It's still and FU clause because it is way too open for the casino to interpret.
It is better than nothing, but it still only defines two kinds of play patterns, and they are not clearly defined either.
Hedge betting is probably the clearest, being placing a bet on all, or damn near all, possible outcomes such that all variance in a game is eliminated.
An illustration of this would be placing bets on both red and Black at French Roulette, and engaging autoplay for the number of spins required to clear the WR, and then withdrawing.
Equal betting is not clear. Again they could be referring to the above red/black strategy, but "Equal betting" can also be playing a large number of spins on a slot all with the same bet, or hands of Blackjack, table poker,
VP, scratchcard. This is so wide a definition they could use this to void paying very large numbers of players they "don't like".
As to other irregular patterns, well, EVERYBODY plays an "irregular" pattern, surely that is what casinos want; us to be playing as individuals for entertainment, and not part of a bonus whoring group, or players club.
Where they have large numbers of players who all play pretty much the same, i.e, a REGULAR pattern of play, they can then be accused of "fraud", or being part of a group or syndicate.
If this is such a problem, why does MG not prevent such hedge betting through the software, they have done at the Bacarrat table, so why not with the other games. (Just try the player & banker hedge at any MG Bacarrat game - you just can't do it!)