Best paying online pokies in Australia: reading the numbers honestly

Return-to-player is the most quoted figure in pokie marketing, and the most abused. A “96% pokie” headline means the machine keeps four cents in every dollar across millions of spins — not that any individual player walks away with ninety-six cents on the dollar. In Australia, the figure has real legal weight onshore because each jurisdiction sets a minimum, and the actual RTP of every licensed machine is filed with a state regulator. Offshore, the same number is a marketing line, and the page you’re reading exists because the difference matters.

Last reviewed against ACMA enforcement data on 6 November 2026; minimum return-to-player figures cross-checked against state and territory gaming regulations.

Where to get help before chasing a payout percentage

A high RTP does not soften a problem. A machine at 90% still takes a tenth of every dollar through it, and a player running through machines fast is the player the math hurts most. The supports below are free, Australian, and confidential — they exist whether or not anyone is in crisis, and they are the place to start when the question is not “which pokie pays best” but “should I be playing at all.”

BetStop — National Self-Exclusion Register. Live since August 2023. A registered exclusion applies to every Australian-licensed online and phone wagering service, which is sports and race betting in practice. It does not bind offshore casino sites — those are not on the register’s network — and that distinction is worth knowing before relying on it as a single safeguard. Exclusion periods run from three months to a lifetime, and registration is done online or through any participating wagering provider.

Gambling Help Online. Web chat, phone, and email, 24/7. The National Gambling Helpline is 1800 858 858 and is free from any Australian line. The service runs counselling, financial counselling, and referrals to local face-to-face support. State-based services feed into the same national intake — Gambler’s Help in Victoria, GambleAware in NSW, similar names in each jurisdiction.

State-level self-exclusion schemes. Each state with significant machine numbers — NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, the Northern Territory — runs a venue exclusion scheme covering pubs, clubs and casinos. The schemes are separate from BetStop and apply to physical premises. A player who wants out of a local club or pub can lodge an exclusion with the relevant state authority; the venues are then required to refuse entry for the agreed period.

Pre-commitment cards. Tasmania was first to legislate mandatory pre-commitment on every machine — players set a daily, weekly or monthly spend cap and the machine enforces it. Implementation was pushed back several times and is now scheduled for late 2025. New South Wales has rolled out a voluntary cashless gaming card system that records play and lets players set limits; coverage and rules continue to evolve. The point these systems make: the house edge is fixed, and the only lever a player controls is how much they put through the machine.

Anyone reading this for research rather than for play can move on to the next shelf. Anyone who recognises their own behaviour in the questions above is better off calling 1800 858 858 than picking a pokie.

How deposits and withdrawals actually move in Australia

The deposit side of online gambling has a hard rule. Since 11 June 2024, credit cards, credit-related products, and digital currency cannot be used to fund licensed online wagering in Australia; the carrier penalties for an operator accepting them run to $247,500. What remains legal for the licensed bookmakers — sports and race, not casino — is debit card, bank transfer, PayID/Osko, and BPAY.

That list describes licensed wagering. It does not describe offshore casino sites, where the cashier is whatever the operator decides to put there: cryptocurrency, credit cards, e-wallets, and voucher systems are all common. The Australian credit-card ban has no reach over a Curacao-incorporated site, and the deposit that lands in that cashier is one no Australian regulator can claw back if the withdrawal never arrives.

Withdrawal speed on the licensed side is a working banking story. PayID and Osko settle in near real time during banking hours; BPAY is same-day to next-business-day depending on the receiving institution; debit card withdrawals clear in one to three business days after the operator releases them. None of that is the operator’s promise — it is the speed the underlying rails deliver. Operator-side delay sits on top: a 24-to-48-hour internal processing window is normal for licensed Australian bookmakers, and a few outfits advertise same-day release during business hours.

On the offshore side, published payout windows cluster around 24 to 72 hours after verification, with longer windows for bank transfers and shorter ones for crypto. The figure is meaningless without a verification event to anchor it, because the same operators that advertise fast payouts also publish the conditions under which they will delay them — large withdrawals, bonus play, “review” of the player’s history. A payout that “arrives in 24 hours” on a Tuesday in marketing copy can become a ten-day wait once the operator wants a closer look.

