Contrary to your comment, casinos do not welcome paying out tokens that will not be redeemed. They want to pay out cash so that cash is pumped right back into that slot or another slot. If they pay a token that is going to be taken home, it's automatically out of the wagering pool --- they are not getting it back. Casinos do not live on collectors; they live on gamblers. And gamblers put their winnings at risk."

I will grant that casinos live on gamblers... and profits. But if a token walks, and goes into a collection, it's now profit.

Isn't taking home a token that costs less than the $10 marked on it and which costs the player something more than $10 on average, a profit?

The two scanerios.

Editor, someone wins $10 from a machine and continues to play that $10. Or changes in the quarters and puts the money in their pocket. (he can't ignore that players do cash out sometimes)

Collectors, a person wins $10 from the casino but never collects that $10 from the casino. Chances are that this $10 (the Strike) will not be returned. If a strike is returned, then the money is back in the wagering pool. Simple enough the casino wins both ways with the strike machine.

We have established that the casino doesn't set the payouts and all of the machines are set at the factory to the same percentages.

Anyone who claims to have personally observed a pattern of pay, has only personal observation and conjecture, not scientific evidence. Someone would have to sit and count every coin in and payout for the life of the machine to have any idea what the RNG is programmed to for a percentage.

Anyone who looks at the reels and counts symbols, is waisting their time. The reels are just there for decoration, the decision is made by the computer chip in the machine.

It's very simple. The casino is "leasing" this space to a machine which takes in X dollars profit a month. If the space could hold a different machine which takes in more money per month, which one do you think they will have in that space?

True, as mentioned on the chip board, that casinos that change designs and offer better artwork, do better than the ones that have the same stale strikes for long periods of time. There is an investment in the design (one side can stay the same) and the initial cost of each strike much be factored in. Better and more varied designs will make more profit for the casino through at least three ways. 1) More tokens walk, 2) More play to get more variations, 3) Free publicity that exposure brings for a casino's name.

So for a csino to make the profit they desire wihtin the space of the strike machine, it takes a little more effort. However if that effort produces more return, it's worthwhile to continue the program.

My only question is why some casinos tried the machines and dropped them in what seemed the minimum introduction contract, while some have a living program and are activly marketing silver strikes? Is it the machine or the casino's way of handling the program?

A simple survey of demographics can tell something also. Do strike collectors come in, play the machine and leave or do they play the strike machine and then gamble in other areas. If the later, then it's not only a profit maker, but an attraction and promotional device. If the players only come in to collect strikes, that might be why some casinos have removed machines.