23/1?! That's peculiar....which book did you get that from?!
You've got a livewire outsider there even if my fellow GD mofos are rooting for her (her odds are coming in all the time since Tuesday).
Good luck mate....I'm really tempted to support that Maori girl as well (she's 25/1 elsewhere).
You've got a livewire outsider there even if my fellow GD mofos are rooting for her (her odds are coming in all the time since Tuesday).
Good luck mate....I'm really tempted to support that Maori girl as well (she's 25/1 elsewhere).
The dogs are the ones to play at the awards shows. I've made money every year but one (the year that Marcia Gay Harden beat out Hudson for Sup. Actress), playing only dogs. I had Adrien Brody last year at 9 to 1. Believe me, there are usually surprises out there, and, it is just a matter of making informed bets.
This is the best time of year to make money.
JP
This is the best time of year to make money.
JP
Personally, the Emmys have been fabulous for me but the Oscars? I let my heart rule my head and my wallet takes the brunt of it.
I'm with Oren on this one (I might break my promise and put a bet on a category or three) but only because I'm superstitious.
jc> Yeah, I remember that Adrien Brody 9/1 shot you had (it was after the 2003 Oscars that I registered here, have been a lurker for a year or so before).
Still a complete fluke if you ask me.
Did you get the 23/1 on Keisha at BetWTTS/wageronsports.com?
I'm with Oren on this one (I might break my promise and put a bet on a category or three) but only because I'm superstitious.
jc> Yeah, I remember that Adrien Brody 9/1 shot you had (it was after the 2003 Oscars that I registered here, have been a lurker for a year or so before).
Still a complete fluke if you ask me.
Did you get the 23/1 on Keisha at BetWTTS/wageronsports.com?
Not a fluke at all. It's about making informed decisions and about seeking value. It's the reason that his odds were much lower everywhere else. You have to look for value each year. There's a reason that almost every year there are one or two upsets. Those can be predicted by people who are looking.
There's a reason that I've made money (alot of it), every single year except for one, over the last ten years or so, betting the Oscars.
JP
There's a reason that I've made money (alot of it), every single year except for one, over the last ten years or so, betting the Oscars.
JP
Just played Patricia Clarkson +704 at Pinnacle.
Wonderful odds here, as she's +500 everywhere else. She has an EXCELLENT shot at upsetting Renee. She has won 8 precursor awards this year, to Renee's 5. At the very least, with the value that this play presents, it's a no brainer.
And, yes, I played the Castle Knight play at WWTS. I also played the Baldwin play at WWTS.
There will be more plays coming, so watch out.
JP
Wonderful odds here, as she's +500 everywhere else. She has an EXCELLENT shot at upsetting Renee. She has won 8 precursor awards this year, to Renee's 5. At the very least, with the value that this play presents, it's a no brainer.
And, yes, I played the Castle Knight play at WWTS. I also played the Baldwin play at WWTS.
There will be more plays coming, so watch out.
JP
I know, I've seen some guys clean up betting underdogs, but, after watching the Golden Globes, I'm a bit warry of trying to predict any dogs this year. Seems like some of the favorites have this thing locked-up, especially with Return of the King pulling out their get out of jail free card. Don't know anything about Patricia Clarkson, but, the thought of betting against Zellweger makes me queezy, but, do hear what you're saying about making informed decisions, as there's great info out there if you look. The Golden Globes is a show thats more likely to give it to the more popular actors/actresses as opposed the the Oscars. It's not like Renee's performance was flawless...
I would say that, if there is only going to be ONE upset on Oscar night, it will be in Renee's category. She was in a film that simply didn't get very much support. It's not a well liked film. That's why it wasn't nominated in Picture, Director, or Actress as was expected. She's vulnerable. Besides, ALOT of people didn't like her performance at all.
I think Clarkson and Agahldkfjslkdfj have a good shot of upsetting.
JP
I think Clarkson and Agahldkfjslkdfj have a good shot of upsetting.
JP
What do you guys think of the Tim RObbins/Peter Sarsgaard match-up? I was seeing value with Robbins but using Camberts mehodology I see Sarsgard picking up a lot of awatrds this year. I watched the trailer for Shattered Glass, lol, and, it doesn't look like his role was especially challenging, while Robbins made more of a transformation.
JCambert is VERY correct, re: awards shows. 'Dogs bark consistently at nearly every event. I've nailed (in the past year alone) Debra Messing at 8-1, Edie Falco at 7-1, Nicholson at 3-1, etc, etc...at $500 limits, do the math.
I had Baldwin at the Globes, and I think his politics and reputation in Hollywood precludes him from getting on stage...but taking him at 7-1 or 10-1 is just a no-brainer.
I had Baldwin at the Globes, and I think his politics and reputation in Hollywood precludes him from getting on stage...but taking him at 7-1 or 10-1 is just a no-brainer.
Royler, when you say that his politics and reputation preclude him from getting on stage, what do you mean?
Just curious.
Also, what are your thoughts on the possible upsets this year? I know you are an avid awards bettor and, you are exactly the type of person that I like to exchange opinions with on the matter.
JP
Just curious.
Also, what are your thoughts on the possible upsets this year? I know you are an avid awards bettor and, you are exactly the type of person that I like to exchange opinions with on the matter.
JP
JCambert,
Baldwin has a big mouth when it comes to his politics. He's outspoken to the point of being abrasive and that rubs people in the business the wrong way, especially when they're of the opposing party lines.
