PragmaticPlay의 Lucky 6 Roulette. 이 영상 설명해 주실 분 계신가요? (3 페이지)

Hi Radka,

Thanks a lot for your kind message ,it honestly means more than you think. You’re right, this has been quite intense and I’ve tried to stay both focused and patient throughout the whole process. I do believe something meaningful is going to unfold soon, and I appreciate that you’re keeping an eye on it too.

I’ll definitely keep you updated as soon as there’s any significant development. And don’t worry, I try to balance things out and take breaks too , but you’re right, it’s definitely not over yet.

Thanks again for your support! 🙏

Anytime, dear batistahector490!

If I may, your role is, however, more important, and without you and your willingness to discuss the whole subject so openly, even though I guess we both feel how it may sometimes sound to people in the industry, you did that anyway.

So, my thanks goes to you. Enjoy the day, and I'll be here waiting for another piece of the puzzle once the time has come...

Good day to you. How are you faring?

I just wanted to say hello and let you know that the forum is still up and running.

Hi Radka, I hope you’re doing well too. I had been a bit disconnected due to a family issue.

Just to give you a quick update: the response I received from the Ombudsman closed my case in a way that aligned very closely with the MGA’s position , but using more legalistic language. Just for your information, the case has now officially reached the European Parliament. This is where things get serious, on a European level.

Thanks again for checking in.

Hello,

hope the family is okay and well! I appreciate the update.

You kow I had quite a positive feeling about the way things have been progressing. I'm sorry to see it did not go well even with the ombudsman. I guess I can once more say that he did not call for another investigation, because here we come again, it was "done" by MGA. This is how the system works. To be fair and square, though, I could not figure out how the ombudsman could do something else since we know there is a list of authorized labs and they co-work with the licensing authority. The system functions as a kind of ecosystem. We talked about that already.

The European Parliament? That's huge!

Hi Radka,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to share your thoughts. You’re absolutely right , the system is built like an ecosystem, and unfortunately, that’s exactly the core of the problem. When a licensing authority, the accredited labs, and even the Ombudsman seem to function within the same closed loop, it’s nearly impossible for an individual player to challenge anything, no matter how solid the evidence is.

That’s why I had no choice but to escalate the case to the European Parliament. My goal was never to create noise . I provided concrete evidence, videos, data patterns, and even admissions from the provider itself (Pragmatic Play), and yet every authority avoided discussing the substance of the case. Instead, they all deflected with jurisdictional or procedural arguments.

At this point, it’s no longer just a personal case , it has become a reflection of how vulnerable players are in front of a system that lacks true external oversight.

Thank you again for your honesty and for following the case this far. If anything moves at the European level, I’ll keep you informed.

Hi!

Thank you for such another very sincere and thoughtful response. I hear your frustration, and honestly, I can’t say I don’t understand it. The way the system is structured may indeed protect consistency and procedure, but it can also become incredibly difficult to break into from the outside, even with strong arguments.

From what you’re saying, it’s clear you’ve done far more than many would. You didn’t shout into the void; you tried to engage properly, and that deserves respect, regardless of the final outcome.

Fingers crossed that your voice reaches someone with the power and willingness to listen on the EU level. If anything moves, I’d definitely appreciate hearing about it.

Take care and thanks again for keeping me in the loop!

Radka, there’s something I hadn’t shared until now. One of the videos in the thread was actually analyzed by a roulette specialist. After insisting for weeks through social media, he finally agreed to give me an answer. I sent him my phone number, and he kindly wrote back. I can’t reveal his name because he has commercial ties with several providers , and I’m sure you can understand why he wouldn’t want to go public.

When you have a case like this in your hands, you begin to understand what the true goal of many of these entities really is. I’ve sent my case to several regulators and institutions over the past six months. Not one of them has stopped to discuss the actual evidence I submitted. They only speak about procedural or legal technicalities , not a single one has addressed the content of my videos or findings directly.

