My name is Robert Walker and I am the former Race and Sports book Director for the MGM MIRAGE and Stardust.
I see that they have removed the link so I will copy and paste story here. It is a little long.
Friends with Benefits — Sports Betting
Posted on December 27, 2011 by Robert Walker
Image via Wikipedia
I just finished watching Friends with Benefits, the Justin Timberlake-Mila Kunis film and while a decent movie, you knew going in that the premise was
Image via Wikipedia
flawed.
Friends with Benefits does not work – ever. It sounds great in theory, however, one or both of the partners will eventually want more.
It has been tried since the beginning of time, and it is just does not work.
Which brings me to Cantor Gaming.
Its bookmaking model, or at least the one they claim to adhere to, is deeply flawed.
Once again, it sounds good in theory.
They will increase their volume, albeit at a lower hold percentage than the industry average, and by doing so will bring more profit to the bottom line.
Its the same sales pitch as we will increase our handle and focus on customer service. It sounds good — really good.
In fact, they will revolutionize Nevada sports bookmaking in the process.
The concept is hardly revolutionary. It was the preferred model in the early days of sports bookmaking in Nevada and completely outdated now.
A bookie would do whatever they could do to get balanced action on a game. For example, if a game opened one side minus 3, and the pro player layed (bet the favorite) 3, 3.5 and 4, the bookmaker would be at 4.5 with a huge decision on the favorite. What would he do. Well in a time long, long ago, he would probably let a pro player have 5 or 5.5 (depending on the sport as 5′s were not too relevant in pro football) for several times the limit to get the bookmaker off of the early bets.
However, he is now in a position where if the game fell four he would get absolutely crushed. This is what we call getting middled (losing all the bets in the game, minus 3 and 3.5 and plus 5.5) and there is nothing worse for a bookie. Getting sided, where the game fell three or 5 is the second worst outcome.
Getting middled and getting sided is a common occurrence for the bookmaker looking to balance his games at any cost.
This is one of the reasons (not the only one) why Nevada had such a low winning percentage in its early days.
As sports books were relatively new, they were also overseen by managers that adhered to flawed premise. And worse, those managers had to answer to casino managers who simply never understood how a book could lose when the customer has to lay 11 to win 10. (It’s easy I assure you).
Let me say that I am all for two way (equal number of dollars on both sides of a game) or balanced action — if it is at the same number. I would love to post a line on a game at say 3.5 or so and write two way all day. However, that rarely occurs.
Usually we will post a line of 3.5 and it will get bet one way or the other. Let’s say it is bet to 4. At 4 we begin to write decent two way action on the game, but we are heavy on the favorite because they layed the 3.5 initially.
Now what.
The high volume, low hold group would probably give a pro player (one that they have a relationship with and that is another subject) plus 4.5 to balance their books.
What would the rest of the books do. The ones with the higher (much higher) hold percentages and bottom line profit hold the line at 4 and root for the underdog.
I can hear the naysayers claim that bookies are not in the rooting business. And I say true. We are in the gambling business.
And the reality is we may have ten decisions on a given day because we choose not to give away the value (plus 4.5 to a professional sports player). We need to win some of those decisions. If we win four of 10 we are usually okay depending on many other factors such as the ratio of favorites to underdogs, the ratio of overs to unders, etc.
If we should win half or more of our large decisions then it is usually a good day for the bookmakers.
Also those decisions are rarely predicated by professional play, but rather the casual play.
Now let’s look closely at the high volume model. It is extremely important to understand value and its relationship to the bottom line – a books and a professional sports bettor.
A sports book posts a sports betting line on every pro football, college football, pro basketball, college basketball, major league baseball, pro hockey and other events. They do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which games they will post numbers on.
The professional sports bettor does.
He/She is on the constant prowl for value. Value, as applied to sports betting is always getting the best number possible, for the highest amount possible. For example, if we open a game 3 and the pro player lays the 3 for $33,000 to win 30,000 and the game goes to 4, they have made a very valuable wager.
The sports book on the other hand, would make him lay closer to -140 or $42k to win 30 at minus three when the game is 4 (in football 3s are worth much more than in other sports). Keep in mind that is what the wager is worth, but most sports books do not sell full points or even half a point at three.
So you can see that there can be tremendous value lost for the sports book depending on the line movement.
