RTP is too low..

[SlotGrinder]

Ok of course we all want as high rtp as possible but I think many potentially good or great games are being ruined by the industry "standard" of a 96% rtp
4% avg loss per spin is a hell of a lot imo and it causes games to have too many dead spins and too many low pay basegame "wins" and too many shitty bonuses so you're left feeling that the game is taking the p**s basically
Half that 4% and make the rtp 98% and you can improve the game in many areas . Less of the annoying 1/4 of your stake wins with coins flying everywhere . Less 0-10x bonuses . Less bs teases of ingame features which are zero spins dressed up to look like the game is doing something in an attempt to stop you realising it's yet another dead spin
I don't think max potential has to be increased forever and ever .. yes sure a few people want the possibility of 50000x wins but tbh most of us are ecstatic with a 1000x
Traditionally , the higher rtp slots have been low variance yawnfests but why does that have to be the case ? With some great new slot providers coming through and existing providers stepping up (push , pragmatic , blueprint and even quickspin) I think there is a market for a great slot with great potential and higher rtp . Not because players will see the rtp figure and choose to play it (although this can be a selling point) but because the improved gameplay and pays will mean players will naturally gravitate to the game . Of course it needs to be done right with high volatility , not just a bloodsuckers type pay system
Thoughts ? Would a higher rtp be noticeable when playing a HV slot ? Is there room for a HV slot with higher rtp to take a big share of the market and make up for the smaller profits per spin by attracting a lot higher spin volume ?

 

[Jono777]

Good idea but here is the problem....

Casinos are struggling with the average of 96% so its not going to go higher, sadly.

We are reading of more and more casinos closing completely, then there is the loss of bonuses and increased wagering when bonuses are offered. Next there is what we are seeing with Videoslots, cutback after cutback after cutback - All of these measures and more just to stay in business and keep their heads above water!

IMO the industry in general is in a sad state of affairs right now, can't really see how but from a regular player's perspective, hoping there are some positives to come along and soon.

I've binned my foil hat and am far from a sore loser but recent experiences and all these changes bring out the paranoia in me so easily. As you say they do need to improve the game, session time, more returns, make me WANT to keep playing cos right now I am rapidly losing interest in what was once a very enjoyable pastime but more recently more of a time killer / boredom buster.

The games are rubbish right now, whether popular or not to greatly summarise we either get ...

1) Massive potential which no one has yet seen (yes, BTG I mean you)
2) Snooze fest, yawn-a-thon slots (MG, Netent, Novo)

Big changes are needed and ultra motivational ones, once the seasoned players get fed up with this pointless exercise, then they'll be stuck with just the inexperienced newbies and novices! - Oh hang on a sec

 

[SlotGrinder]

Yes and I think if the avg rtp of a game in your session went from 96% to 98% it doesnt sound like a lot but what it would mean is you lose half as much on average longterm over the same number of spins . That means overall you are going to have more profitable sessions , your losing sessions will be longer and you might feel you got more entertainment for your money even though you lost , you will be able to string together a lot more winning or breakeven sessions than you are currently able to . All that stuff will keep you coming back...
You won't need so many bonuses and bs promos to get you depositing . Ofc casinos will be competing with each other for your business but that's their problem . I don't know the figures involved in the whole industry but atm I feel like we the players are getting a raw deal in terms of the actual game payouts and thus quality of entertainment .
I think 96% rtp is actually insulting . The reason we need so much HV slots right now is to disguise the fact that they are taking your money at an alarming rate and the only way you can ever win is to buck the odds significantly by hitting a rare huge win

 

[zreb]

Yeah, there is a thread about some relatively new company posting their slot here with a 95% RTP and the first thing I think to myself is "why would you do this..." - but they sure aren't the only one. 96% is about the cutoff of what's acceptable to me, I might occasionally play a worse game but only for a few spins.

The funny thing is, most players would be better served with a higher RTP and no bonuses - say, 98% RTP instead of 96% RTP. They would get a similar reduction in playing costs and not have to wade through the nightmare of terms. I think it would be a much more enjoyable and less frustrating experience for most players.

It would also have beneficial effects for the casino since they have less work enforcing bonus rules.

Unfortunately, the reality is that 90% of the time players will be much more excited by a shiny picture that says "100% bonus!" than "hey, look over here, we have fair games that actually give you a good chance to win."