Hello,

I was expecting something like this because it usually starts with a video. How else might someone outside the creator company effectively communicate their concerns to others? I understand the secrecy, of course. Though I would refrain from using something like that as definite proof the whole industry is rotten, you probably know what I mean. Far too many experiences with frustration covered by "fake games" situations.

Furthermore, could you clarify what it truly means to be a roulette expert? I assume the person has some level of authenticity. That's the thing: the legal system is set on official experts in every field needed; those experts are suitable to comment on your findings. The others are not. In my opinion, the ombudsman exemplifies this situation well. And perhaps that's the other limitation on your journey. We're now discussing the role of official laboratories. Since legal procedures and investigations have specific rules, individuals who do not play roulette at online casinos are unlikely to comment on the videos or the other sources because they have no knowledge to make any kind of "official statement." To me it makes sense, because it is the same as the licensing authority's approach."

They only speak about procedural or legal technicalities , not a single one has addressed the content of my videos or findings directly." Makes sense; they aren't roulette experts, as we've said from the start.

I wouldn't expect otherwise, and I admire your dedication. In my opinion, the lawyers are the ones who may openly speculate once the case is ready to be heard in the court. The others won't very likely make a public stance.

This is what I think.

Hi Radka,

Thanks once again for your thoughtful and honest response.

You’re absolutely right on many points, and that’s exactly the core of my frustration , the system is built in a way that doesn’t even allow for a real discussion about what’s happening inside these games.

I’m not expecting anyone to take my videos as final proof, but I’m honestly surprised that not a single authority or lab has shown interest in discussing the actual content, only procedures and technicalities.

When I mentioned the "roulette specialist", I was referring to someone with many years of experience analyzing these systems (both physical and digital). I’m not presenting him as an "official authority", but at least he had the courage to look at the footage and give a technical opinion, even if it’s not legally binding.

The most discouraging part of all this isn’t just the legal silence , it’s the clear sense that no institution really wants to look beyond protocol. As you said, the secrecy protects the system , even from internal failures. And when someone from the outside tries to raise a flag, they’re ignored.

Thanks again for your empathy.

And of course, if anything moves forward, you’ll be one of the first to know.

As always, it's a pleasure to speak with you.

Upon rereading my previous response, I realized that I may have failed to clearly express that what I described was an attempt to view the situation from the perspective of the other interested parties who should be involved. I hope that my previous statement did not come across as an attempt to justify how things likely operate. It's not my role to make judgments.

I really think I understand what you have been saying, and hence, I have no reason to oppose anything you say. My nature and experiences, however, still remind me that having a clear viewpoint and honest concern does not mean that one will be heard by those who, let's say, matter. Of course, I hate to bring up such pessimism.

Let's see what comes next! Eyes on the horizon! 😉

Just wanted to share a quick update with those following the case. After months of being ignored or misled by various gambling regulators, I submitted a formal complaint to the European Commission. This week, I received their official confirmation, stating that my complaint has been accepted for review under EU law.

This means the case has now moved to a higher institutional level, beyond national regulators like the MGA or ESBK. I’ve attached the relevant screenshot for transparency.

Let’s see if the European Commission will finally act where others refused to.

Hello there!

I appreciate you staying in touch. Nice update! It's definitely a step forward and shows real determination. I mean, not everyone follows through all the way to the European Commission.

Just to set expectations: from the wording, this looks like a standard confirmation of receipt rather than an indication that specific action will be taken at this stage. But it does mean your complaint has officially entered the system, which is important.

As usual, the next steps should tell you more. Hoping for the best!

Hi Radka,

Thanks again for your follow-up. I just wanted to confirm that the European Commission has now officially registered my complaint in their system. While this may be a standard acknowledgment for now, it represents a very important step for me.

My goal has never been just to "complain because I lost," but rather to raise awareness with solid evidence about structural irregularities in the game and the regulatory ecosystem behind it. The fact that the case has reached this level already speaks to the seriousness of the issue.