The accounting point worth carrying into the rest of the page: a payout speed claim is a comparison of two clocks, the operator’s processing clock and the rail’s settlement clock, and the published figure almost always names only the second.

Why gambling rankings are misleading

A ranking of “best paying” casinos implies a market where the comparison is honest, the figures are comparable, and the listed operators can be trusted to pay. None of those three holds for offshore online casinos serving Australians. The 11 brands reviewed further down this page are there because the Australian Communications and Media Authority issued a formal warning over each one for offering prohibited services — they are not a shortlist of best-paying sites, they are the set the regulator has named.

A ranking that did sort on payout would have to start with the legal category, not the brand. Within Australian-licensed venues, payout is a state-level minimum, a per-machine filed figure, and an audit trail. A reader who wants a real comparison of “best paying” in the sense the search query imagines should be looking at venues, machines, and denominations inside the legal onshore market — which is the focus of the next section.

The ranking exercise is useful in one specific way. Eleven warnings, across nine different operators, in fourteen months tells a reader something no comparison table can: the offshore online pokie market serving Australians is not a competitive marketplace with a quality gradient. It is a single category — prohibited services — that the ACMA has acted against repeatedly, under different brand names and different corporate shells, for the same conduct.

What “high RTP” actually means on a pokies machine

Return-to-player is the share of every dollar wagered that the machine returns to players in the long run. A 90% RTP machine keeps ten cents on the dollar over millions of spins. The figure is theoretical — it is what a perfectly average player across an infinite number of plays would receive back — and it is the first number a serious player needs to understand because every other number sits on top of it.

The legal floor for poker machines varies by jurisdiction. New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, and most of Victoria set 85% as the minimum; Crown Melbourne runs at 87%. The Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania also require 87%. South Australia requires 87.5%, and Western Australia requires 90% — the highest jurisdictional floor in the country, and the reason Crown Perth’s roughly 2,500 machines are the only legal pokies in the state. These are minimums, not averages: an operator can run machines at any RTP above the floor, and many venues mix machines across that range.

Volatility — sometimes called variance — sits next to RTP and is a different question. A high-RTP, low-volatility machine pays out small amounts often; a high-RTP, high-volatility machine pays out rarely, but larger when it does. The RTP is identical across both designs; the experience of playing them is not. A player who measures a session by “how long did my money last” is asking a volatility question, not an RTP question, and a pokie chosen purely on headline RTP can disappoint on exactly that metric.

The third number is hit frequency — the share of spins that produce any return at all. A 30% hit frequency means three in ten spins produce something back, and the rest are zero. Hit frequency is rarely published, which is why it is the figure most often inflated in marketing. A pokie advertised as “wins on every spin” is talking about the bonus feature animation, not the hit frequency.

These three numbers together — RTP, volatility, hit frequency — describe a machine’s payout character. None of them describe a session. A 96% RTP machine can still drain a $100 bankroll in ten spins if the volatility is high and the symbols don’t line up; the long-run return is built on millions of spins, and a single sitting is not the long run. Anyone quoting a per-session RTP is quoting a number the math does not support.

Payout percentages inside Australian venues

The licensed Australian pokie market is one of the most measured gambling markets in the world. Every machine has a filed return-to-player; every filing is auditable; every state publishes enough of its regime that a player can check what category of machine is on the floor.

In NSW, gaming machines outside casinos run into the tens of thousands across pubs and clubs — 87,298 machines across 2,195 venues as of June 2023, with player losses of A$8.18 billion across 2022–23. The Liquor & Gaming NSW arm of the Department of Creative Industries, Tourism, Hospitality and Sport oversees the technical standards; machines must meet a 85% minimum and cannot exceed stated return-to-player caps without re-approval. Reconfiguration — for example, a venue shifting from 87% to 90% on a machine type — requires the regulator’s sign-off and a period of notice.

Victoria runs 26,380 machines outside Crown Melbourne in 488 venues under a statewide cap of 30,000. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, which replaced the VCGLR on 1 July 2022, supervises both casino and club machines. Crown Melbourne operates under a separate, higher-tier approval regime with a higher RTP floor (87%) and operates three baccarat variants on its tables — Traditional, Crown, and 2 to 1 Baccarat — alongside its gaming machines.