Well, at least the old games still exist for the most part - a lot of the REALLY old games were actually terrible as well because I don't think anyone knew what they were doing, so you'd see games with a 91-93% RTP. But if you can take the best games from 2008-2013 or so, there are some good choices around. And for players that DO like high variance, it looks like you guys not in the US have some decent newer options to choose from.

I think it's particularly bad in the U.S. now - the main two choices are RTG games (rtp settings have gone down and aren't even listed) and rival games (their new games are mostly 92.5-94.5% and often low variance - almost unwinnable). Maybe some of the smaller providers are slightly better, but they aren't available at many casinos and usually don't list RTP.

So basically, if you want a decent chance of winning, you just have to limit yourself to some of the best games from the new and old and ignore 90% of the other stuff. Kind of a pain.

Good idea but here is the problem....

Casinos are struggling with the average of 96% so its not going to go higher, sadly.

We are reading of more and more casinos closing completely, then there is the loss of bonuses and increased wagering when bonuses are offered. Next there is what we are seeing with Videoslots, cutback after cutback after cutback - All of these measures and more just to stay in business and keep their heads above water!

I'm not entirely convinced that life is as hard for casinos as they seem to want us to believe, I suspect it was more along the case that things used to be really darn easy, and everything is finally and slowly catching up. The reality is that most businesses fail, so it shouldn't be surprising to see some casinos close shop.

If it were so difficult, I suspect we wouldn't see dozens of casinos popping up all the time with the stupidest possible names, individual casino groups spitting out brand after brand, and a few big names still raking in enormous profits (there was a thread a few weeks ago about the bet365 ceo making around 250 million in a year.)

It is true that some taxes and market effects have probably reduced profitability, but I don't buy the "woe is me" attitude they try to portray all the time. Part of these costs will likely be reflected in a thinning of the industry, part will probably be reflected in the trend of poor RTPs and worse bonuses. Heavy regulation does bring some risk of preferential treatment and monopolization/oligopoly which could be bad for players in terms of future bonuses and RTP, but guess we'll have to wait to see what happens there (for example, if both taxation and licencing costs are high it could drive out smaller players while passing on those costs to players).

 

[dunover]

Alas turnover is king at online casinos. The gross costs payable to developers are greater if the RTP is higher, hence you see certain high RTP games excluded from bonuses although that is in part due to the bonus maths too. I don't know how RTG work, but many developers in Europe get paid a small %age of every Pound played through and ironically as Zreb says the lower-variance games are better for casinos as although they tend to turn over more, the 'egg timer' effect of their maths makes it nigh on impossible to win from them.
I remember one rep saying that as things stand, the costs of a 25 quid match bonus at 96% RTP after taxes, affiliate payments, developer fees, platform fees etc. would necessitate EVERY partaking player to bust out and not withdraw a cent in order for them to break even on it.

In fact, the RTG casinos must be laughing because they are in the 'grey market' for a start and have very little if any taxes to pay where they're located and not only that you will find they offer the 91% model from the 91-97% RTP range they can use.
This results in them be able to offer the silly '777%' bonuses and such like because the maths is so heavily stacked against the depositor if the games are on 93% or lower. And I can personally attest to one RTG casino having a high (possibly 97%) RTP on their initial (smaller) match offer or free chip and then switching the setting to the 'normal' list once I deposited real money after being paid the initial 100 quid limited withdrawal.
How do I know this? Basically the same way me and many others on here knew the GameArt demos had a far higher RTP than in real play. The difference was obvious within a few hundred spins, win frequency, win average etc. RTG have no obligation to display their RTP settings and the casino can tell you what they like as a result. Let's just say if RTG were offering 95 or 97% across the board you wouldn't see those insane bonuses as long as you had a hole in your ass.

In the case of the UK zreb, casinos are GENUINELY finding it hard, too hard in may cases and that's before the 15% Gaming Tax rises to 21% soon, on top of the fact they cannot tax-deduct as 'marketing' the net costs of bonuses any more. This could well lead to duopoly, triopoly as you suggest as the only operators who could afford to stay would be the huge multinational UK bookies' firms like Bet365 who it's predicted in the next decade could have the richest ever self-made woman in world business history. Her £1/4bn salary is peanuts compared to her earnings overall as Bet365 is self-capitalized and has no shareholders, it's all family owned by her mainly and her dad!