I’ll continue sharing any updates here. Thank you for providing this platform.

Hi!

I recall why you started this quest.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter that the EU Commission hasn't rejected the request yet. It doesn't address the issue you raised. Rejection comes with an official statement; on the other hand, you received a template and an acknowledgement of the request itself. So I wouldn't talk about the level yet.

It's just that many other people stop bothering before they reach the Commission, I guess. If the case was dismissed, there would be nothing more to discuss, so they never return to follow up.

But I eagerly await the next response, which I hope will come soon. Because if the case is not dismissed, that would be a reason to celebrate! I'll be more than happy to celebrate with you!

Important Update – Evidence of Technical Modification in Lucky 6 Roulette

After several months of reporting that the ball in Pragmatic Play’s Lucky 6 roulette made no sound while spinning or landing (a key anomaly in my complaint), I have now confirmed that sound has recently been added.

This means the ball has likely been replaced with a regulation one or the system has been adjusted, without any public statement or notice to affected players.

This silent correction not only confirms that the issue was real, but also strongly suggests an attempt to cover it up now that the evidence has reached the European Commission.

I have created a public folder with the "before and after" videos, and this update has already been sent to the relevant authorities.

Link to the evidence: [🔗 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ypLGK3jbhVqH7UoFAJwT14TF7Hfb53sy

Hello,

Isn't it just possible that the sound of the ball was muted so the fancy lady would be better heard? I mean, that's quite logical.

A few key points:

There is no technical evidence that the game was manipulated just because the ball made no sound. Regulations do not require the roulette ball to make noise.

Game providers, like Pragmatic Play, can change visual or audio elements (e.g., sounds, animations, UI) without a public statement, as long as the core mechanics and fairness remain unaffected.

The change in sound could easily be a cosmetic or UX update. It doesn’t automatically prove wrongdoing or a cover-up.

After months of raising concerns, a silent fix can feel like an indirect confirmation that something was off.

But the logic, "Now there is sound, but back then something was wrong," doesn’t necessarily hold, if you ask me. It only shows that something changed, not that the game was unfair.

It’s understandable to be suspicious when communication is lacking, but that’s more about transparency, not necessarily cheating. I guess we are back to discussing a lack of response from providers...

Pragmatic and Evolution gaming for sure do not cheat, their business relies on confidence and trust. They do not have to pay the players, the casinos do.

Evolution gaming is on the stock market for crying out loud, they simply have to ensure that everything runs smooth and do not have to be bothered about players wins. I play Blackjack and Roulette on Pragmatic tables and when a BJ dealers card flies off of the table or the ball out of the Roulette wheel, there is some kind of intervention team running to the tables, stopping the games, the round is cancelled and all that, I have seen this personally while playing on several occasions. This clean up task force is there so fast, they must be monitoring from right besides the tables or some monitoring room.

Hi Radka,

Thank you for your reply. However, I would like to clarify why this recent change in the game cannot be considered merely a cosmetic or sound enhancement without implications.

For months, I observed that the ball in the Lucky 6 roulette game emitted no sound at all when being launched, bouncing, or landing in a slot , even when the croupier had the microphone very close to the wheel. Technically, this is not possible if a regulation roulette ball is used (e.g., ivory or steel), as it should produce a distinct, sharp sound upon impact with the metal surfaces.

The previous bounces were visibly softer and quieter, which strongly suggests the use of a different ball material, possibly rubber or coated, which would directly affect the ball’s physical behavior and trajectory. This is a clear technical observation, not speculation.

Now, in the current version of the game (after my formal complaints), the ball does make a noticeable sound when thrown and when bouncing , the rebounds appear sharper and more consistent, like those of a proper roulette ball. The change is evident and verifiable.

This is not just a matter of "now it makes sound", but rather that before, it made no sound when it logically should have. If a provider changes a physical component of the game after a serious complaint, without public disclosure or transparency, it cannot be dismissed by saying there’s "no technical evidence of manipulation."

Thank you for your attention.