Ok!
I've wired some money, and now I feel compelled to share my choices, coupled with explanations. I doubt the odds have shifted all that much, but your mileage may vary.
Like AC and lakersfan, I have to offer a disclaimer: these are NOT "sure things," even in the context of gambling lingo. I personally feel the odds of winning are conducive to making an overall profit. All I'm trying to do is guess the choices made by ninety press people, which, in most cases, is really a 50/50 split...usually only two nominees have a great chance of winning out of a field of five. For the majority of the nods, it really is "just an honor to be nominated."
But I could totally strike out. You could, too. No crying to me.
MONEY PLAYS
Best Actor in a Drama: Jack Nicholson
Even though oddsmakers disagree, it's widely believed by most pundits that Jack Nicholson has this tied up. Why? For one, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (the people who vote on this stuff) adores him. They love his antics and his attitude. When he won a Globe five years ago for "As Good As It Gets," he mooned the audience. They ate it up. (Well, not his ass, but the gesture. You get what I mean.) He is tied with Rosalind Russell for most Globes won (5), and they will likely see this as a chance to honor him with the record. Beyond that, he's been nominated 14 times. If Jack so much as sneezes on film, he gets noticed. If it's Jack really hitting the mark, he wins. AND he apparently has ties with many members of the voting media.
But this is a close race...anyone who saw "Gangs of New York" - hell, anyone who saw clips of it - saw what a brilliant performance Daniel Day-Lewis gave. The guy inhabits this psychopathic character to the point of being eerie. So him deserving the award isn't in question. As a point of fact, the argument could be made that Jack has enough of the damn things, so it's time to share the wealth. What's more, these two tied at the Film Critics' ceremony on Friday. It doesn't get any closer.
But you need to look at why he *won't* win...namely, the guy is a virtual recluse, and some press members may look upon that as him acting "above" this sort of fluff. These awards are voted on by members of the press, and Day-Lewis rarely interacts with them. Second, as AC has pointed out, Hollywood seems to hate "Gangs." Why, I couldn't begin to tell you. But they don't seem eager to honor it. Furthermore, his role is more a supporting one in terms of screen time. Finally, the press may feel that the Oscar will go to Day-Lewis, so it's up to them to honor Jack here. Maybe they won't have another chance to have him obtain the record for winningest Globe actor.
And one other aside: many members of the HFPA are over the age of 60, with perhaps a dozen (of the 93 members) over eighty! Which character are they more likely to identify with: a sadistic gang leader or a forlorn senior citizen?
All things considered? At OLY, I have odds of 3-1 on Nicholson. On a $500 risk, that's a $1500 payout, and obviously what I'm hoping for.
Adrien Brody is the dark horse here, and if the Globes want to shock, they'll cut him in. I'm banking they won't. OLY has odds on Brody at 10-1, so for $100, it's wise to hedge your bet a little further. I didn't.
I was also going to hedge big time by taking the EV odds on Day-Lewis at BoDog.com, but those imbeciles won't raise the $50 max on the novelty wager. So much for being 90% covered. I gotta LOL at that one. BoDog won't be seeing any of my business.
I am ****ed if the Globes pull a weird surprise and award the Globe to Michael Caine or Leonardo DiCaprio. Caine won a few years ago, and the press likes him, too, but I'm just not really anticipating that. DiCaprio was lucky to even be nominated.
The bottom line is, anytime you can get +300 on a two-horse race with a better than 50% chance of winning, you best ****ing take it. If I eat it, I eat it. I can handle that knowing I made an intelligent wager. I am NOT encouraging anyone to risk this amount, but odds like these do not come along very often.
Best Actress in a TV Drama: Edie Falco
For my money (literally), this is the value play of the night. Falco is 9-2, but damn, she was unbelievable in the season finale of The Sopranos. The show itself isn't destined for any other awards after a lackluster season, but I can't believe the press would ignore the performance of a career. She won back in 2000, but I don't see why it can't be repeated here. Jennifer Garner won last year, and Rachel Griffiths won Best Supporting Actress at the same time (she got bumped up to Best Actress this year), so that leaves Allison Janey to **** me up, assuming they don't feel the need to repeat. Pundits are split between these two. Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide agree with this choice, among other outlets. Risk/payoff here is fantastic, unless Garner upsets again. I just don't see that happening. Risking $500 to win $2250.
LONGSHOT VALUE PLAY
Before I get flamed...this is the very defintion of a "novelty" bet. DO NOT TAKE MY CUE HERE! I'm doing this purely for the hell of it. I DO NOT EXPECT TO WIN.
Took "The Pianist" for Best Drama at 10-1. "Two Towers" absolutely will not win: if they get nods, it'll be for the last film in the series next year. "GONY" suffers from Hollywood politics. "About Schmidt" is about Nicholson, and (hopefully) his Best Actor reward will be enough. That leaves "The Hours" and "Pianist." Hours was initially a 'dog, and then goldderby.com and America's Line proclaimed it to be the heavy favorite: it has a ton of noms and the Globes are attracted to the snotty literary stuff. OLY went from a 4-1 line on "Hours" to a 4 to 5 line. BoDog stayed at 3-1.
This morning, I woke up and visited the aforementioned goldderby.com site, and Tom O'Neil, a noted awards pundit, says he's changing his tune from "Hours" to "Pianist" purely because he's sensing a ton of support for the flick now that he's in the thick of the pre-ceremony schmoozing. O'Neil picked 14 out of 16 Grammy nods correctly and has written books on this subject, so I'll defer to him, especially with 10-1 odds. $500 on "Pianist," my longest shot of the night, to win $5000.
Anything else I shied away from, either due to poor odds or a murky outcome...brief thoughts...
Matt LeBlanc is said to have great chances for Best Comedic Actor, but Jennifer Aniston is a "sure thing" for Best Comedic Actress, and it's said they may not want to give these two awards to the same show.
Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical is too wide open to call. Zellweger will likely take it, but Zeta-Zones apparently steals every scene she's in. And they may decide to acknowledge "Greek Wedding" here by canceling out the "Chicago" votes and giving it to Varlados. Stay away from this one.
Chicago is guaranteed to win Best Comedy/Musical, but the odds are terrible.
Been doing a lot of research and thinking, and I like my chances. There are "surer" things on the card, but the odds reflect that, and after all, this is a subjective awards ceremony...I'd rather risk on odds of 3-1 than 1-1 when you could just as easily lose on the "guarantee" (Scorcese, Aniston). My max payout if I hit 3 for 3 is about 10k. My max loss is $1500. I may fool around a bit more before the telecast. Hitting just one out of the three will see a profit. Good luck to all!