 

[goatwack]

I actually couldn't give a flying monkey's about casinos' woes or designers' insistence on constantly lowering the end user experience. I'm not here to take pity in their lessening profits, bottom line is I want to play a fair & fun game with an outside chance of winning, or else I wouldn't gamble!

And by not only decreasing payouts in such huge fashion but also distributing wins along such high extremes, in the new fad of super High Variance, it's going to end up with most just not slotting anymore, and that's fine too

Thing is it's not unreasonable to expect a fair crack of the whip, we had the games before. But with older titles being pulled and this new industry direction it's just a matter of time before games become unplayable messes.

So by all means, let them keep lowering RTP. It'll go in tandem with my lowering deposits

Merry Christmas everyone!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Gaz237]

I actually couldn't give a flying monkey's about casinos' woes or designers' insistence on constantly lowering the end user experience. I'm not here to take pity in their lessening profits, bottom line is I want to play a fair & fun game with an outside chance of winning, or else I wouldn't gamble!

And by not only decreasing payouts in such huge fashion but also distributing wins along such high extremes, in the new fad of super High Variance, it's going to end up with most just not slotting anymore, and that's fine too

Thing is it's not unreasonable to expect a fair crack of the whip, we had the games before. But with older titles being pulled and this new industry direction it's just a matter of time before games become unplayable messes.

So by all means, let them keep lowering RTP. It'll go in tandem with my lowering deposits

Merry Christmas everyone!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I believe the OP started the thread about increasing the RTP.

In fact. he wants them to be increased to an unsustainable 98%

 

[robby811]

I actually couldn't give a flying monkey's about casinos' woes or designers' insistence on constantly lowering the end user experience. I'm not here to take pity in their lessening profits, bottom line is I want to play a fair & fun game with an outside chance of winning, or else I wouldn't gamble!

And by not only decreasing payouts in such huge fashion but also distributing wins along such high extremes, in the new fad of super High Variance, it's going to end up with most just not slotting anymore, and that's fine too

Thing is it's not unreasonable to expect a fair crack of the whip, we had the games before. But with older titles being pulled and this new industry direction it's just a matter of time before games become unplayable messes.

So by all means, let them keep lowering RTP. It'll go in tandem with my lowering deposits

Merry Christmas everyone!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[goatwack]

I believe the OP started the thread about increasing the RTP.

In fact. he wants them to be increased to an unsustainable 98%

Yes.....we'd all like the RTP increased. It's no secret

Yet more and more games are hovering in the late 95%s these days

 

[Gaz237]

Yes.....we'd all like the RTP increased. It's no secret

Yet more and more games are hovering in the late 95%s these days

Overheads are increasing, the pie is only so big. Something has to give

 

[robby811]

I have a lot of pee to give

 

[goatwack]

Overheads are increasing, the pie is only so big. Something has to give

That's why I stated that's not my concern. I play the games to enjoy them not to appease their overheads.

3% was already enough of a handicap as it was.....at 5% and counting there's literally no point in gambling and feeding the companies

 

[shadow123]

We have to understand that casinos are a business, they have to cover their costs and make a profit to stay in business.
If the cost of a product that a supermarket buy increases they have to pass the increase on to the customer.
The shitty thing is that as usual , its the player who suffers from the cost of increased taxes and regulations,
On the other hand 96% is a very good rtp, you wont get that on any land based machines and never did,
so we are not that hard done by. We may feel the effect of the 4% loss due to playing far more and faster
online than was possible on real machines

 

[goatwack]

Supermarkets: a terrible comparison as no costs are being passed on, if anything they make 150 million instead of 180 million and call that a 'bad year'.

Not to mention the small matter of destroying tons of food daily that could feed the planet 3 times over yet want to control prices as they see fit.

Casinos aren't as destitute as they like to make out, I don't buy the whole Spiel about their struggles as it clearly a lucrative business and they ultimately only wish to maximize profits.

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Very high RTP games are out there if you look for them, VS have quite a few slots on their books at 97% or higher, with Taxi Movida coming in at 98.3%. (Just don't try to use them to unlock bonus wagering due to the VS contribution tapering!)