It is important to realize that the pros only wager when they have a perceived value. In the above example we are now at 4 and writing two way. There is no perceived value in the game at that number and will not be unless the bookmaker moves the number. But why would they if they are now writing two way at 4.
Once again, they are providing value to the professional. By trying to balance their books and to mitigate the initial line movement, the high volume books will either go to 4.5 (or most likely alert one of its pro players that they can have plus 4.5 for a certain dollar amount).
There will be some takers.
But now the high volume, low hold book have taken its largest wagers at the most extreme numbers, minus 3 and plus 4.5.
That is a recipe for disaster. And assures a low hold, low profit sports book.
Sports bookmaking is all about value. When a book makes the decision to allow professionals extraordinary limits it is giving away value. Where does that value come from.
I think that the high volume, low hold bookmakers would make the argument that line movement increases handle and creates excitement that encourages other bettors to get involved. And that there are pros looking to bet both sides of the game. That is only true in the rarest of cases or in cases where the line movement is so great that it creates value.
So where does that value come from.
If it is not obvious then I have done a terrible job of explaining it. The value goes right from the sports book into the bettors hands.
Once value is given away, it can’t be reclaimed.
Have I ever given value away. Yes. More times then I care to remember.
I loved Tampa Bay against Oakland in the Super Bowl a few years ago and we were the only 3.5 out there. The send out that year was Oakland 5, but most of the books followed our number and hung 4 or 4.5.
Anyway, I let a high roller have plus 3.5 on Tampa Bay but allowed him even money instead of laying 110. He won and nearly took us off of a big win. He is the type of bettor always looking for value, even though he is not a professional. I let him bet even because there were 4s everywhere and didn’t think he was getting anything too great, but to this day I am still irritated.
The bottom line is line movement erodes your hold percentage. And you should not do it unless you need to.
Volume, or handle is probably the biggest misnomer anywhere. Just as the casino will not extend its limits to a card counter, a sports book that increases its handle only through giving away value is doomed.
And Nevada will always be behind the eight ball when it comes to handle. You have to be 21 years of age and in Nevada to make a wager. There is simply not enough bettors (and certainly never enough high rollers) to offset professional play if you extend your limits. And why would you want to anyway.
I guess the easiest way to explain this is using an illegal bookmaker. Lets say he has a 100 customers that bet anywhere from $5 to $100 a game. Would he be interested in getting a customer who only bet when he had value and wanted $5,000 per game.
NO.
That customer would decide his fate. Eventually, the bookmaker would go through the normal process all bookies go through when it concerns handle.
Denial. This guy can’t keep winning.
Acceptance. This guy is too good, has too much information and is overwhelming my other players.
Information. I will lower his limits and use him to be aggressive with my line movements, but he will not decide my day.
The information stage is also referred to as booking to faces, something every successful bookmaker does.
The downside to not getting off of every decision is second guessing yourself after the game is over. When you lose a big decision (such as when the Giants upset New England in the Super Bowl) you will nearly always lament the bets you did not take.
There were a few high rollers (professional and non) who wanted to bet the Patriots on the money line (to win game outright) if I would lower the line. I would not and of course afterwards was kind of wishing I had.
But I realized then, and now that is not optimal bookmaking.
The reality is we could’ve broke even or won a small amount, but it would’ve also taken us off of a big win had New England covered. And that’s really the issue here. We have in the past and will continue to do so, have monster winning days because we do not get off of the decision and choose to retain the value ourselves.
I read with amusement when a Cantor bookmaker claimed they did alright on the Pittsburgh-Green Bay Super Bowl when others books had lost because there were bets to be had on the Steelers (if you just moved the line enough).
That is true of that game and any game ever played at anytime, anywhere.
And for any one game you can be a bookmaking hero to your company, if everyone else loses and you win.
But what he failed to say, or probably understand, was that would not have been the proper way to book in most of the Super Bowls, games where the state did extremely well because they did not get off of the decision.
It’s really not complicated.
It is math over time.
In the long run, not one game or event, retaining value is the way to make money in the sports book.
The question is why do books give away the value.
There can really only be two reasons in my mind.
1. They are naïve. They simply don’t understand the concept of retaining value and not taking on a sports betting partner (the professional sports bettor) or they are afraid to lose (afraid to win big also).
2. They are crooked. They are getting compensated for allowing the professional bettor value and are fully aware of what they are doing to hurt their companies bottom line.
