I wonder how it is possible that lots of year ago, vegas was full of 100%+ games.
I'm not sure when the formal regulations about requiring game return to be known were introduced, but not long after 9/6 JoB and 8/5 JoB with a progressive were out in the early-mid 1980's it seems that returns were correctly estimated within 1% or so. Another 10-15 years or so and the analysis was pretty much fully accurate for almost all games. That said, there was actual data from casinos that showed the hold on machines was about 2%. Thus a casino could offer a game with a 101% return, actually make money from players playing poorly, and also use it as an advertising point to attract players with their good pay tables. If the players come through the door there's no guarantee they'll be able to get on the best machines or even able to find them, but it gets them through the door and many of them will play poorly in addition to spending money elsewhere in the casino.
Probably as time went on the casino started getting burned from good players and offering extra $ with additional promotions, or some exec got a bit scared when a full pay machine hit a lot in a short amount of time, and they pulled them.
I often wonder this myself. Why was VP designed with such a low house edge in the first place? Was the mindset amongst casino operators different than it is now? Like if VP was invented today, instead of when Axel was born, the house edge be like 60%.
It's because the house edge is cumulative. The game hits the sweet spot for addictive play, needing skill or the optimal he is never realized, providing a decision point on evey hand for control or the illusion of it, appearing to be inexpensive per individual spin, displaying many potential wins that just miss, allowing the pace of play to be set by the player, offering many small wins for a good hit rate but still having substantial jackpots, using familiar symbols and concepts ,appearing deceptively easy, little expense beyond the initial buy/lease agreement (no dealer/labor costs).
So hardly anybody just plays one hand. And every hand they do play, the he is acting on it.
The designers of the full pay JoB we play nowadays must have known the payout % to get so close to 100%.
Any other possibility is too unlikely.
In regards to the games that are slightly above 100% like full pay deuces: I think it had sportsman-like intentions.
If you can learn the correct strategy and minimise your mistakes then you deserve to be paid.
All this is my speculation; you would have to contact the people that made them to know for sure.
Super fast games with high variance do not need a high HE.
6:5 blackjack doesn't NEED to exist, but it does.
Also the variance in blackjack is not high as far as I know. And even than, 6:5 is bad but better than any game for low-rollers on the strip, besides craps(and some video poker). I did not play 6:5 blackjack tables(I played 2$ 6:5 blackjack machine, but it was 2$ and not 5$) because I don't want to encourage it. But I will play the much worse 3 card poker or pai gow poker... I simply hate to be short-paid.
All casino games tend to be subject to pariahs. Its the same thing as those scammers who would go to a ski resort but never pay the mega lift fees since they were only there to eat, drink and be merry.
Those who hover around machines or downright hog them are an annoyance and the casino
The casinos want to squeez the clientele but not enough that it feels like a squeeze.
craps originally did not have 'odds'... it was a way to compete with other casinos.
Street craps took center action thruogh other players, not the one who owned the game.
Rules change, odds change,,, players get greedy. Casino get greedy. Green eye shade types retire and MBAs take over.