TBH you're not going to notice much difference as a player over a standard session's spin sample between 96% and 98%, the variance on slots is just too great (even relatively low variance slots).

If there is a culprit these days when it comes to bad sessions, it's the pay profiles and variance of a lot of modern slots, but the trick there is to avoid the stinkers. (One session on WWTBAM for example, was quite enough to convince me to never go anywhere near it again.)

I personally feel 96% is a decent RTP, MG were running on 95-96% for years and years when they were king of the castle and we all managed to get a decent run for our money with their slots.

 

[Jono777]

I personally feel 96% is a decent RTP, MG were running on 95-96% for years and years when they were king of the castle and we all managed to get a decent run for our money with their slots.

Good point, however try doing that these days

Not just a small sample size either. Back in the day I ONLY played MG viper casinos and yes you're right we did get a fair roll of the dice 8/10. Nowadays I hardly touch MG slots as they regularly seem simply desperate to gobble your bank roll as if its the last day on Earth!

 

[SlotGrinder]

98% rtp is not unsustainable on a base level

If a casino has $1 million wagered in a day then they make $20000

I understand there are many costs involved and I agree that with the current system a 98% rtp across the board probably is unsustainable

But if I was a game designer I would want to design a game that was fun to play . Yet if I had someone telling me the rtp has to be low then that restricts my ability to do so . I know it's all about money for the casinos but there should be some satisfaction in creating a game that players love to play . Even the best current games have half the people complaining that the game doesn't seem to give them a decent play ever (slots players complaining they're not winnning !! who would have thought )

Casinos offer lots of roulette including live roulette . The rtp of roulette is 97.3% . Players bet more per spin on roulette than they do on slots but the spins are generally a lot slower
They also offer blackjack and video poker which have rtp in the 99%+ range (if played correctly)
Slot spins are fast (in some cases insanely fast pragmatic lol) . You will do 100 spins on slots in the time you do 10 roulette spins . Yet the rtp is almost always lower than 97%
I feel like we as regular players are paying for the following with low rtp-
Bonuses for new players (ok nice if you are a new player but as an existing player I rarely get a decent bonus these days anyway)
Casino advertising
Paying affiliates
(mainly crap) Rewards System and silly promos (wager the most this weekend and win a trip for 2 to Somalia!)
Gambling Taxes and Licenses

What I think we should be paying for -
Paying the game providers
Staff Costs
Running Costs (website , banking logistics etc)

In short , I think it's a lot of sham with advertising and affiliation getting you to take a bonus at some new casino and then they hope you stay on and lose your money on games which really don't offer you much of a chance over any length of time

Of course there are exceptions like VS offering their weekend battles which are amazing value if you put in the effort

 

[aceking123]

Im amazed anyone here would have any pity on casinos about how much they dont make, the op has a point problem is, your all forgetting that these casinos have had a cash cow for years & years regardless to what is happening. Bottom line is greed nothing more new casinos opening every week floading the market for a piece of the pie.


the industry is dishonest this is on a balanced review of many many years, so you think 2% is going to help you nope it isnt it shall just give you longer play not better refurns if you do get real lucky. It just a over floated market with far to many casino's

 

[Reelsoffun]

There is another MAJOR factor that no one seems to have mentioned, and it is a fundamental part of understanding the cost of playing slots.

lets use 96% as an example as this is the most common RTP that most players aim for as a minimum.

Its the POP ( Price of play ) thats the major factor here that affects playtime more than just a couple of digits on the RTP, of course it is mathematically obvious that betting 10x the stake will see your bankroll potentially disappear 10 times faster, but it will also increase even a low volatility slot by 10 as well short term.

If you deposit £20 then, with average luck you can only expect the following amount of plays per stake before bust town:-

0.10 Stake = 5000 Plays
0.20 Stake = 2500 Plays
0.40 Stake = 1250 Plays
0.50 Stake = 1000 Plays
0.60 Stake = 833 Plays
0.80 Stake = 625 Plays
1.00 Stake = 500 Plays
1.25 Stake = 400 Plays
1.60 Stake = 313 Plays
2.00 Stake = 250 Plays
3.00 Stake = 167 Plays
4.00 Stake = 125 Plays
5.00 Stake = 100 Plays

Of course your not likely to hit your expected plays if you bet a high % of your bankroll but you get the drift.