Queensland has 21,122 machines across 351 venues as of October 2023, regulated by the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation. Tasmania ended Federal Group’s monopoly over its machines in November 2021, with oversight moving to the Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission; mandatory pre-commitment cards are the country’s first such requirement, with implementation now set for late 2025.

Western Australia is the outlier. Pokies are banned in pubs and clubs, and have been since Crown Perth opened in 1985; the state’s Gaming and Wagering Commission approves only the machines inside the casino, of which there are roughly 2,500 — the entire legal machine population of WA. The 90% minimum RTP in WA is the highest jurisdictional floor in Australia and a direct consequence of the venue monopoly: with no pub or club competition, the regulator writes the rules for the only game in town.

Australia-wide, players bet roughly A$150 billion through gaming machines in 2020–21 and lost A$12.18 billion on them, in a country that holds about 3% of the world’s pub and club machines with 0.3% of the global population. The density is the point: more machines per capita than almost anywhere, and the highest per-capita losses among comparable economies. The regulatory machinery around payout percentages is not a small matter — it is the load-bearing wall under a market that size.

Reading the offshore “best paying” claim

The offshore online pokie site markets itself the same way an Australian venue does — RTP, volatility class, “high payout” — and the comparison reads as if the two are competing on the same field. They are not.

A licensed Australian machine has a regulator-filed RTP, a regulator-approved game ruleset, a venue licence that can be suspended, and an audit trail a player can in principle inspect. An offshore online pokie has whatever RTP the operator has published, on whatever game the operator has loaded, with whatever mathematics the player is asked to trust. There is no Australian auditor with standing in the offshore case. There is no venue licence to suspend. The certificate on the page is a PDF the player cannot verify independently.

A reader who wants to do the comparison honestly has to accept that the offshore figure is a marketing claim rather than a measured property. A 97% RTP claimed on an offshore pokie is unprovable from the player’s side of the screen — the game’s source code, the actual hit distribution, the operator’s house edge settings are all held by the operator. The machine’s RNG is certified, sometimes, by a testing lab; the lab’s name is on a PDF; the PDF links back to the same operator. The audit chain does not reach an Australian regulator.

This is not a fringe concern. The H2 Gambling Capital 2025 estimate puts Australian losses to illegal gambling sites at roughly A$3.9 billion a year — a market the size of a mid-sized Australian industry, sitting entirely outside the country’s regulatory frame. The legal-channel share of Australian gambling fell from 74% in 2021 to 64% in the same report, and the gap is the offshore casino market that the ACMA has been moving against since enforcement was strengthened in 2017.

The offshore site does have one structural advantage in the comparison: it can publish a higher RTP number than a licensed Australian machine because no minimum binds it. A 96% RTP pokie is common offshore; the same figure is at the top of the legal range onshore. The number is genuinely higher on paper. The “best paying” claim, taken literally, is the offshore one — and the offshore one is also the one the regulator has formally warned against offering.

The legal picture: what the Interactive Gambling Act actually does

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, as amended by the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017, makes it an offence to provide online casino games, online pokies, or in-play betting to a person physically in Australia. The offence sits with the provider, not the player — no Australian has been prosecuted for playing at an offshore casino — but the provider’s exposure is real: formal warnings, civil penalty proceedings, blocking requests to internet service providers, and the slow grind of being pushed out of the Australian market.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority handles enforcement. The ACMA investigates complaints, issues formal warnings, refers matters to the Australian Federal Police, and asks Australian ISPs to block illegal sites at the DNS level. As of June 2026, the ACMA had asked ISPs to block 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites since the first blocking request in November 2019; the June 2026 round alone added twelve more — 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz.com, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino, and Wildsino. More than 230 unlicensed gambling services have left the Australian market entirely since 2017, either because blocking made them uneconomic or because the ACMA’s correspondence was sufficient.

The pace of that enforcement — over six and a half years from the first blocking request — averages out to a familiar cadence. The total of 1,751 blocked sites between November 2019 and June 2026 is a working figure for how fast the illegal market has been cleared, but the rate is not constant: the first round covered the largest, best-known brands; later rounds mop up rebrandings, mirror sites, and new entrants. A reader trying to read the trend needs to know that the figure counts sites, not operators, and that one operator can generate several sites across several brands.

