user3456: I read opening books a lot and they are always focused on finding a way to draw for Black and finding a way for White to play for a win. This makes me wonder why people are not writing opening books on how to draw with White. Is there no market value for a White repertoire book focused on the most efficient way of making a draw?
From the scientific point of view it is would be highly advisable to first devise a drawing method for white and only then look for a draw for Black. Why is this not done this way? Is it about the buying tastes, or about the emotions related to winning? I sometimes read comments to the effect that playing for a draw should be below one's dignity. But from the scientific point of view and also from the practical point of view it is fascinating to investagte the art of making a draw. Any ideas?

user9684: Most opening books claim to maintain the advantage for White and equalize for Black.  This is slightly different than winning and drawing.
Most of the incentive to write this way is the psychology of selling.  Nobody wants to buy a book on how to draw against a lower rated player.  You higher rating should make this act trivial.  Winning is your objective, so that is a key word they try to put into titles.
Since White starts with the initiative, White can choose a line which end in a lot of draws.  These line normally have "exchange" in them:  QGD Exchange variation, Slav Exchange Variation, and French Exchange Variation.
"The turning point in my career came with the realization that Black should play to win instead of just steering for equality." Bobby Fischer.  This lesson should have encouraged editors to have put winning in both repertoire book titles.  
There is some risk aversion psychology that could be used in selling books.  The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov is aimed at players who don't want to get into the hair-raising tactics of a normal Sicilian.  The Closed Sicilian has the same objective from White's point-of-view.  Petrosian and Giri have mastered this safety first approach.  (Capablanca may belong in this group.)
The general consensus is that below a rating of 2000, you should not study openings more than to reach a playable middlegame without falling into an opening trap.  My personal feeling is that these opening books forget to include the line which puts up the most resistance.  It would be better to get someone who knows the line to explain them to you or to play against a computer just to find all of the inferior moves.

3456: <p>I read opening books a lot and they are always focused on finding a way to draw for Black and finding a way for White to play for a win. This makes me wonder why people are not writing opening books on how to draw with White. Is there no market value for a White repertoire book focused on the most efficient way of making a draw?</p>

<p>From the scientific point of view it is would be highly advisable to first devise a drawing method for white and only then look for a draw for Black. Why is this not done this way? Is it about the buying tastes, or about the emotions related to winning? I sometimes read comments to the effect that playing for a draw should be below one's dignity. But from the scientific point of view and also from the practical point of view it is fascinating to investagte the art of making a draw. Any ideas?</p>
 9684: <p>Most opening books claim to maintain the advantage for White and equalize for Black.  This is slightly different than winning and drawing.</p>

<p>Most of the incentive to write this way is the psychology of selling.  Nobody wants to buy a book on how to draw against a lower rated player.  You higher rating should make this act trivial.  Winning is your objective, so that is a key word they try to put into titles.</p>

<p>Since White starts with the initiative, White can choose a line which end in a lot of draws.  These line normally have "exchange" in them:  QGD Exchange variation, Slav Exchange Variation, and French Exchange Variation.</p>

<p>"The turning point in my career came with the realization that Black should play to win instead of just steering for equality." Bobby Fischer.  This lesson should have encouraged editors to have put winning in both repertoire book titles.  </p>

<p>There is some risk aversion psychology that could be used in selling books.  <em>The Safest Sicilian</em> by Delchev and Semkov is aimed at players who don't want to get into the hair-raising tactics of a normal Sicilian.  The Closed Sicilian has the same objective from White's point-of-view.  Petrosian and <a href="https://chess24.com/en/read/news/giri-s-60-memorable-draws-exclusive-excerpt" rel="nofollow">Giri</a> have mastered this safety first approach.  (Capablanca may belong in this group.)</p>

<p>The general consensus is that below a rating of 2000, you should not study openings more than to reach a playable middlegame without falling into an opening trap.  My personal feeling is that these opening books forget to include the line which puts up the most resistance.  It would be better to get someone who knows the line to explain them to you or to play against a computer just to find all of the inferior moves.</p>