SO whether I on 40p spins on bonanza or @dunover on his £2 spins wins or not hes still going to get 5x lower the amount of "playtime" on average no matter who wins or not.

Again not trying to state the obvious but the longer you play the more you will lose, the higher the stake the faster you will lose due to each spin contributing more cost, but its the total amount of plays that you have made that ultimately affects your loss overall which includes all the "recycled wins" this might be of use to some that hadnt thought about it that way.

What people don't realize is that on a "good" run you might have had far more playtime "plays" than the mathematical expectation and this could result in much lower amount of playtime from future deposits, whether you believe in them being random or not the same principal would apply.

I use a sheet that calculates my real base %, feature RTP and expected loss based on plays but slot tracker is probably the same and with the amount of plays some of you put through games it would give you the exact breakdown of what RTP has paid from where, and expected loss compared to actual loss.

In a nutshell, the only consistent way to get longer play time is lower stake.

 

[Gaz237]

98% rtp is not unsustainable on a base level

If a casino has $1 million wagered in a day then they make $20000

I understand there are many costs involved and I agree that with the current system a 98% rtp across the board probably is unsustainable

But if I was a game designer I would want to design a game that was fun to play . Yet if I had someone telling me the rtp has to be low then that restricts my ability to do so . I know it's all about money for the casinos but there should be some satisfaction in creating a game that players love to play . Even the best current games have half the people complaining that the game doesn't seem to give them a decent play ever (slots players complaining they're not winnning !! who would have thought )

Casinos offer lots of roulette including live roulette . The rtp of roulette is 97.3% . Players bet more per spin on roulette than they do on slots but the spins are generally a lot slower
They also offer blackjack and video poker which have rtp in the 99%+ range (if played correctly)
Slot spins are fast (in some cases insanely fast pragmatic lol) . You will do 100 spins on slots in the time you do 10 roulette spins . Yet the rtp is almost always lower than 97%
I feel like we as regular players are paying for the following with low rtp-
Bonuses for new players (ok nice if you are a new player but as an existing player I rarely get a decent bonus these days anyway)
Casino advertising
Paying affiliates
(mainly crap) Rewards System and silly promos (wager the most this weekend and win a trip for 2 to Somalia!)
Gambling Taxes and Licenses

What I think we should be paying for -
Paying the game providers
Staff Costs
Running Costs (website , banking logistics etc)

In short , I think it's a lot of sham with advertising and affiliation getting you to take a bonus at some new casino and then they hope you stay on and lose your money on games which really don't offer you much of a chance over any length of time

Of course there are exceptions like VS offering their weekend battles which are amazing value if you put in the effort

No disrespect, but you are talking out of your arse.

Ok you say they make £20,000 a day.

I,m not even sure I can be bothered to cite the beginnings of a list of who needs paying out of the £20,000 (as you put it)

Think I have said before. Imagine you have a big steak and kidney pie.

Everyone is sat around the table. The players NOW want 98% of the pie (according to you)

That's leaves basically naff all for the casino after paying XYZ.

If the provider (in this case), the casino is left starving for food.

Why would they continue?

More so. I don't think they could continue full stop.

 

[SlotGrinder]

Talking out of my arse ok no disrespect taken lol

"If a casino has $1 million wagered in a day then they make $20000

I understand there are many costs involved and I agree that with the current system a 98% rtp across the board probably is unsustainable"

idk what you don't understand about this post . Ok you think they will never be able to show a profit from this $20000 after costs - fine

Don't be rude tho

And to say the players want 98% of the pie is laughable - the players CREATE the pie , There is no pie without the players depositing and losing . It's 98% PER spin and it's on wagering not deposits
If I deposit 100 and wager 1000 I lose 20 on avg with 98% rtp . So after 1000 wagered I get 80% of the "pie" and 20% goes to the casino (before costs) . After 5000 wagered I lose my 100 on avg and get 0% of the pie

 

[brianmon]

There is another MAJOR factor that no one seems to have mentioned, and it is a fundamental part of understanding the cost of playing slots.

lets use 96% as an example as this is the most common RTP that most players aim for as a minimum.

Its the POP ( Price of play ) thats the major factor here that affects playtime more than just a couple of digits on the RTP, of course it is mathematically obvious that betting 10x the stake will see your bankroll potentially disappear 10 times faster, but it will also increase even a low volatility slot by 10 as well short term.

