Best Motion Picture -- 12 Years a Slave (-375)
Best Director -- Alfonso Cuaron - Gravity (-2000)
Best Actor -- Matthew McConaughey - The Dallas Buyers Club (-550)
Best Actress -- Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine (-2500)
Best Supporting Actor -- Jared Leto - Dallas Buyers Club (-1400)
Best Adapted Screenplay -- 12 Years a Slave (-600)
Best Animated Feature Film -- Frozen (-3300)
Best Animated Short Film -- Get a Horse (-1200)
Best Cinematography -- Gravity (-3300)
Best Costume Design -- The Great Gatsby (-350)
Best Foreign Language Film -- The Great Beauty (-450)
Best Makeup -- Dallas Buyers Club (-5000)
Best Original Score -- Gravity (-650)
Best Original Song -- Let it Go (-460)
Best Visual Effects -- Gravity (-10000)
The only major award that isn't a lock is Best Supporting Actress. Lupita Nyongo ( 12 Years a Slave) is a slight favorite at -150.
Sorry to ruin the suspense.
I have only seen 2 of the movies (TWOWS and American Hustle). I loved TWOWS and I thought Leo did a very good job specifically depicting Jordan Belfort. I have watched several of his scenes on Youtube and Leo nailed him according to me.
My best bet..........Will have to go with best Animated feature, but not much value there :)
Quote: WizardThe only major award that isn't a lock is Best Supporting Actress. Lupita Nyongo ( 12 Years a Slave) is a slight favorite at -150.
I am surprised that these odds are so close. The only reason is that giving Jennifer Lawrence back to back acting Oscars at her age would be unprecedented. It's been done three times in the past, but I think that the Academy will believe that it is time to honor someone new.
Luise Rainer
The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
The Good Earth (1937)
Spencer Tracy
Captains Courageous (1937)
Boys Town (1938)
Tom Hanks
Philadelphia (1993)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Quote: WizardBest Actor -- Matthew McConaughey - The Dallas Buyers Club (-550)
I think some lucky people put money down on McConaughey just after the nominations were announced. He was originally a positive bet since it took a while to determine that he would win the Oscar.
Quote: pacomartinI think some lucky people put money down on McConaughey just after the nominations were announced. He was originally a positive bet since it took a while to determine that he would win the Oscar.
I still don't get how the results are pretty much known in advance most of the time.
Quote: WizardI still don't get how the results are pretty much known in advance most of the time.
I'm pretty sure it is a combination of straw poling experts and wisdom of crowds.
Quote: WizardI still don't get how the results are pretty much known in advance most of the time.
Same here, but the certainty this year is especially interesting because the projected results are out of historical character. Did you notice that the big 4 (picture/director/actor/actress) are all from different films?
It happened last year ([Argo]/Ang Lee [Life of Pi]/Daniel Day-Lewis [Lincoln]/Jennifer Lawrence [Silver Linings Playbook]).
Before that, it happened in 2005 ([Crash]/Ang Lee [Brokeback Mountain]/Philip Seymour Hoffman [Capote]/Reese Witherspoon [Walk the Line]).
But from there, you have to go all the way back to 1956 to find the previous occurrence ([Around the World in 80 Days]/George Stevens [Giant]/Yul Brynner [The King and I]/Ingrid Bergman [Anastasia]).
According to my search, it also happened in 1952, 51, 40 and 37, plus also in three of the first five years of awards, when they may have been intentionally trying to spread the wealth.
Voting procedures don't appear to have changed much over the years. The nominating rules are a little screwy, but final voting is very straightforward, with the same pool of voters for each major award. (Documentaries and foreign-language film are handled differently.)
I'm not sure how any of that translates into +EV betting, but if I do place a wager, it will probably be on the No Safety.
Quote: endermikeI'm pretty sure it is a combination of straw poling experts and wisdom of crowds.
I'd be interested to know more about the "wisdom of crowds."
If I were an Academy voter I wouldn't want to throw my vote away on a movie that had no hope. Much like I'm sure a lot of people liked Perot, but didn't want to waste their vote on somebody with no chance. However, there must be something more reliable than just gossip on who the other members are supporting.
Quote: WizardI still don't get how the results are pretty much known in advance most of the time.
The biggest reason is because all of the various guilds (SAG = actors, DGA = directors, PGA= producers, etc) give out their awards prior to the Academy Awards and there's a lot of overlap between the members of the various guilds and the Academy members.
Best Actress Cate Blanchett -1025
Best Director Cuaron (Gravity) -511
Best Picture 12 Years a Slave -323
Costume Design The Great Gatsby -350
Supporting Actor Jared Leto -467
This is what I have bet so far and at what price. I think the best "values" right now are Leto -1000, McConaughey -500, and The Great Gatsby -350.
Quote: WizardI still don't get how the results are pretty much known in advance most of the time.