Bands are the honest shape of the question. Across the period from the first blocking request in November 2019 to the most recent ACMA public figure in June 2026, the cumulative total of blocked illegal gambling and affiliate sites rose to 1,751. Divided across the roughly 79 months in that span, the working rate is around 22 blocked sites per month as a long-run average — but the early months ran faster (catching the obvious targets) and recent months run slower (catching rebrandings). A reasonable band is 15 to 25 blocked sites per month, with the figure highest at the start of the programme and tailing off as the low-hanging sites clear. The condition on the band is that it is an average over a regime that has changed shape over time, not a steady-state rate.

The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026; its advertising and inducement measures commence 1 January 2027. The law exists, the commencement date exists, and on a page read in 2026 the new advertising rules are not yet in force.

What the legal frame leaves untouched is the practical question for a player who has put money in. An offshore casino is not connected to BetStop, has no Australian complaints body to approach, and has no obligation to release a balance if the operator decides not to. The block can arrive with funds still on the site, and the funds do not come back through any Australian channel.

The 11 operators the ACMA has named

The brands below are not a ranking and not a recommendation. They are the operators the Australian Communications and Media Authority has issued a formal warning over for offering prohibited interactive gambling services to people in Australia. The table sorts them by warning date — most recent first — and the write-ups underneath name the operator the regulator named, the date of the warning, and what a reader comparing options can take from the entry.

RocketPlay

The ACMA issued a formal warning to Pulsup Ltd over Rocketplay.com.au in March 2026, and Dama N.V. was the named operator in an earlier May 2022 warning covering six brands including Rocketplay. Two warnings, separated by four years, against the same brand family. The legal position is the same as for any offshore operator on this page: online casino games cannot be licensed anywhere in Australia, whatever licence the site displays. The decision a reader actually faces is not which offshore site to pick but whether to play offshore at all, and on that question Rocketplay has had two formal answers from the regulator.

Jackbit

Named in an ACMA formal warning in April 2026 to Ryker B.V., alongside CasinOK. The brand is the newer of the two Ryker B.V. entries, and the ACMA’s action is the most recent on this list. No supporting data carries an RTP figure or volatility reading specific to Jackbit that could be checked against an Australian standard — the published numbers on the site are the site’s own. The verdict on Jackbit is the same one any offshore casino earns under Australian law: the operation is prohibited, and a player who deposits is unprotected under Australian consumer law.

CasinOK

Same ACMA warning as Jackbit — April 2026, Ryker B.V. The two brands share an operator and a regulatory event. Distinguishing them as separate entries reflects only the brand-level granularity of the ACMA’s publication; for a reader comparing options, the comparison ends there. Both are prohibited services under the same warning.

Spirit Casino

ACMA formal warning to Dama N.V. in May 2025. Dama N.V. is the same operator named in the May 2022 warning covering six brands and in the March 2025 warning over Woo Casino — three warnings to one operator across three years, which makes Dama N.V. the most-warned operator on this list. The brand-level verdict does not move with the warning count, but the operator-level pattern is worth flagging: the ACMA’s correspondence has not changed this operator’s conduct, and the formal-warning letter is the strongest Australian regulatory action short of civil penalty proceedings.

Ignition Casino

ACMA formal warning to Bamboo Media in July 2025. Ignition is the only brand on this list associated with Bamboo Media, which makes the operator pattern less clear than Dama N.V.’s. The brand markets itself to Australian players through affiliate pages; the ACMA’s correspondence with the operator is the published record of that marketing’s regulatory status.

National Casino

ACMA formal warning to Consolutetish S.R.L. in July 2025. The brand appears in public directory listings; no independent RTP or volatility figure is published for any specific title. The entry exists because the ACMA named the operator and the brand, not because any third-party source has carried a payout figure worth quoting.

Bizzo Casino

Two ACMA actions on the record. The 2022 warning named TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V.; the July 2025 warning named Consolutetish S.R.L. Two operators, three years apart, the same brand. The pattern is a reincorporation: Bizzo changed hands or restructured, and the new corporate vehicle received its own formal warning from the ACMA. The regulatory position is unchanged across the restructuring.

