BAanalytics

It’s a long response 1.Public Bettors vs. Sharps: •Many public figures in sports betting (TV personalities, influencers, etc.) sell picks or narratives that aren’t necessarily profitable, but they do it in a way that is entertaining or widely accepted. •If they are wrong, they don’t lose credibility—as long as they apologize or frame their losses in a relatable way. •Meanwhile, actual sharp bettors who make money but aren’t always likable, because the truth (i.e., markets are efficient, edges are small, betting is hard) is uncomfortable. 2.Bookmakers vs. Bettors: •Sportsbooks play into this psychology. They promote parlays and bad bets that give a sense of excitement, but when bettors lose, they are more likely to keep playing if the losses are framed in a friendly, engaging manner (e.g., “So close! Better luck next time!”). •Meanwhile, winning bettors get limited or banned, even though they are the ones operating with the most truth and skill. 3.Media Personalities & Public Perception: •Sports media rewards the person who entertains and apologizes for mistakes, rather than the one who is brutally honest and correct. •Someone who consistently gives bad picks but spins a compelling story will often be more successful than a sharp bettor who just posts winners with no fluff. Takeaways: •Marketing beats reality. •It’s better to be entertaining and “nice” than to be ruthlessly correct. •Losing bettors who are engaging and apologetic have more staying power than winners who lack charm. Tldr doing something bad (which promotes views) and then apologizing for it in a “genuine and sincere manner” has more value than being honest and winning.