without, then this would replace the enhanced chance of winning, AND extended playtime, that is normally achieved through offering a bonus. They could also receive enhanced comp points, which at present are awarded at PITIFUL levels on play, yet could be a viable alternative to the traditional deposit bonus if awarded at a decent rate.

 

[NicolasJohnson]

What is it though, that makes us UK players FOUR times "better at slots" that the majority. Surely the bonus is designed, as you say, to offer a st "hold" for the casino. It surely does not matter what country a deposit comes from, this "hold" expectation remains the same.

By increasing the WR for a group of players, you are INCREASING the "hold" from these players, who in effect are subsidising the OTHER players who are given offers with the original expected "hold". Arguments from operators based on, say, "UK players play the slots better than those from the US....." are total BULLSHIT. This is the INTERNET, and players from ANYWHERE have access to information that might give them an "edge" on a particular game type, or even a particular promotion concept.

The UK government has PIONEERED the acceptance of "remote gambling" by other EU states, yet us UK citizens are increasingly being "driven out of town" when it comes to our participation online. Playtech, for example, has the UK in a group all of it's own, as "superfrauds", yet does not mind many of the other countries normally associated with player fraud playing on "normal terms". We (the UK) let Playtech in (stockmarket listing, regulatory framework giving them the chance to advertise legally throughout the EU), yet they bite our hand off

It is surely fairer to give ALL players (once verified of course) the chance of beating the SAME "hold", since no one group of LEGITIMATE players is going to be better at playing a RANDOM game than any other.

Whilst there may be more FRAUD coming from certain regions compared to others, this has NOTHING TO DO with WR on a bonus. A FRAUDULENT player is NOT PAID, rather than being permitted to commit fraud provided he plays 4x the usual WR.

Players who play without bonuses do NOT receive any kind of replacement benefits either, which is why the issue becomes so contentious. IF players could, say, play slots at 95% with a bonus, but could have them at 98% without, then this would replace the enhanced chance of winning, AND extended playtime, that is normally achieved through offering a bonus. They could also receive enhanced comp points, which at present are awarded at PITIFUL levels on play, yet could be a viable alternative to the traditional deposit bonus if awarded at a decent rate.

There are two parts to my reply:

1- Some players from some countries are smarter gamblers. I can tell you that I've seen statistics from large samples of players being up to 83% more likely to cashout after meeting playthrough over players from some other countries. And I must admit some bonuses do have positive expectation for the player, even though they are few. So for some casinos this rule can even be a necessity (given the bonuses they want to give out, of course they could change their bonuses and then that rule wouldn't be a necessity). You can consider the fact that they put you on that list as a homage to how smart UK players play.

2- We at Vegas Regal Casino DO NOT BELIEVE in applying playthrough multipliers for players of different countries. When this casino was formed, and when I came on board, we put some rules about what we believe is fair and honest. And country specific playthrough multipliers is something we deemed as the type of rules we wanted to stay clear of. That is why we don't apply this, and all players from around the world that can take bonuses, have the same playthrough. :notworthy

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

 

[vinylweatherman]

There are two parts to my reply:

1- Some players from some countries are smarter gamblers. I can tell you that I've seen statistics from large samples of players being up to 83% more likely to cashout after meeting playthrough over players from some other countries. And I must admit some bonuses do have positive expectation for the player, even though they are few. So for some casinos this rule can even be a necessity (given the bonuses they want to give out, of course they could change their bonuses and then that rule wouldn't be a necessity). You can consider the fact that they put you on that list as a homage to how smart UK players play.

2- We at Vegas Regal Casino DO NOT BELIEVE in applying playthrough multipliers for players of different countries. When this casino was formed, and when I came on board, we put some rules about what we believe is fair and honest. And country specific playthrough multipliers is something we deemed as the type of rules we wanted to stay clear of. That is why we don't apply this, and all players from around the world that can take bonuses, have the same playthrough. :notworthy

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

Well, 1) just means they have their WR set too low if smart players can beat them. Why not make it higher for ALL players, it would at least LOOK fair. Smart players would have to wager more, and the other players wouldn't care anyway, because they "always" wager more than required anyway.
This, of course, was only SOME players, yet the rule is for ALL players. Surely, once a player has been with a casino a while, the management can tell which category they fit into, yet the rules do NOT allow for this. This means that the non-smart players are getting ripped-off by these casinos simply because, unknown to them, there are a few smart players around.
Smart players know to stay away from such casinos, it is the non-smart ones that suffer the consequences of rules that were designed for the smart player.

Sadly, much of this has been exposed as "bollocks" by the EU (in general terms). Businesses have long preyed on the UK consumer because we have been "mild mannered" and far less likely to complain about bad service and being "ripped-off" than, say, Americans. American's are astonished that we tolerate long queues in shops whilst there are loads of unmanned tills, and we just grin an bear it. Internal memos have revealed that many businesses view the UK as "Treasure Ireland", because our market will bear higher prices and poorer service than others. We, in effect, cross subsidise other markets.

