Your conclusion and claims are very incorrect.

Curation depends on:

a) Amount of vote rshares (SP times vote power times vote weight)
b) Order of votes; avoiding front running (earlier votes on a post earn a greater share of curation rewards, later votes earn less)
c) Avoiding reverse auction penalty (votes before 5 minutes earn reduced curation rewards, the difference is returned to the pool and paid to other posts).
d) Eventual payout and avoiding downvotes (if you vote for posts that get other upvotes, your curation rewards will be higher; if the posts are downvoted, your curation rewards will be lower)

The curation efficiency of the @smooth account is actually terrible, about 25%. There are other accounts that vote a lot and have much better efficiency, for example @eonwarped with about 100 votes per day and has 7-day earnings of 90 SP on 60K SP of stake. Compared with @smooth that is 1/17 of the SP and 1/11 of the earnings (1/8 based on pending).

If the @sct.krwp account wants to earn higher curation rewards, it needs to vote smarter (see above criteria). Voting more times or fewer times isn't the issue.

In truth, the @smooth account isn't even trying to earn curation rewards, and if it were it would be earning a lot more. The @smooth account voting behavior is close to the worst possible (almost always votes very late, in a predictable manner that makes front-running easy, contrary to (b) above). If @sct.krwp is earning even less, that must be some really, really bad voting, so plenty of room for improvement.