If you deposit £20 then, with average luck you can only expect the following amount of plays per stake before bust town:-

0.10 Stake = 5000 Plays
0.20 Stake = 2500 Plays
0.40 Stake = 1250 Plays
0.50 Stake = 1000 Plays
0.60 Stake = 833 Plays
0.80 Stake = 625 Plays
1.00 Stake = 500 Plays
1.25 Stake = 400 Plays
1.60 Stake = 313 Plays
2.00 Stake = 250 Plays
3.00 Stake = 167 Plays
4.00 Stake = 125 Plays
5.00 Stake = 100 Plays

Of course your not likely to hit your expected plays if you bet a high % of your bankroll but you get the drift.

SO whether I on 40p spins on bonanza or @dunover on his £2 spins wins or not hes still going to get 5x lower the amount of "playtime" on average no matter who wins or not.

Again not trying to state the obvious but the longer you play the more you will lose, the higher the stake the faster you will lose due to each spin contributing more cost, but its the total amount of plays that you have made that ultimately affects your loss overall which includes all the "recycled wins" this might be of use to some that hadnt thought about it that way.

What people don't realize is that on a "good" run you might have had far more playtime "plays" than the mathematical expectation and this could result in much lower amount of playtime from future deposits, whether you believe in them being random or not the same principal would apply.

I use a sheet that calculates my real base %, feature RTP and expected loss based on plays but slot tracker is probably the same and with the amount of plays some of you put through games it would give you the exact breakdown of what RTP has paid from where, and expected loss compared to actual loss.

In a nutshell, the only consistent way to get longer play time is lower stake.

I think it's a given that, when comparing an RTP of 96% and an RTP of 98%, as the OP is. It's based pn playing at the same stake.

If you disregard variance altogether to calculate the returns

A £20 deposit, played on an imaginary game of 96% RTP, with no variance, at £1 a spin you'd 'win' 96p each spin the equivalent of losing 4p each spin. which would give you 476 spins before you were left with not enough balance to make another £1 spin (£19/.04=475)

A £20 deposit, played on an imaginary game of 98% RTP, with no variance, at £1 a spin you'd 'win' 98p each spin the equivalent of losing 2p each spin. which would give you 951 spins before you were left with not enough balance to make another £1 spin (£19/.02=950)

 

[Gaz237]

Weren't a deliberate attempt to be rude.

But you have been pretty abrupt yourself in regards to the casinos.

You are spouting out this 98% figure, and then say " Yes they must have overheads, but should still make money". That's why I said about, you talking from your behind.

At least back what you say up?.

If Casinos are struggling now with extra tax's, ect at 96%. VS for a prime example, cutting back on all the freebies. They are not doing it for a giggle.

Please tell me how they could survive if (in your world) they increased pay out across the board to 98%

 

[Gaz237]

I think it's a given that, when comparing an RTP of 96% and an RTP of 98%, as the OP is. It's based pn playing at the same stake.

If you disregard variance altogether to calculate the returns

A £20 deposit, played on an imaginary game of 96% RTP, with no variance, at £1 a spin you'd 'win' 96p each spin the equivalent of losing 4p each spin. which would give you 476 spins before you were left with not enough balance to make another £1 spin (£19/.04=475)

A £20 deposit, played on an imaginary game of 98% RTP, with no variance, at £1 a spin you'd 'win' 98p each spin the equivalent of losing 2p each spin. which would give you 951 spins before you were left with not enough balance to make another £1 spin (£19/.02=950)

But in the real world 951 spins would be boring as hell.

475 would, or should give entertainment.

Everyone can still choose either HV or LV. There's enough games out there to please all. More so on VS

 

[Jono777]

In a nutshell, the only consistent way to get longer play time is lower stake.

As much as I agree with your post, makes a lot of sense, can't go any lower than 0.09p DoA spins and STILL I'm regularly, in fact VERY regularly busting out in such a short time, I don't even get "warmed up" and begin to enjoy my sessions

Said no more rigged posts and I shall stick to that but no way on Earth do I (we?) get anywhere near as much value for money / play time as we did a couple of years ago. Not looking for any reasons, nor as I say pointing even my little finger, just a very accurate observation. Think AK had a very good point when he mentioned simply WAY too many casinos about nowadays!