It is far cheaper to buy DVD and CD offerings in the US than here. There was even the case that Apple lost over iTunes where it overpriced the product for UK users, and at the same time blocked them from going to the French site and buying the product there.

The knowledgeable UK consumer IS now getting smarter, but this means we now realise the abuse we have suffered at the hands of big business for decades. This earlier "abuse" was NOTHING to do with us being "smarter" than consumers in other markets, it was because the businesses were GREEDY, and realised they were actually getting away with it.

It is very hard now for any business to convince the UK consumer there is ANY JUSTIFICATION for differential pricing on grounds of "smartness", or indeed any other grounds other than it REALLY costing more to supply the goods or services than elsewhere.

There is another name for UK consumers cashing in earlier than others, RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING. This "responsible gambling" is a government initiative that has come with the further liberation of our gambling laws. THIS is why the UK player might be more inclined to "quit whilst ahead" rather than lose the lot back. In countries like the US, the government is AT WAR with online casinos, and thus players are hardly going to listen to THEIR government when it comes to pronouncements on online casinos (such as "they fund terrorism and organised crime").

The BIGGEST problem I have is that many of these casinos that impose extra WR on UK players hide the fact like a dirty secret in a load of "general terms", rather than have it as part of the individual promotional material, which only quotes the "normal" WR. The are keen not to deter the UK player, so are not prepared to be fully "up front", lest they decide BEFORE playing that they don't think the UK specific deal is for them.

Most bonuses are now "slots only" anyway, so the scope for SKILL has gone, there is nothing to do other than select a bet size, and spin. EVERYTHING can therefore be covered in a set of requirements for all. (WR, and max bet allowed).

Casinos that apply extra WR for UK players on SLOTS ONLY bonuses are fuelling the feelings that online slots are NON-RANDOM, and that "smart" players can "press spin more cleverly". The speculation is then that these "smart" players can tell which slots to play from observation of previous events, such as moving from a "dead" slot. All methods that have been suggested as a "smart" way to play them. The non-smart players then begin to believe they are getting ripped-off by slots that suck their money, yet UK players are so smart at beating them that they have to have extra WR on any bonuses.

 

[george_ro]

Well I received a ND welcome chip of $50 a Vegas Days Casino.

The terms were:

100xB WR
Max cashout = $50
Bonus non-withdrawable

Tough to beat that one!

I have managed to meet the requierements ... I wagered 5000E ... now I have 1000E , but as they say I can only cashout 50E ..right ?

 

[NicolasJohnson]

Well, 1) just means they have their WR set too low if smart players can beat them. Why not make it higher for ALL players, it would at least LOOK fair. Smart players would have to wager more, and the other players wouldn't care anyway, because they "always" wager more than required anyway.
This, of course, was only SOME players, yet the rule is for ALL players. Surely, once a player has been with a casino a while, the management can tell which category they fit into, yet the rules do NOT allow for this. This means that the non-smart players are getting ripped-off by these casinos simply because, unknown to them, there are a few smart players around.
Smart players know to stay away from such casinos, it is the non-smart ones that suffer the consequences of rules that were designed for the smart player.

Sadly, much of this has been exposed as "bollocks" by the EU (in general terms). Businesses have long preyed on the UK consumer because we have been "mild mannered" and far less likely to complain about bad service and being "ripped-off" than, say, Americans. American's are astonished that we tolerate long queues in shops whilst there are loads of unmanned tills, and we just grin an bear it. Internal memos have revealed that many businesses view the UK as "Treasure Ireland", because our market will bear higher prices and poorer service than others. We, in effect, cross subsidise other markets.

It is far cheaper to buy DVD and CD offerings in the US than here. There was even the case that Apple lost over iTunes where it overpriced the product for UK users, and at the same time blocked them from going to the French site and buying the product there.

The knowledgeable UK consumer IS now getting smarter, but this means we now realise the abuse we have suffered at the hands of big business for decades. This earlier "abuse" was NOTHING to do with us being "smarter" than consumers in other markets, it was because the businesses were GREEDY, and realised they were actually getting away with it.

It is very hard now for any business to convince the UK consumer there is ANY JUSTIFICATION for differential pricing on grounds of "smartness", or indeed any other grounds other than it REALLY costing more to supply the goods or services than elsewhere.

There is another name for UK consumers cashing in earlier than others, RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING. This "responsible gambling" is a government initiative that has come with the further liberation of our gambling laws. THIS is why the UK player might be more inclined to "quit whilst ahead" rather than lose the lot back. In countries like the US, the government is AT WAR with online casinos, and thus players are hardly going to listen to THEIR government when it comes to pronouncements on online casinos (such as "they fund terrorism and organised crime").

