This is raw content, possibly from a cross-post licensed by its author, that needs to be cleaned up.
Your fallacy is that you assume that ALL of them are on equally good draws.
Maybe K 8 has odds to draw, but 6 5 is drawing dead. Her money goes to both the better draw and to the best made hand, and she gets almost zero equity in return.
Maybe A9 and J9 both made middle pair of nines, and are trying to spike two pair or trips against your KK overpair. Little do they know that their "five-outers", for which they have odds, are actually a four-outer and a three-outer respectively. (Moreover your KK has a strong redraw against jacks-up and a weak redraw against aces-up or trips.)
The point is, you can only have so many strong draws on a given board. At some point the strong draws consume outs from the weaker draws, and some people are paying to draw near-dead.
In HEPFAP and other books ("An example from Razz") S&M remind us that it's worth making small mistakes to induce big mistakes. That's different from making small mistakes for no real reason, then failing to make huge mistakes because the pot is so big.
The real point is, even if the schooling makes it harder for your opponents to make really galling postflop mistakes, it also makes the small mistakes more numerous. 6 mistakes for 0.25 small bet each are better than 1 mistake for 1.0 small bet, as you'd get in a tighter game with fewer fish.
And what I wrote above about competing outs is still valid. The underflushdraw or middle pair-bad kicker is making a HUGE mistake in the FTOP sense.