I’m a long-time online casino player, and I’ve submitted a serious complaint to the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) regarding irregular behavior observed in a licensed live casino game.

I documented more than 10 videos, with a detailed technical breakdown of suspicious patterns — not just personal loss, but algorithmic anomalies that raise questions about fairness and compliance.

The MGA closed the case without reviewing the evidence. No one from their team asked for clarification, follow-up, or technical review. They simply shut it down.

I have now submitted everything to the Swiss gambling authority (ESBK) — a neutral, public body that doesn’t depend on the gaming industry and reports to the Department of Justice.

If they do not act, I will make everything public.

And what I have is strong. Very strong.

This is not a personal vendetta — it’s a systemic issue that could affect many players.

I’m not posting the evidence yet out of respect for the regulatory process, but if you’ve experienced anything strange in licensed games, you may not be alone.

"Appreciate the interest and the guesses. For now, I can’t share anything until the Swiss investigation window closes — but I’m watching everything closely."

Hello, I'm not sure whether MGs is even capable of investigation. I mean, it is not very common knowledge that the licensing authorities issue licenses but very often have no involvement in the technical field.

Thus, I'm not sure how even Swiss investigations come in, but I guess it will be interesting to see the possible result.

Thanks for the notice.

Hello Radka,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand your point — it’s true that many licensing authorities tend to focus on documentation and compliance, avoiding involvement in the technical side of things.

However, in this particular case, the evidence I’ve gathered goes far beyond general suspicion. We’re talking about over a dozen structured video clips that clearly demonstrate recurring anomalies and algorithmic patterns within a live, physical roulette system. It’s not random noise — it’s consistent, observable, and testable behavior. If verified, it could become one of the most impactful revelations regarding live casino operations in recent years, especially involving major global providers.

Unfortunately, the MGA showed no intention of evaluating the technical evidence, and it’s hard to ignore the possibility that their decision was influenced by the business relationships they maintain with providers . That’s why I chose to escalate the matter to a more neutral and independent regulator — the Swiss ESBK — which has a solid reputation for diligence and integrity.

Thank you again for following the case. Once I receive a formal reply from the Swiss regulator, I will share an update — and if necessary, make the full archive public for review.

Warm regards,

Hector

Good day to you, Hector!

I have been contemplating the current state of affairs and whether there is a better alternative, but I always find myself returning to the licensing authority. The current situation, based on licenses, makes it generally understandable that once a game is licensed, it comes from the licensed provider and is offered through the licensed casino - all is well.

See what chatGPT has to say:

"The developer (software house) writes the game.

– This includes the RNG (random number generator), which "shuffles" the outcomes. It’s usually based on well-established cryptographic or other recognized algorithms.

An independent testing laboratory—an accredited third party.

– These are companies like eCOGRA, Gaming Laboratories International (GLI), iTech Labs, BMM Testlabs, and others.

– Their engineers and mathematicians perform a full audit of the game (especially the RNG):

Source-code review – They verify that the RNG has no backdoors, behaves according to spec, and has no "hints" for the casino.

Statistical tests – They simulate enormous numbers of spins or outcomes and check that the frequency of wins matches the declared theoretical house edge.

Computational validation – They run standard test suites (NIST STS, Dieharder, TestU01, etc.) to confirm that the RNG meets the relevant standards.

– If everything passes, they issue the operator a certificate stating that the game is fair and the RNG is airtight.

The licensing authority (regulator) approves the certificate and issues the license.

– The regulator doesn’t have to understand all the technical details themselves—they trust the accredited lab to follow ISO/IEC standards for testing gaming software.

– Sometimes regulators do their own "mystery shopping" or spot checks, but the heavy lifting is done by the independent labs."

So there is actually one thing worth checking out:

"Checking Certificates in Public Lists

Most authorities (UKGC, MGA, etc.) have on their websites a list of all licensed games along with the laboratories that issued their certificates. A player can easily verify that a particular "RNG assessment" actually exists and that it comes from the laboratory listed on the official registry.

If a laboratory "disappears" or has its accreditation withdrawn, the regulator typically issues a public statement indicating that a certain testing institution no longer meets the requirements. Players then see that the "better casinos" are looking for another laboratory that still remains on the list."

So actually, if all those points are in line with the procedure, I guess there is not much any authority would even "investigate".

If the RNG base is adequate, the game may exhibit glitch-like behavior, occasionally freeze, and be of poor quality, but the RNG is assumed to be intact.

I am not sure whether this is helpful, but I thought you might want to read that too.

Thank you for your detailed explanation, Radka.

Indeed, I’m fully aware of how the RNG certification process works: the developer creates the game, it is tested by a private lab like GLI or iTechLabs, and if everything looks "fine on paper," it gets certified and licensed.

But this is where the problem starts.

Everyone knows GLI. Everyone respects GLI.

But let’s not forget that GLI is a private company paid by the providers themselves to validate their own products. So yes, they "certify" that the RNG behaves properly – but nobody checks how the game behaves in the real casino environment after it’s launched. That’s why certifications alone are not the end of the story.

In my case, I have submitted real-world visual evidence, documented algorithmic patterns, and anomalous behavior that go far beyond theory.

The Swiss gaming authority (ESBK) is currently analyzing the material with their technical experts. And the Maltese Ombudsman has officially opened an inquiry into the case due to the apparent lack of proper action by the MGA.

If there was truly "nothing" here, neither authority would have taken it seriously. But they did. That speaks volumes.

So yes, RNG certifications are part of the process, but when what happens on paper and what happens on screen are no longer the same, then something is clearly wrong.

And no third-party seal, no matter how prestigious, should override hard evidence of manipulation – especially when a provider is now distributing these same games in regulated markets like Switzerland.

"Thank you for stepping in, Radka. Since you mentioned ChatGPT, I’ve taken the time to share an objective analysis provided by it, based on months of documented evidence, regulatory responses, and observations. I’d also like to kindly invite you or your team to privately review one specific video (not yet published in this thread) that has triggered strong reactions from external observers and even regulators. If you or your team are interested, I can share it with you directly."

Hello,

Thank you for sharing more. I was indeed pointing out that the current system has its flaws and in the worst scenario, both the RNG and also the RTP might be altered. In my opinion, without proper advanced analyses, it is hard to find the right authorities to listen to since it is more about independent yet accredited labs.

With all honesty, I appreciate the invitation, but I am not convinced I could actually help you review videos, but I imagine my colleagues in the Data Team would be thrilled!

If you have no objections, feel free to send it to [email protected] copy to: [email protected] (just in case)

Just a note, please do not expect an immediate response; they are basically extremely overwhelmed by tons of other and similar requests, so I ask you for patience.