The authors' regression left an intercept or 'adjustment term' of 3.4% - 5.7%. For a perfect bookmaker, this intercept term would be equal to the overround. The number calculated unfortunately averages that overround between different bookmakers and at different times (overrounds often decrease over time). It might be more effective to adjust for the actual overround of each market sampled, i.e. divide each price by the sum of the inverse of the prospects.

They appear to use a flat betting strategy, and the threshold to bet or not was selected based on profitibility. I was simplifying in another comment when I said profitibility should be the goal. In reality it's utility you should be optimizing for. Nobody wants a ultimately profitable system that reads like an EKG, they want a high sharpe ratio. The paper's results are actually very good here, but the trend could be lifted and stabilized further by betting proportionally to expectation, or by explicitly optimizing for such.