I have gained a lot of knowledge on this topic since I'm seeing someone who is obsessed with movies and specifically the Academy Awards...
First off, the above list is pretty much on, except you didn't place the odds for Best Original Screenplay, which is almost a lock for "Her." As far as Supporting Actress, it might be the year to place a bet on all 3 of the non-favorites, since there's a feeling that Lupita and Jennifer might cancel each other out.
Voting for the Oscars is done by a rating process. You don't place a vote for one, you rank them. Most Oscars go to the Award season favorites, which is why it costs so much. However, there are a few surprises that could be lurking, and Supporting Actress is one of the categories.
The other you might want to try is Gravity. The main awards guild that mimics the Oscar had 12 Years and Gravity at a tie. It's most likely that 12 Years wins, but don't be surprised if Gravity picks up the win in the end.
Quote: WizardI still don't get how the results are pretty much known in advance most of the time.
I think it is partly people wanting to be in on the buzz. All the preliminary awards like SAG and Golden Globes makes people want to pile on. The studios are pretty coordinated about promoting the contenders. The 20 acting awards are all from 10 movies, and 9 of those were released in the final quarter. The actual pool of films is pretty small.
26. Jul. 2013 Blue Jasmine
4. Oct. 2013 Gravity
11. Oct. 2013 Captain Phillips
18. Oct. 2013 12 Years a Slave
1. Nov. 2013 Dallas Buyers Club
15. Nov. 2013 Nebraska
22. Nov. 2013 Philomena
13. Dec. 2013 American Hustle
25. Dec. 2013 The Wolf of Wall Street
27. Dec. 2013 August: Osage County
They have only given two best actors in 85 years to someone who was not between the age of 30 and 62. Adrian Brody was only 3 weeks short of his 30th birthday, and Henry Fonda was near death when he got his first Best Actor.
The median age for Best Actress is 33.5, so the younger women are heavily favored. Only two women older than 63 have won
Katharine Hepburn On Golden Pond
Jessica Tandy Driving Miss Daisy
I think a lot of the voters like to keep some kind of a perceived balance. They are very unlikely to give both Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong'o an acting win. Chiwetel was an early favorite, but his star pretty much dropped like a rock when Lupita started getting more media attention.
Cate Blanchett has won 34 Best Actress awards for Blue Jasmine and lost 4 times. That's a lot of momentum that tells you how actors think.
Meryl Streep at age 64 is the most nominated actress of all time, but given the normal fear of actually giving the award to an older actress, and that she was already given one for Iron Lady, most people feel it is sufficient to simply give her a nomination.
Quote: pacomartin26. Jul. 2013 Blue Jasmine
4. Oct. 2013 Gravity
11. Oct. 2013 Captain Phillips
18. Oct. 2013 12 Years a Slave
1. Nov. 2013 Dallas Buyers Club
15. Nov. 2013 Nebraska
22. Nov. 2013 Philomena
13. Dec. 2013 American Hustle
25. Dec. 2013 The Wolf of Wall Street
27. Dec. 2013 August: Osage County
I don't really care about the awards, but I am interested in watching good films.
The only one of these I have seen was Blue Jasmine, which I really enjoyed. Are the others all good movies?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't really care about the awards, but I am interested in watching good films.
The only one of these I have seen was Blue Jasmine, which I really enjoyed. Are the others all good movies?
American Hustle is light entertainment with some good acting, especially Jennifer Lawrence, I think she stole the show.
TWOWS is excellent although a little long and can be quite graphic. If you don't like gratuitous scenes of sex, drug use and foul language then perhaps this one isn't for you. Still, I found it very good and enjoyed it immensely!
(even though I watched Gravity on a small airplane seat television, I did not think it lived up to the hype)
Loved Captain Philips
http://www.razzies.com/history/34thNoms.asp
Quote: BozMore interesting to me is the Razzies, which are awarded to bad movies people actually watched. Winners announced this Saturday with Adam Sandler in line to win worst Actor 3 years in a row.
http://www.razzies.com/history/34thNoms.asp
It's amazing still that he is one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood.
A year or two ago they did a survey by which they listed the highest paid actors in Hollywood whose movies return the least.
Highest on the list was Will Ferrel
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAre the others all good movies?
This is getting off topic but I really liked Captain Phillips and Nebraska. The only others I saw were Gravity and American Hustle, which were good but not great.
Quote: WizardThis is getting off topic but I really liked Captain Phillips and Nebraska. The only others I saw were Gravity and American Hustle, which were good but not great.
As a non-movie goer, I have seen three movies this year: Saving Mr. Banks, Nebraska, and Her.
I thoroughly enjoyed Nebraska; I'm originally from Omaha and I think Alexander Payne captures that life very well in all his films. It's not for everybody though. Perhaps the most overlooked performance was Will Forte, but he was much more of a lead than supporting role, and Bruce Dern had a much more difficult character to capture.