The BIGGEST problem I have is that many of these casinos that impose extra WR on UK players hide the fact like a dirty secret in a load of "general terms", rather than have it as part of the individual promotional material, which only quotes the "normal" WR. The are keen not to deter the UK player, so are not prepared to be fully "up front", lest they decide BEFORE playing that they don't think the UK specific deal is for them.

Most bonuses are now "slots only" anyway, so the scope for SKILL has gone, there is nothing to do other than select a bet size, and spin. EVERYTHING can therefore be covered in a set of requirements for all. (WR, and max bet allowed).

Casinos that apply extra WR for UK players on SLOTS ONLY bonuses are fuelling the feelings that online slots are NON-RANDOM, and that "smart" players can "press spin more cleverly". The speculation is then that these "smart" players can tell which slots to play from observation of previous events, such as moving from a "dead" slot. All methods that have been suggested as a "smart" way to play them. The non-smart players then begin to believe they are getting ripped-off by slots that suck their money, yet UK players are so smart at beating them that they have to have extra WR on any bonuses.

This is why our wagering requirements are the same for all people around the globe.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

 

[felicie]

Thank you Nicholas and here is simple from simple minded - Taking the bonus gives you a bigger wad of cash to play with and with Rivals, the only way I can win is to start with a big wad so I can move up quickly to max bet. Then when it gets going and it often does, it is no problem making the WR. However, I never accept a bonus with over over 30X. Intentionally anyway.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thank you Nicholas and here is simple from simple minded - Taking the bonus gives you a bigger wad of cash to play with and with Rivals, the only way I can win is to start with a big wad so I can move up quickly to max bet. Then when it gets going and it often does, it is no problem making the WR. However, I never accept a bonus with over over 30X. Intentionally anyway.

Here is another thing. If it THIS kind of thing they consider "smart", then RESTRICT the maximum bet possible with a bonus, and "smart" players are "outsmarted", and AGAIN, the rest won't care because they don't do this, and it will LOOK fair, won't get players from the UK, Oz, etc all fired up with indignation, and they might then play at the casino, even though the software is restricting them from betting higher into a winning streak.

In any case, "playing into a streak" with rising bets is NOT going to give an advantage, is it, games being RANDOM & all that. Subsequent wins are NOT going to be somehow more frequent and better because PAST performance has been a "streak" of good results. It is a bit like the Roulette conundrum. After 10 consecutive Blacks, the chance of the NEXT result being Black (or Red) is unchanged regardless of the fact that 10 consecutive blacks have preceded it.

What do the OTHER Rivals have to say to this.

 

[zap987]

It's not about a streak or anything. The reason to bet big with a bonus is to give less playthrough when losing and win big enough when hitting to easily meet the wagering requirements. Pretty much any bonus can be 'beaten' in the long run this way unless max bets are extremely low or there is a max cashout. Wagering requirements don't really matter either unless they are extremely high although the higher they are the more bankroll is needed.

 

[nisosbar]

In any case, "playing into a streak" with rising bets is NOT going to give an advantage, is it, games being RANDOM & all that. Subsequent wins are NOT going to be somehow more frequent and better because PAST performance has been a "streak" of good results. It is a bit like the Roulette conundrum. After 10 consecutive Blacks, the chance of the NEXT result being Black (or Red) is unchanged regardless of the fact that 10 consecutive blacks have preceded it.

Slots and roulette are totally different animals. The likely outcome of a roulette spin, like a hand of video poker, can not be affected by the casino (in theory). But conversely, slots can be tightened and loosened.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's not about a streak or anything. The reason to bet big with a bonus is to give less playthrough when losing and win big enough when hitting to easily meet the wagering requirements. Pretty much any bonus can be 'beaten' in the long run this way unless max bets are extremely low or there is a max cashout. Wagering requirements don't really matter either unless they are extremely high although the higher they are the more bankroll is needed.

This is why the fairest way is to restrict max bet when a bonus is in play, rather than the current system of restricting WHOLE COUNTRIES, which is a "sledgehammer to crack a nut", the "nut" being the few players who use this method (which requires multiple boni, and a considerable bankroll). The "sledgehammer" approach breaks not only the "nut" of smart players, but does considerable "collateral damage" to all the non-smart players.

Microgaming software now supports max bet limitation with a bonus on the account, so there is NO EXCUSE for MGS casinos needing to void winnings because very large bets have been used to beat a bonus. Other softwares probably support this, and those that don't should develop it.

The time will soon come when bonuses will be so unattractive, and so many countries "banned" or "restricted" that a new method will be needed to attract players, and keep existing players loyal.

The art of a good bonus is to make players THINK it can be beaten, yet have it set so that mathematically it cannot in the long term. Players who do beat such a bonus may then mistake their luck for skill on their part, and will keep coming back for more, and this is how the casino wins in the long term.

This thread demonstrates how making a bonus so restrictive that it is OBVIOUS players have no real chance of pitting their wits against it with any degree of success ruins it's chances of attracting enhanced deposits.