kewlJ

[Mission146]

This also prompted the following reply from Shackleford himself several posts later:

At this point, let me make a disclaimer that not only do I think betting systems can't beat the house edge in baccarat, they can't even dent it. This includes whatever Mdawg is doing, without knowing much about it. So, I am not endorsing anything he says. In fact, if he is implying a way to beat baccarat straight up, I would strongly disagree.

This was one of several attempts by Mike to state as clearly has he could with the NDA hanging over him, that Mdawgs story was bullshit.

And lets not forget that to this day, Mdawgs thread and account of all his play is in the Betting Systems section, where immediately after the section title "Betting systems" it says: All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own.

That Mdawgs entire work, consisting of all his claims resides in the "Betting Systems section" next to Dice control and other crazy "voodoo" shit is another attempt by Wizard to say just what theis garbage is.

Okay, so is Mike endorsing or not endorsing what MDawg says? In this quote, he very clearly states that he doesn't endorse anything MDawg says.

I hope you are not asking me? Ask Mike. But I can tell you this much. At different times, over at GF, Mdawg was posting a statement and saying things like Wizard approved or Wizard endorsed. Wizard never endorsed anything as far as I know. He made a number of these statements in your quote contradicting that. Always going as far as he could without violating the NDA and one time even chose to violate it, so people would be clear of his view.

I don't want to fight with you about Mike. You know Mike. He is a math guy. He is not endorsing voodoo things like "bet into a hot streak", or that a player can win because he has a large bankroll, as if that changes the math some how.

I guess my whole problem with Mike is he is a little too timid to weigh into these things often enough for my liking. I always go back to that mission statement when he started the forum of helping players be better gamblers and understand the math. When he stays silent on some of these things or stays silent more than I would like, he sure isn't helping is he?

I don't have to ask him; you quoted Mike stating that he doesn't endorse anything MDawg says.

I'll take your word for the GF thing as I almost never look at that forum. If these posts still exist, then perhaps bring them to Mike's attention; they'd have nothing to do with me.

I agree that Mike tends to be non-confrontational. He's always been that way as long as I've known him. That aspect isn't a recent development.

Quite frankly...and this is a rare case in that I am ONLY speculating because I have absolutely no idea, but perhaps MDawg is still around because his thread gets a ton of clicks and he generally stays within the rules.

It's nothing against MDawg, but back when it seemed like 50% of the forum activity was combative and seemed to involve him, especially when Wellbush and MarcusClark were around, had I still been an Admin it would have been, "Just give me a reason." It's nothing personal; I generally like MDawg now, but I would have seen all of this as both disruptive and a net negative to the forum.

Now, looking at the thread just for you, it seems that the last few days are pictures, session results and he likes to discuss happenings on the ground, in Las Vegas. The pictures are cool and the discussions are civil. MDawg v. The World is also not seemingly pervading every other thread on the forum.

Honestly, there's a total difference in the overall tone of his thread now. All's well that ends well, imo. If ever MDawg did do harm to the forum, I certainly don't see what harm he's doing now. I'll probably actually keep an eye on the thread a bit as I didn't know MDawg discusses news stories, and such, until now.