Not as I term adaptive. Basically there is one table of odds, whatever you pick you get 96% RTP. adaptive is where the players outcomes are checked and the odds adjusted on their next bet. If you have a good run you get worse odds than 96%. Adaptive is a lot worse for game play than just having a fixed house edge.
Whether you call it adaptive or not, the issue is that the player placed a bet, and the fact of where that bet was placed influenced the result of that round. It would be like having a Blackjack game that altered the probability of the dealer matching his up card of 10 with an Ace depending on whether or not the player made the insurance bet.
What caused this was that the game being played was NOT the game being represented. Players saw a number wheel, using cards, and a betting table resembling a simplified variant of Roulette. If one bet Red on roulette, one would not expect the outcome to be weighted in favour of Black in order to meet the operator set RTP. Instead, one would expect the paytable to pay less than evens in order to provide the house edge. In Roulette, this is achieved by the "0" position, whilst still paying evens for a colour bet.
Where the series of previous results is used to dynamically weight future outcomes, the game is considered to be "compensated", which it what some say defines the term "adaptive". The term "adaptive" can also reasonably describe a game that only used the current bet to "adapt" only the current outcome, which is why we have this debate over terminology.