Generally speaking, he's just not Mr. Popularity, especially after the allegations that he beat his ex-wife. The Globes are more of a high school, clique-ish type environment, so I think his chances are better at the Oscars. But a lot of voters aren't voting for performances, they're (subconsciously or not) voting on their emotional response to a particular person.
I normally don't take too close a look at lines until the week of the show, since it's really important to try and get a "feel" for where the momentum is swinging after votes have been cast.
Sometimes that works - sometimes it doesn't. I played "Pianist" and Diane Lane last year due to some last-minute rumors of widening support. They didn't come in, but the odds were very favorable. It's too bad we never know how close some of these nominees come.
Glancing at the OLY lines, I would be tempted to take a shot with Ben Kingsley (+1000) and Bill Murray (+200) for Best Actor. Penn also falls into that "I hate this business, don't bother me" trap that Baldwin does, and while he's a deserved favorite, anything's possible.
I would sat the true lock of the card is Theron for Best Actress. If you're playing ugly or retarded, it's awards gold. Period. I wouldn't bother with any 'dog in that category. I just don't think she'll be overcome.
I'm still not a "Rings" fan and think it's rewarding enough for Peter Jackson to nab Best Director. "Mystic River" and "Lost in Translation" are tempting.
There are some wide-open races in other categories with a lot of value. I'll comment closer to awards time.
Baldwin has a big mouth when it comes to his politics. He's outspoken to the point of being abrasive and that rubs people in the business the wrong way, especially when they're of the opposing party lines.
Generally speaking, he's just not Mr. Popularity, especially after the allegations that he beat his ex-wife. The Globes are more of a high school, clique-ish type environment, so I think his chances are better at the Oscars. But a lot of voters aren't voting for performances, they're (subconsciously or not) voting on their emotional response to a particular person.
I normally don't take too close a look at lines until the week of the show, since it's really important to try and get a "feel" for where the momentum is swinging after votes have been cast.
Sometimes that works - sometimes it doesn't. I played "Pianist" and Diane Lane last year due to some last-minute rumors of widening support. They didn't come in, but the odds were very favorable. It's too bad we never know how close some of these nominees come.
Glancing at the OLY lines, I would be tempted to take a shot with Ben Kingsley (+1000) and Bill Murray (+200) for Best Actor. Penn also falls into that "I hate this business, don't bother me" trap that Baldwin does, and while he's a deserved favorite, anything's possible.
I would sat the true lock of the card is Theron for Best Actress. If you're playing ugly or retarded, it's awards gold. Period. I wouldn't bother with any 'dog in that category. I just don't think she'll be overcome.
I'm still not a "Rings" fan and think it's rewarding enough for Peter Jackson to nab Best Director. "Mystic River" and "Lost in Translation" are tempting.
There are some wide-open races in other categories with a lot of value. I'll comment closer to awards time.
I couldn't disagree more on the best actress race. The young girl, Keisha, has gained a monumental amount of support and has actors such as Julia Roberts vocally and loudly endorsing her performance as the best of the year. If you are wondering about how much influence Julia has, just think back to her winning the award, single handedly, for Denzel in Training Day a couple of years ago.
Furthermore, I read a post on another message board that made an EXCELLENT point, and, just think about this for a minute and I guarantee that you will look at this race differently. When an actor or actress receives nomination votes in more than one category (supporting actree, and lead actress, for example), she is nominated in the category in which she received the most votes. Now, think about a couple of points here for a minute:
1) Keisha was nominated in the Lead Actress category, despite a STRONG push by her studio to get her nominated in supporting actress. Do you have any clue what this means? This means that she probably received a good deal of votes in supporting actress, but, she received even MORE votes in lead actress. This signifies alot of support. Just think, if she received even PART of the vote that she received in both categories combined.
2) She came out of nowhere, which means that there is MUCH wider support for the film than what people might think.
Keep in mind also that this year, more than ever, nominations in various categories came from nowhere. I'm really thinking that this year, the Academy wants to be different. They might WANT to reward the youngest ever best actress winner.
It's the reason that her odds now are as low as 6 to 1 some places. She's no longer an extreme longshot. She is now a very, very real darkhorse.
Don't be shocked if she pulls this one out.
JP
Furthermore, I read a post on another message board that made an EXCELLENT point, and, just think about this for a minute and I guarantee that you will look at this race differently. When an actor or actress receives nomination votes in more than one category (supporting actree, and lead actress, for example), she is nominated in the category in which she received the most votes. Now, think about a couple of points here for a minute:
1) Keisha was nominated in the Lead Actress category, despite a STRONG push by her studio to get her nominated in supporting actress. Do you have any clue what this means? This means that she probably received a good deal of votes in supporting actress, but, she received even MORE votes in lead actress. This signifies alot of support. Just think, if she received even PART of the vote that she received in both categories combined.
2) She came out of nowhere, which means that there is MUCH wider support for the film than what people might think.
Keep in mind also that this year, more than ever, nominations in various categories came from nowhere. I'm really thinking that this year, the Academy wants to be different. They might WANT to reward the youngest ever best actress winner.
It's the reason that her odds now are as low as 6 to 1 some places. She's no longer an extreme longshot. She is now a very, very real darkhorse.
Don't be shocked if she pulls this one out.
JP
Royler, "If you're playing ugly or retarded" ? What are you saying that you can't win money betting on award show faves? I don't know if I've lost more than a few bets ever taking the favorites. I understand you're here to make money so will be betting on more than a couple categories because of the limits, but, to say betting on the favorites is retarded is foolish.