I believe the answer is number one most of the time. Although I have my fear about number two as well, but either way both are bad to the bottom line.
And I would not criticize Cantor specifically, except for the disparaging remarks it has made about the Nevada Sports Betting industry. An industry that I love and peers that I respect greatly.
I should also add that the learning curve for sports bookmakers is ongoing. It is a fluid industry. It has changed greatly with online and offshore sports books.
It will continue to evolve and future generation bookmakers will far exceed current bookmakers in terms of profitability.
But one fact remains, one plus one is always two. No matter how many algorithms you claim to be developing.
That’s enough ranting for sports betting tonight.
On a different note, I really enjoyed Midnight in Paris. I thought it was one of Woody Allen’s best, and a subdued Owen Wilson has never been better. Four out of five stars.
I gave Friends with Benefits 3.5 stars due to the likability of its stars. To gain some insight to my taste (or lack of) in movies and my ratings, my top 10 of all time are (in no particular order), Aliens, Braveheart, Rocky, Gallipoli, Forgetting Sara Marshall, High Fidelity, Star Wars (original three), Shawshank Redemption, The Matrix and Kill Bill 1 and 2. There are many just waiting to get into the top ten including The Princess Bride, Gladiator, Kung Fu Panda (yeah that is right, a cartoon), and Raiders of the Lost Ark and probably a few others that I can’t think of right now.
I see that they have removed the link so I will copy and paste story here. It is a little long.
Friends with Benefits — Sports Betting
Posted on December 27, 2011 by Robert Walker
Image via WikipediaI just finished watching Friends with Benefits, the Justin Timberlake-Mila Kunis film and while a decent movie, you knew going in that the premise was
Image via Wikipediaflawed.
Friends with Benefits does not work – ever. It sounds great in theory, however, one or both of the partners will eventually want more.
It has been tried since the beginning of time, and it is just does not work.
Which brings me to Cantor Gaming.
Its bookmaking model, or at least the one they claim to adhere to, is deeply flawed.
Once again, it sounds good in theory.
They will increase their volume, albeit at a lower hold percentage than the industry average, and by doing so will bring more profit to the bottom line.
Its the same sales pitch as we will increase our handle and focus on customer service. It sounds good — really good.
In fact, they will revolutionize Nevada sports bookmaking in the process.
The concept is hardly revolutionary. It was the preferred model in the early days of sports bookmaking in Nevada and completely outdated now.
A bookie would do whatever they could do to get balanced action on a game. For example, if a game opened one side minus 3, and the pro player layed (bet the favorite) 3, 3.5 and 4, the bookmaker would be at 4.5 with a huge decision on the favorite. What would he do. Well in a time long, long ago, he would probably let a pro player have 5 or 5.5 (depending on the sport as 5′s were not too relevant in pro football) for several times the limit to get the bookmaker off of the early bets.
However, he is now in a position where if the game fell four he would get absolutely crushed. This is what we call getting middled (losing all the bets in the game, minus 3 and 3.5 and plus 5.5) and there is nothing worse for a bookie. Getting sided, where the game fell three or 5 is the second worst outcome.
Getting middled and getting sided is a common occurrence for the bookmaker looking to balance his games at any cost.
This is one of the reasons (not the only one) why Nevada had such a low winning percentage in its early days.
As sports books were relatively new, they were also overseen by managers that adhered to flawed premise. And worse, those managers had to answer to casino managers who simply never understood how a book could lose when the customer has to lay 11 to win 10. (It’s easy I assure you).
Let me say that I am all for two way (equal number of dollars on both sides of a game) or balanced action — if it is at the same number. I would love to post a line on a game at say 3.5 or so and write two way all day. However, that rarely occurs.
Usually we will post a line of 3.5 and it will get bet one way or the other. Let’s say it is bet to 4. At 4 we begin to write decent two way action on the game, but we are heavy on the favorite because they layed the 3.5 initially.
Now what.
The high volume, low hold group would probably give a pro player (one that they have a relationship with and that is another subject) plus 4.5 to balance their books.
What would the rest of the books do. The ones with the higher (much higher) hold percentages and bottom line profit hold the line at 4 and root for the underdog.
I can hear the naysayers claim that bookies are not in the rooting business. And I say true. We are in the gambling business.