I loved Her, but the movie is disturbing on a different level. It's set in a parallel universe where computer/human relationships are not terrible, and where human/human relationships are not important. I found the scenes that most people were crying at were hilarious, and the scenes that were making most of the audience laugh made me very sad and uncomfortable. I love Charlie Kauffman, and Spike Jonze has done a lot of work with Kauffman, so I recommend it.
You can skip Saving Mr. Banks. The framing device is terrible, and while a fascinating story, it also rewrote a lot of history by eliminating smoking from the picture, which makes it less relevant.
Quote: BozMore interesting to me is the Razzies, which are awarded to bad movies people actually watched. Winners announced this Saturday with Adam Sandler in line to win worst Actor 3 years in a row.
http://www.razzies.com/history/34thNoms.asp
In Best Actor/Actress categories only 3 people have shown up to accept award in person
Halle Berry for Catwoman and
Sandra Bullock for All About Steve
Tom Green for Freddy Got Fingered
Hale Berry won Best Actress for Monster's Ball, and Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side, which she won the night after the Razzies.
The sad thing is that Grown Ups #2 actually was so profitable that it almost certainly means that Grown Ups #3 will be made.
Hotel Transylvania was Adam Sandler's biggest movie from the perspective of worldwide revenue, and he will certainly be churning out films for decades.
See Keynes beauty contest and Guess 2/3 of the average GameQuote: WizardI'd be interested to know more about the "wisdom of crowds."
If I were an Academy voter I wouldn't want to throw my vote away on a movie that had no hope. Much like I'm sure a lot of people liked Perot, but didn't want to waste their vote on somebody with no chance. However, there must be something more reliable than just gossip on who the other members are supporting.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThese people don't deserve anything, including more than minimum wage.
If someone voluntarily pays them big money, then they deserve it, IMO.
Quote: kubikulann
In particular, I was referring to betting markets being very accurate predictors, ESPECIALLY close to the resolution date.
Quote: TiltpoulIVoting for the Oscars is done by a rating process. You don't place a vote for one, you rank them.
However, finding out that this is done by rankings makes this more interesting. Do votes get published? If not it opens the door for strategic voting in a HUGE way.
1031 Alfonso Cuaron - Best Director -1400* vs Field wins Best Director
1051 Matthew McConaughey - Best Actor -440* vs Field wins Best Actor
1071 Cate Blanchett - Best Actress -2850* vs Field wins Best Actress
1091 Jared Leto - Best Supporting Actor -1400* vs Field wins Best Supporting Actor
1131 12 Years a Slave - Adapted Screenplay -710* vs Field wins Best Adapted Screenplay
1151 Frozen - Best Animated Feature Film -5200* vs Field wins Best Animated Feature Film
1171 Get a Horse! - Best Animated Short Film -785* vs Field wins Best Animated Short Film
1191 Gravity - Best Cinematography -3800* vs Field wins Best Cinematography
2121 Dallas Buyers Club - Best Makeup -2450* vs Field wins Best Makeup
2141 Gravity - Best Original Score -445* vs Field wins Best Original Score
2181 Let It Go - Best Original Song -380* vs Field wins Best Original Song
2211 Gravity - Best Sound Editing -1750* vs Field wins Best Sound Editing
2231 Gravity - Best Sound Mixing -1750* vs FIeld wins Best Sound Mixing
2251 Gravity - Best Visual Effects -21500* vs Field wins Best Visual Effects
Plus another two based on multiple outcomes:
1125 12Years/Alfonso/Matt/Cate/Jared/Lupita +230* vs Any other winner in Big Six Categories
This will win if the favorite wins in all six major categories. It pretty much hinges on Lupita Nyong'o winning Best Supporting Actress (current odds -142)
3001 Gravity wins all 7 listed categories +155* vs Gravity wont win all 7 listed categories
They listed 7 technical categories and Gravity has to win all of them. The toughest to win will be Film Editing (current odds -167)
By the way, that bet on visual effects is the most I've ever laid on a bet in my life, in terms of odds. I bet $215 to win $1. After the Super Bowl safety, I didn't want to put myself in a position of jumping off the Hoover Dam bridge if it lost. Losing $215 won't be a life changing event.
Quote: WizardHere are my bets on the Awards.
Quote: WizardSo, consider this one of my hot tips. If The Artist doesn't win for Best Picture, then look for me at the Hoover Dam bridge.
Bet Amount Odds Best Animated Feature -- Rango 1598 -639 Will Michel Hazanavicius Win Best Director? -- YES 2825 -565 Will The Artist Win Best Picture? -- YES 5010 -1002 Best Supporting Actress -- Octavia Spencer 5760 -1152 Adapted Screenplay -- The Descendants 1825 -365 Original Screenplay -- Midnight in Paris 1585 -317
Last year you bet $18,602.5 and won $2,750 since you got all seven bets correct.
