Alexander Payne has HUGE odds for Director....that might be worth a look...a well reviewed film, and well acted and directed...+1500.....??? Your thoughts...
Regards, Tony George- Big 12 Expert, 21 Year Veteran Capper, Pregame Pro Handicapper - "I hate to lose, more than I Love to Win"
Well, you can rule out Malick (I previously called him Mann..doh!) and Allen--Malick is too much of a maverick even for Hollywood standards (i cant believe he even got nominated) and Allen has no chance ever again--leaving Payne, Scorcese and Hazanavicius. Scorcese put out ALOT of great films before they relented and finally gave it to him for The Departed. Good film, but he's got 5 or 6 better than that easily. He might get some credit for switching gears, but it's out of his wheelbox and I think that will hurt him. Leaving Hazanavicius and Payne, to me payne is a great bet at those odds. I doubt he'll win, but I give him better than 15-1 for sure. My 2cents
I also think that Midnight in Paris won't win best screenplay..I dont even think it should even be close to favored.
btw Tony, I agree with you on Children of Men--great film and the drab bleak color added to the almost post-apocolyptic atmosphere of the film
What's up daguru?!?!? Excited about this year's show. Have not seen a whole lot of value on any longer shots this year, but I'll have more to add as the day and week goes on.
I am a Pregame.com Director of the Boards!
Record since 4/24/2013:
NBA: 7-12, -10.8 units
Golf: -25.27 units
Tennis: 5-9, -4.75 units
What's up Tara? I agree. Not too much value on the long shots this year but I still think there's some value in a few categories. Look forward to your picks!
Filmmaker. Sports fan. Guru.
(2011) All Sports TOP 3* Plays 20-12........(62.5%)
NBA (2010/11) 3* Plays 15-7.......68.1% (+14.6)
NFL (2010) 44-37-2...............54.3% (+8.675)
NBA (2009/10) 120-94-5......... 56%(+13.85)
MLB Playoffs (2010) 13-6.............68.4%(+6.38)
2010 Sports-Bettors.com #9 NFL Handicapper Record: 51-39-2 56.6%
More records in my Bio...
As we move on this week. I want to touch on the three rules for betting the Oscars.
#1) Oscar LOVES chalk! No matter how much research we do, the books and odds makers do more. They do not want to get caught with their pants down and pay out a 15-1 long shot. The favorites are the favorites for a reason. I know we all want to throw down a bet on one of our favorite films or actors and hope to cash big but the reality is that the value is in finding the best price on one of the favorites instead of finding the biggest return on one of the long shots.
Last year Bodog offered action on 18 categories. 14 of those categories saw the favorite get the win and the other 4 saw the second favorite get the win. The biggest payout of any award last year was for Best Cinematography (Inception) at +450.
The other non-favorites to win were Best Foreign Film (In a Better World) +250, Costume Design (Alice in Wonderland) +110, Best Art Direction (Alice in Wonderland) +400
More to come...
Oscar betting continued...
#2) Oscar loves to share the wealth. This is actually in two parts.
The macrocosm of the history of the award show and the politics found within the Hollywood community.
This refers to awards being given for a persons body of work as opposed to the specific film of that year. As mentioned earlier in the thread by JBRAN, we've seen this happen for years. Examples being Al Pacino for "Scent of a Woman" or Martin Scorsese for "The Departed." Hollywood is a very "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of town. If you've played the game long enough, made money for the right people, and not pissed off the wrong people, eventually you will win an Oscar. This is a strong factor in not only predicting who will win, but also who wont.
Of course there have been multiple winners in the past, but it is quite rare and previous winners, especially multiple winners are actually at a disadvantage because 1) the Academy is more likely "share the wealth" and award a first time winner, and 2) the person that has won before will have to compete with their previous win in the mind of the voters. Meaning, the bar is set too high for people who already have the hardware. A perfect example is Meryl Streep. She has the most nominations in history with her 17th this year. However, she hasn't won since 1983, coming up short 12 times since then.
This is definitely something to be kept in mind when breaking down the respective categories.
more to come...
Tony & Tara,
How come nobody warned me about "The Tree of Life"? What was that? Cinematography...phenomenal. Best Picture? What?!?! What in the world was that? Did you even get past the first 45 minutes?
If oscars love chalk, do you guys see any reason not to scalp some heavy favorites like descendants -500 and moneyball +585 for adapted screenplay. Doesn't seem like anybody wins at high odds from what you are saying?