True, but if you beat the closing line 70% of the time and lock in an average profit of 2% than 30% of the time you will have to hedge out of your position for a loss of 6%. This scenario would yield to an EV of -0.40 and it is highly unlikely that one would be capable of beating the closing line 75% of the time or better. This is greatly overlooked by arb players sure in a perfect world if you beat the closer 100% of the time you would have a guaranteed profit by hedging but when attempting an arb while anticipating line moves there is indeed risk involved.
I think most here understand the fictional scenario that Trix is referring to but the topic of the thread would than be asking just how profitable you would be long term if you were able to beat the closing line 75% of the time or better betting straight up.
Point is that the topic has to do with whether beating the closing line has any statistical significance and Trix misunderstood pointing out that if you beat the closer you could lock in a profit (which again is untrue because it is fully possible that one could consistently beat the no-vig line yet not be presented with an arb opportunity).
I do not misunderstand Trix but I do understand that what he is referring to was not intended as part of the debate that the OP was getting at.
Is the market efficient enough that the no-vig line represents the true win probability for every game therefore would beating this number give you a statistical advantage? IMO this is the topic of the thread arbing has nothing to do with statistics in this discussion.