And the reality is we may have ten decisions on a given day because we choose not to give away the value (plus 4.5 to a professional sports player). We need to win some of those decisions. If we win four of 10 we are usually okay depending on many other factors such as the ratio of favorites to underdogs, the ratio of overs to unders, etc.
If we should win half or more of our large decisions then it is usually a good day for the bookmakers.
Also those decisions are rarely predicated by professional play, but rather the casual play.
Now let’s look closely at the high volume model. It is extremely important to understand value and its relationship to the bottom line – a books and a professional sports bettor.
A sports book posts a sports betting line on every pro football, college football, pro basketball, college basketball, major league baseball, pro hockey and other events. They do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which games they will post numbers on.
The professional sports bettor does.
He/She is on the constant prowl for value. Value, as applied to sports betting is always getting the best number possible, for the highest amount possible. For example, if we open a game 3 and the pro player lays the 3 for $33,000 to win 30,000 and the game goes to 4, they have made a very valuable wager.
The sports book on the other hand, would make him lay closer to -140 or $42k to win 30 at minus three when the game is 4 (in football 3s are worth much more than in other sports). Keep in mind that is what the wager is worth, but most sports books do not sell full points or even half a point at three.
So you can see that there can be tremendous value lost for the sports book depending on the line movement.
It is important to realize that the pros only wager when they have a perceived value. In the above example we are now at 4 and writing two way. There is no perceived value in the game at that number and will not be unless the bookmaker moves the number. But why would they if they are now writing two way at 4.
Once again, they are providing value to the professional. By trying to balance their books and to mitigate the initial line movement, the high volume books will either go to 4.5 (or most likely alert one of its pro players that they can have plus 4.5 for a certain dollar amount).
There will be some takers.
But now the high volume, low hold book have taken its largest wagers at the most extreme numbers, minus 3 and plus 4.5.
That is a recipe for disaster. And assures a low hold, low profit sports book.
Sports bookmaking is all about value. When a book makes the decision to allow professionals extraordinary limits it is giving away value. Where does that value come from.
I think that the high volume, low hold bookmakers would make the argument that line movement increases handle and creates excitement that encourages other bettors to get involved. And that there are pros looking to bet both sides of the game. That is only true in the rarest of cases or in cases where the line movement is so great that it creates value.
So where does that value come from.
If it is not obvious then I have done a terrible job of explaining it. The value goes right from the sports book into the bettors hands.
Once value is given away, it can’t be reclaimed.
Have I ever given value away. Yes. More times then I care to remember.
I loved Tampa Bay against Oakland in the Super Bowl a few years ago and we were the only 3.5 out there. The send out that year was Oakland 5, but most of the books followed our number and hung 4 or 4.5.
Anyway, I let a high roller have plus 3.5 on Tampa Bay but allowed him even money instead of laying 110. He won and nearly took us off of a big win. He is the type of bettor always looking for value, even though he is not a professional. I let him bet even because there were 4s everywhere and didn’t think he was getting anything too great, but to this day I am still irritated.
The bottom line is line movement erodes your hold percentage. And you should not do it unless you need to.
Volume, or handle is probably the biggest misnomer anywhere. Just as the casino will not extend its limits to a card counter, a sports book that increases its handle only through giving away value is doomed.
And Nevada will always be behind the eight ball when it comes to handle. You have to be 21 years of age and in Nevada to make a wager. There is simply not enough bettors (and certainly never enough high rollers) to offset professional play if you extend your limits. And why would you want to anyway.
I guess the easiest way to explain this is using an illegal bookmaker. Lets say he has a 100 customers that bet anywhere from $5 to $100 a game. Would he be interested in getting a customer who only bet when he had value and wanted $5,000 per game.
NO.
That customer would decide his fate. Eventually, the bookmaker would go through the normal process all bookies go through when it concerns handle.
Denial. This guy can’t keep winning.
Acceptance. This guy is too good, has too much information and is overwhelming my other players.
Information. I will lower his limits and use him to be aggressive with my line movements, but he will not decide my day.
The information stage is also referred to as booking to faces, something every successful bookmaker does.
The downside to not getting off of every decision is second guessing yourself after the game is over. When you lose a big decision (such as when the Giants upset New England in the Super Bowl) you will nearly always lament the bets you did not take.
There were a few high rollers (professional and non) who wanted to bet the Patriots on the money line (to win game outright) if I would lower the line. I would not and of course afterwards was kind of wishing I had.