Casino Intense

ACMA formal warning to Sterplay Holding Ltd in April 2025. The brand appears in Australian media coverage and in the ACMA’s own publications. The supporting material that exists for Casino Intense is what the listings and the regulator’s own pages say about it; nothing in the public record gives an RTP figure that could be checked against the 85% Australian floor or the 90% Western Australian floor.

Woo Casino

ACMA formal warning to Dama N.V. in March 2025. The brand sits alongside Spirit Casino and Level Up Casino in Dama N.V.’s portfolio of warned brands. The March 2025 warning is the second ACMA action against Dama N.V. within a year of the May 2022 batch and a year before the May 2025 action on Spirit Casino; three formal warnings across three years against one operator is the pattern that earns Dama N.V. its place at the top of that count.

Instant Casino

ACMA formal warning to EOD Code SRL in February 2025. Instant Casino markets high-payout pokies prominently; the ACMA’s action names the operator and the brand and stops there. The published payout claims on the site are the operator’s own, unverified by any Australian regulator, and the legal status of the operation is what the warning says it is.

Sky Crown

ACMA formal warning to Hollycorn N.V. published in September 2022, covering Sky Crown and Blue Leo. Two brands, one operator, one warning. The action is the oldest on this list, which makes Sky Crown’s regulatory status settled rather than recent — the ACMA wrote to Hollycorn N.V. in 2022, and the conduct under warning is the conduct the operator has continued.

Level Up Casino

ACMA formal warning to Dama N.V. in May 2022, the earliest of the warnings on this list. The brand appears in third-party software provider listings, which is the only “subject support” record that survives a check: that a software provider lists the brand does not change its legal status in Australia, where Level Up Casino remains a prohibited service.

Choosing a path

The honest choice the page sets up is between two paths, and the criteria for picking depend on what a reader actually wants.

Path one: stay onshore. A player who wants the strongest consumer protection, an audited payout figure, and a venue they can complain to if something goes wrong is choosing the Australian licensed market. The trade-off is that the regulatory floor on RTPs is fixed by jurisdiction (85% in NSW and Queensland, 87% in the ACT, Tasmania, and Crown Melbourne, 87.5% in South Australia, 90% in Western Australia), and the machines inside that range are the ones available. The published figure on the machine or in the venue’s Game Information is the real figure, filed with the state regulator.

Path two: play offshore. A player who decides to play at an offshore online casino is choosing a market with no Australian licence, no Australian regulator, no BetStop coverage, no Australian complaints body, and a published RTP figure the player cannot independently verify. The trade-off is the wider game range and higher headline RTP numbers; the price is the absence of everything that makes the onshore market accountable. Each of the eleven brands reviewed on this page is an example of this trade-off taken to its current regulatory conclusion.

A reader who treats “best paying” as the only criterion ends up on path two, and ends up on the receiving end of a formal warning letter the ACMA has already written to the operator. A reader who treats “best paying” as one criterion among several — protection, recourse, payout auditability, withdrawal reliability — ends up on path one, and accepts the lower headline RTP in exchange for the rest.

The third path, the one the rest of the page is structured around, is not playing at all. The supports named earlier in this guide exist precisely because the math on both paths favours the house, and a player who is not in a position to take that loss honestly is better off not taking it at all.

Paying attention to the rest of the picture

A payout percentage sits inside a much larger set of conditions, and a reader who reads only the RTP number misses most of what determines whether a session is a fair one.

Volatility matters more than the headline RTP for short sessions. A 96% RTP, high-volatility pokie can drain a $100 bankroll in minutes; a 92% RTP, low-volatility pokie can keep a $100 bankroll alive for an hour. The session-level experience is dominated by volatility, not by the RTP that advertising copy leads with.

Bonus terms are the other half of any “best paying” comparison. A bonus that pays 100% on deposit and carries a 50x wagering requirement on the bonus amount requires $5,000 of wagering per $100 of bonus; the expected loss on that $5,000 at a 95% RTP machine is $250, against a bonus value of $100. Offshore casino bonuses routinely carry terms stricter than this; reading the bonus terms before claiming is more informative than comparing the headline RTPs.

