The number of bets most punters have has everything to do with what action level is the most pleasurable and comfortable. It has nothing to do with good mathematics because at bad odds [odds overall are against the punter] the more bets, the greater the losses.

Conversely, the less bets a punter has the better. If a punter spent $10k on bets a year and the average real odds were say 2 or 3/1, the punter has far more 'chance' of making a profit with 1 [only] $10k bet than with a 1000 $10 bets.
For starters, If the $10k bet wins the punter has doubled his money and he has a 2 or 3/1 odds of doing so. What would the odds be of DOUBLING your money after 12mths. with 1000 $10 bets? .... HUGE !!!

Basically, the more small bets a punter has the larger the % loss of total money staked at the end of the year and vis-a-vis [there are plenty of maths sites that will explain this].
Think of Russian Roulette. Would you like one go at collecting on a big wager, or would you like lots of small goes for the same money? :-)
It's identical odds for each pull of the trigger, but just like punting on horses, the more you pull the trigger another element, 'chance' [not odds] starts working against you in ever increasing amounts :-)

Punters that have minimal losses or the rare few who make a profit, all have one thing in common ...they have fewer and larger bets [unless they are O/S pros. working tiny percentages and betting exchange turnover kick-backs on exotics] than the majority of punters.