Originally Posted by
No coincidences
Again, you're right in theory. And I doubt many people would disagree with you that sticking with a 1-3% bet is the right thing to do whether you start with $200 or $20,000. But most look for the quick fixes, easy angles, fast money, etc. It's not their inability to pick winners, but they're inability to "build" a bankroll vs. trying to just snap their finger, double down a few times and get rich quick.
To be honest, I feel like oddsmakers in this "new" era of information and technology have adjusted accordingly. They know sharp bettors are looking to read the lines and movement, get the best number, beat the closing line, etc., while square bettors are all just going to find a way to blow it anyway on a parlay or whatever. I honestly believe that's what is happening with the modern age of gambling -- because we all have so much information at our disposal, the books are looking for different angles to profit long term. That's why you see more popular, or "public," bets cash these days than ever before -- you think it means that your Average Joe is winning more and that the sharps are the ones who are struggling (for instance, LT Profits talks all the time about how well he'd been doing in almost every sport up until recently), but books know that even if a guy like Brock wins 75% of his shitty, high-juice ML bets, he'll give it all back and then some the other 25% of the time. So they're working their angles on both ends.
At least, that's the way I picture it in my mind as the oddsmakers' counter to RLM and all of this inside info hitting the mainstream. If that's the case, it's been a genius move. If not, seems like a hell of a coincidence to me.