You're clearly a retarded undergrad. Do you even know what an arbitrage is? If the public is overestimating a Tiger win then betting against a tiger win will, over time, yield, with almost certainty, massive profits. That's why book matching is dumb. based on public betting patterns, Woods has an implied 33% chance of winning any given major, which is extremely high given the level of play on Tour these days. You would have to be a moron to bet on Tiger at those s**tty odds. As a bookie, you should offer better odds and risk it.
They're matching based on subjective beliefs (money coming in) rather than objective beliefs. You're suggesting that there are clear and obvious arbitrage opportunities. I'm saying that sportsbooks don't create intentional arbitrage opportunities. You might be able to find "dynamic" arbitrage opportunities across time, but that's not true arbitrage with guaranteed returns.
If that were the case then a smart person would bet against the crowd and make $$ over time.
Sportsbooks don't try to make money by gambling on bettor beliefs. They try to match bets on both sides and take a cut. Same basic idea as poker tables taking rake but more difficult.
- Industry bro working at a gambling company