Very interesting

[pokeherguy]

A while back I brought up a subject involving the newst casino/racino to our area. The idea I introduced was shot down as it more than likely deserved to be. My play had been pretty bad at this place and I was searching for answers as to why. I got in my mind that just maybe it was bad because they had so many poker machines and so few players. So my queation was: could the few amount of players combined with the large number of vp machines have any effect on my outcome? The overall concensus was no it could not.
 
Now something to add to my argument. We actually have two racinos in Arkansas. They both offer the same type of machines with what is suppossed to be the same payback. The one in my area does have a bit of competition because Tunica is down the road a short distance. But the also enjoy the fact that they are right across the bridge from Memphis. Here are some numbers from both racinos:
 
This is from a 10 month period,
 
Racino A: All games of skill 94.67% payback
Racino B: all games of skill 91.22% payback
 
I also found another article concerning this subject and it referring to a single month:
 
Racino A: $13.1 million wagered on games of skill, $12.3 million paid back.
 
Racino B: $7.8 million wagered on games of skill, $6.5 million paid back.
 
Racino A paid back 94% while Racino B paid back 82%. Guess which one I had been playing at.

[wilcoxfun]

My guess is the wrong one

[shadowman]

Looking at these kind of results can be very misleading. You need to take into account what paytables are provided. Although skill level is another factor I suspect that should average out, but if one casino has much worse paytables then it will have a much lower payback.