The cashier is a regulatory signal. A site that takes credit cards from Australians is operating outside the June 2024 prohibition; a site that accepts cryptocurrency is operating outside the credit instrument ban; a site that pays out through an untraceable channel is operating outside the practical reach of Australian consumer law. The cashier tells a reader what regulatory regime the operator is actually working under, in a way the licence badge at the footer does not.

The machine’s denomination affects effective RTP. Across most Australian venues, higher-denomination machines (A$1, A$2, A$5) run at higher RTP than lower-denomination machines (1c, 2c, 5c). The headline jurisdictional minimum applies to every denomination, but operators often configure higher denominations at the top of the legal band and lower denominations at the bottom. A player choosing a denomination is choosing an effective RTP, and the difference can be several percentage points.

A venue’s machine mix is the relevant set, not the catalogue. A venue running 30 machines across a 10-point RTP range is offering a different game to a player than a venue running 30 machines all clustered at the jurisdictional minimum. The Game Information pages at the venue — usually accessible through the state regulator’s website — are where this mix is published.

What this page is honest about

The numbers above come from the ACMA’s published enforcement record, from state and territory gaming regulators, and from a small set of secondary sources covering machine counts and jurisdictional RTP floors. Where a figure is not available — a specific offshore brand’s audited RTP, an individual machine’s hit frequency — the page says so. Where a brand’s payout claim cannot be verified against an Australian standard, the page names the gap rather than quoting the marketing line.

The honest reading of “best paying online pokies Australia 2026” is that the question is malformed for offshore sites, answerable in narrow terms for onshore venues, and worth taking seriously only after the help-line shelf above has been read in full. A reader who came for a ranking of offshore payout percentages has been given the shape of the offshore market instead; a reader who came for an honest comparison of Australian machine payouts has been given the jurisdictional structure that comparison runs against.

Frequently asked questions

What does return-to-player actually measure on a pokies machine?

Return-to-player measures the share of every dollar wagered that the machine is designed to return to players across a very large number of spins — typically millions. A 90% RTP machine keeps ten cents on the dollar in the long run. The figure is theoretical and applies to the machine’s lifetime behaviour, not to any single session or any individual player.

Where can an Australian check the published payout percentage of a licensed pokies machine?

State gaming regulators publish the RTP for each approved machine type. In NSW, the Game Information is published through Liquor & Gaming NSW; in Victoria, through the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission; in Queensland, through the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation. Each venue also has Game Information pages that list the machines on its floor and their filed RTP.

Do higher-denomination pokies machines really pay out more often?

Higher-denomination machines typically run at higher RTP than lower-denomination machines at the same venue, with the difference sometimes running to several percentage points. They do not necessarily pay out more often — the volatility profile is a separate design choice. A $1 machine at 92% RTP can still have a lower hit frequency than a 5c machine at 87% RTP.

Why can’t an offshore online pokies site be verified the same way a licensed Australian venue can?

An offshore site is not subject to an Australian gaming regulator’s oversight, and the payout figures it publishes are not filed with or audited by any Australian authority. The testing-lab certificates the site carries are issued by laboratories the offshore operator has engaged, not by an Australian regulator. There is no Australian complaints body for an offshore site, no Australian consumer law that binds the operator, and no Australian recourse if a withdrawal is refused.

Are payout percentages the same on every machine within one venue?

No. Venues typically run machines across a range of RTP figures, and the range is set within the jurisdictional floor and ceiling. Higher-denomination machines are usually configured at the top of the range and lower-denomination machines near the bottom. A venue’s Game Information page lists each machine’s filed RTP; comparing them is the practical way to find the best-paying machine in that venue.

What state regulator oversees payout auditing for pokies machines in Australia?

Each state and territory regulates its own machines. NSW machines are overseen by Liquor & Gaming NSW; Victoria’s machines by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission; Queensland’s by the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation. Western Australia’s machines are all inside Crown Perth and are approved by the state’s Gaming and Wagering Commission. Tasmania’s machines are now overseen by the Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission after the end of Federal Group’s monopoly.