But I realized then, and now that is not optimal bookmaking.
The reality is we could’ve broke even or won a small amount, but it would’ve also taken us off of a big win had New England covered. And that’s really the issue here. We have in the past and will continue to do so, have monster winning days because we do not get off of the decision and choose to retain the value ourselves.
I read with amusement when a Cantor bookmaker claimed they did alright on the Pittsburgh-Green Bay Super Bowl when others books had lost because there were bets to be had on the Steelers (if you just moved the line enough).
That is true of that game and any game ever played at anytime, anywhere.
And for any one game you can be a bookmaking hero to your company, if everyone else loses and you win.
But what he failed to say, or probably understand, was that would not have been the proper way to book in most of the Super Bowls, games where the state did extremely well because they did not get off of the decision.
It’s really not complicated.
It is math over time.
In the long run, not one game or event, retaining value is the way to make money in the sports book.
The question is why do books give away the value.
There can really only be two reasons in my mind.
1. They are naïve. They simply don’t understand the concept of retaining value and not taking on a sports betting partner (the professional sports bettor) or they are afraid to lose (afraid to win big also).
2. They are crooked. They are getting compensated for allowing the professional bettor value and are fully aware of what they are doing to hurt their companies bottom line.
I believe the answer is number one most of the time. Although I have my fear about number two as well, but either way both are bad to the bottom line.
And I would not criticize Cantor specifically, except for the disparaging remarks it has made about the Nevada Sports Betting industry. An industry that I love and peers that I respect greatly.
I should also add that the learning curve for sports bookmakers is ongoing. It is a fluid industry. It has changed greatly with online and offshore sports books.
It will continue to evolve and future generation bookmakers will far exceed current bookmakers in terms of profitability.
But one fact remains, one plus one is always two. No matter how many algorithms you claim to be developing.
That’s enough ranting for sports betting tonight.
On a different note, I really enjoyed Midnight in Paris. I thought it was one of Woody Allen’s best, and a subdued Owen Wilson has never been better. Four out of five stars.
I gave Friends with Benefits 3.5 stars due to the likability of its stars. To gain some insight to my taste (or lack of) in movies and my ratings, my top 10 of all time are (in no particular order), Aliens, Braveheart, Rocky, Gallipoli, Forgetting Sara Marshall, High Fidelity, Star Wars (original three), Shawshank Redemption, The Matrix and Kill Bill 1 and 2. There are many just waiting to get into the top ten including The Princess Bride, Gladiator, Kung Fu Panda (yeah that is right, a cartoon), and Raiders of the Lost Ark and probably a few others that I can’t think of right now.
Hi Ivyconniver --
My motivation was comments made by Cantor regarding Nevada Sports Books. I think what we accomplished in the last 25 years by some great and talented individuals and vendors is something to be proud of. Cantor has made many, many disparaging remarks.
The problem has been that nobody in the industry can call them on it. I am semi-retired in Washington state, follow the industry and miss it greatly. I am offended by their comments and have taken every opportunity to challenge them.
My motivation was comments made by Cantor regarding Nevada Sports Books. I think what we accomplished in the last 25 years by some great and talented individuals and vendors is something to be proud of. Cantor has made many, many disparaging remarks.
The problem has been that nobody in the industry can call them on it. I am semi-retired in Washington state, follow the industry and miss it greatly. I am offended by their comments and have taken every opportunity to challenge them.
I don't believe Cantor is going to be taking anyone over. I believe, if they don't change their ways (and I feel they have somewhat), the books they run right now will be ripe for William Hill or some others.
Let me address moving on air. It is a phrase I hear often. I don't think it is a bad thing for small bookies to stay current. However, I believe you can accomplish this with your betting limits. I do advocate at all times that if a game goes from six to seven for example, you can go to 6.5 on air and take double the limits if you want. Why would you let them lay six, if you know (and that is the key word KNOW) they will lay 6.5. You can't go to seven obviously as don't know what will happen next. There is nothing worse than getting flipped on a game when it was moved with no money bet. The MGM MIRAGE took large enough wagers that we were usually just behind a few of the offshore books. There was rarely a time we could've moved off of air. We just were not fast enough or starring at the don best screen.
