Originally Posted by 
coach belly
                    
                 
                You've presented a scathing indictment of 2 forum owners/administrators.
Which offense is worse?
    
        
            
            
                
                    Originally Posted by 
kewlJ
                    
                 
                he does nothing but stalk and harass those that continue to state they don't believe his claims and even more ridiculous that he is allowed to do so by Dan Druff.
            
         
     
  
            
         
     
 From a strictly forum owner/administrator perspective, Dan Druff is worse.   He doesn't enforce his own written forum rules, especially if he decides he doesn't like someone.  
Shackleford is disappointing more as an advantage player and gambling math expert, who I personally had a lot of respect for.  When this Mdawg came along making his ridiculous claims that defied the math and the way the casino industry operates, Shackleford flip flopped on what he had always been, a guy that stood for and by the math and became something else entirely.  
In fairness, the change in Shackleford may not have been specific to Mdawg.  The change in Shackleford really occurred the day he sold his websites including WoV.  That is the day he just stopped giving a shit.
And if you need confirmation of what I am saying, here it is:  Shackleford banned this Mdawg person previously.  Dawg was using a different handle and persona, but the ridiculous baccarat claims were the same.  I am sure he waited until some specific rule was broken to ban him, but what Shackleford really didn't like was the math-defying claims.  Fast forward to Mdawg (new handle/persona) doing the exact same thing and Shacky looked the other way about the math, while protecting this douche bag from anyone else that dared say they didn't believe his ridiculous claims.
Advantage play and gambling in general are about the math.  The math matter when someone makes a claim.  There is no getting around that.  At
 the very least, a person claim have to not be math-defying.  Is that asking too much?