I haven't said it isn't possible, I've said that it's the least likely option for a casino to take if it wants to increase its profits and/or offset increased operating costs, there are so many different legal levers available to pull, that to choose the one marked
'PULL THIS LEVER TO RISK A MASSIVE FINE, POSSIBLE LOSS OF OPERATING LICENCE AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS' seems daft.
I totally get that casinos are caught breaking other rules and get done for it, I've never for one single second suggested I think the industry is as pure as the driven snow (quite the opposite), but I still don't see how the dodgy games angle pans out, and there's certainly no evidence for it happening.
I'm prepared to accept that Bonanza might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model, (brianmon makes some good points in his post just above), it still doesn't entirely make sense to me as to why they'd bother, but enough seasoned players seem convinced of it for me to concede the point as as possibility, I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP - because that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for.
If I were running VS and Bonanza was turning in 94% for a couple of months on the trot, I'd be worried about it and I'd be onto
BTG, because that'd say to me the game wasn't running right, wasn't making its certified RTP, and that there was a problem that'd need addressing. (VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information, unless we're now saying that they're falsifying those numbers? Because you can pick any month you want and it's always very close to 96%.)