Let me address moving on air. It is a phrase I hear often. I don't think it is a bad thing for small bookies to stay current. However, I believe you can accomplish this with your betting limits. I do advocate at all times that if a game goes from six to seven for example, you can go to 6.5 on air and take double the limits if you want. Why would you let them lay six, if you know (and that is the key word KNOW) they will lay 6.5. You can't go to seven obviously as don't know what will happen next. There is nothing worse than getting flipped on a game when it was moved with no money bet. The MGM MIRAGE took large enough wagers that we were usually just behind a few of the offshore books. There was rarely a time we could've moved off of air. We just were not fast enough or starring at the don best screen.
Cantor has taken over some big Sportsbooks here in Vegas and as far as I'm concerned, it's been a bad thing. Cantor's futures pretty much suck now and the Venetian futures were always giving you a fair shake. Cantor operates the M, Venetian/Pallazo, Hardrock, Tropicana and the Cosmo . I avoid all of them now !
Thank you for posting your intriguing blog entry Robert. It is great to have someone with your esteemed background participating openly on the site.
That said, I have to disagree with your attack on Cantor. For years, Las Vegas sportsbooks have earned a reputation as being ultra conservative by limiting sharps and catering to squares.
Sure, this strategy may have resulted in tidy profits that pleased the corporate casino masters. But it was this trend that made Las Vegas somewhat irrelevant in the sports betting industry. The real movers and shakers went offshore.
Cantor obviously understands this and sees an opportunity to become a player. Their brash attitude and their willingness to take risks has brought some buzz back to the Las Vegas sportsbook scene.
Look at the headlines they're making with Floyd Mayweather's $1 million bet on the Patriots-Broncos a couple of weeks ago and Adam Meyer's $1 million Super Bowl bet a couple of years ago.
I should also add that Cantor's books are a super cool place to hang out - the TV screens and seats are arguably the best in the city.
Will their aggressive bookmaking strategy, as you eloquently outlined, survive? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, the fact that Cantor could actually lose earns my respect. It means they are giving players a better chance to win. This is good news for gamblers.
The conservative, corporate operation of sportsbooks may win out in the end. But for now, Cantor is rolling the dice, which is what Vegas is all about.
That said, I have to disagree with your attack on Cantor. For years, Las Vegas sportsbooks have earned a reputation as being ultra conservative by limiting sharps and catering to squares.
Sure, this strategy may have resulted in tidy profits that pleased the corporate casino masters. But it was this trend that made Las Vegas somewhat irrelevant in the sports betting industry. The real movers and shakers went offshore.
Cantor obviously understands this and sees an opportunity to become a player. Their brash attitude and their willingness to take risks has brought some buzz back to the Las Vegas sportsbook scene.
Look at the headlines they're making with Floyd Mayweather's $1 million bet on the Patriots-Broncos a couple of weeks ago and Adam Meyer's $1 million Super Bowl bet a couple of years ago.
I should also add that Cantor's books are a super cool place to hang out - the TV screens and seats are arguably the best in the city.
Will their aggressive bookmaking strategy, as you eloquently outlined, survive? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, the fact that Cantor could actually lose earns my respect. It means they are giving players a better chance to win. This is good news for gamblers.
The conservative, corporate operation of sportsbooks may win out in the end. But for now, Cantor is rolling the dice, which is what Vegas is all about.
Accepting Million dollar wagers hasn't been a Cantor innovation here in Vegas. Million Dollar wagers have been taken here in Vegas for 25 years that I'm aware of. Little Caesar's wasn't afraid to take big bets and the Gaughan's have been taking the Million Dollars wagers at the South Point etc. for years now. I'm not refuting that their Sportsbooks are nice but their futures suck compared to what many of the other books in town are offering. Give me back the good old days when almost every Casino in town were independents and offered all sort of different lines, vigs and futures. Does anyone besides Redeye and myself remember the Friday night half price vig at Little Caesars.
BTW Floyd makes his Million Dollar wagers at M most likely because He lives less than a mile from there .
Yes its me, I am used to the quicker harder response Robert. In the end I have heard them say things also, but I chalk it up to an inferority complex on one hand and the other, they see things from a much deeper accuation point of view, which means they are exchangers at every turn than just traders. LV books are forced to do in the end, trade info, than exchange it out. Same exact system as ours, but a much finer deeper line on what they do and certainly what they are into. They work off of deritivates of Pi at a fine level which is not much more than an applied metric system. My write ups on MW would astound you.
