As usual, people make a judgement on whether something is good or not based on the outcome, not whether or not it was a good investment.
Let's say Tiger doesn't make another start until Bay Hill. That week, the guys at the book decide he's 150/1 to win, but they know everyone will still bet Tiger. So they make the price way too short at 40/1. Somehow Tiger wins, and they have to pay out 40/1 tickets. Is the manager going to chastise everyone because the sportsbook was so dumb to be betting $40 to win $1 all week? No, -4000 was a great bet, but variance will happen. Just like +150 on heads will always be a great bet and -150 on tails will always be an awful bet regardless of what it lands on.
This doesn't have anything to do with taking sides. RJ can probably confirm he and Fezzik are the last two people I'd "stick up for". Correct information being shared is the most important thing.