The amounts of your bet amounts seem funny this year. Why does each amount end in $1? Last year you bet 2.5X or 5X the odds.
Quote: Wizard
Bet Amount Odds Best Animated Feature -- Rango 1598 -639 Will Michel Hazanavicius Win Best Director? -- YES 2825 -565 Will The Artist Win Best Picture? -- YES 5010 -1002 Best Supporting Actress -- Octavia Spencer 5760 -1152 Adapted Screenplay -- The Descendants 1825 -365 Original Screenplay -- Midnight in Paris 1585 -317
I made these bets in 2011 at PinnacleSports.com. Since then they quit offering bets on the Oscars and since the latest round of arrests, it has been even harder for Americans to get an account there. Back then I bet a lot more because the odds were better. The bets I made tonight were at 5dimes and for much smaller amounts.
Quote: WizardBack then I bet a lot more because the odds were better. The bets I made tonight were at 5dimes and for much smaller amounts.
I suppose the days of betting $50K on the Oscars have passed.
Quote: WizardFebruary 27th, 2011 at 10:41:07 PM
As I wrote before, never listen to your gut when it comes to the Oscars, just bet every big favorite. Somebody please quote that back to me next year.
As per your request, I am quoting back to you your own advice (from 3 years ago).
Quote: pacomartinI suppose the days of betting $50K on the Oscars have passed.
They will come back when the US legalizes online "sports" betting.
Quote:As per your request, I am quoting back to you your own advice (from 3 years ago).
You're two years late, but thank you. I stand by what I wrote then. Where I'm deviating this year is going for these prop bets based on multiple awards. In fact, I just bet two more.
The props are how many awards will American Hustle win between these categories:
Best Picture, Costume Design, Director, Film Editing, Leading Actor, Leading Actress, Orignial Screenplay, Production Design, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress
I bet under 2.5 at -475 and under 1.5 at -175.
Based on the individual award categories I show American Hustle will win a mean of about 1.1 awards. To be specific:
0.28 awards for Costume Design
0.45 awards for Original Screenplay
0.37 awards for Supporting actress
No hope in the other categories
Total = 1.10
Quote: sodawaterI don't even get why you risked $215 to win $1. If you are going to bridge jump on the oscars, you have to go for an amount worth winning. I bet you wouldn't cross the street to pick up a dollar bill.
I imagine he did it to say it was a personal extreme.
Quote: Wizard1091 Jared Leto - Best Supporting Actor -1400* vs Field wins Best Supporting Actor
2121 Dallas Buyers Club - Best Makeup -2450* vs Field wins Best Makeup
Best Animated Feature Film -- Frozen (-3300)
X Best Animated Short Film -- Get a Horse (-1200)
Good start!
Quote: pacomartinAny idea on odds for Mr. Hublot?
No. Wish I had saved that.
Quote: sodawaterGRAVITY WINS VISUAL EFFECTS. Wiz is $1 richer!
Still on track, Wiz!
Quote: Wizard
1125 12Years/Alfonso/Matt/Cate/Jared/Lupita +230* vs Any other winner in Big Six Categories
This will win if the favorite wins in all six major categories. It pretty much hinges on Lupita Nyong'o winning Best Supporting Actress (current odds -142)
YEA
Lupita Nyong’o, "12 Years a Slave"
Quote: pacomartinYEA
Lupita Nyong’o, "12 Years a Slave"
Jared Leto and Lupita's speeches were both among the best ever IMO. We'll see what else comes.
Quote: BozRamis will look better in 3 months than Bill Murray does tonight.
He looks like he could play the role of your average old homeless guy. Of course, he would be a very funny homeless guy.
Quote: pacomartinBest Production Design went to "The Great Gatsby" instead of Gravity. Was that one of the 7 listed categories?
Fortunately, not. I think GG was favored to win that one. Gravity was +235.
I now need only best director for Gravity to sweep the "Gravity parlay."
Quote: WizardFortunately, not. I think GG was favored to win that one. Gravity was +235.
I now need only best director for Gravity to sweep the "Gravity parlay."
DING DING
It looks like American Hustle is going to get no wins out of 10 nominations.
Quote: WizardBy the way, that bet on visual effects is the most I've ever laid on a bet in my life, in terms of odds. I bet $215 to win $1.
I'm curious what was going through your mind when you placed the wager. Was it just for fun? Bragging rights? A joke to laugh about, win or lose? Hopefully you weren't chasing comps.
The layman's argument against Martingale is that it's unwise to gamble hundreds of dollars to win $1. And yet here's a serious mathematician risking $215 to win a buck.
Quote: renoI'm curious what was going through your mind when you placed the wager. Was it just for fun? Bragging rights? A joke to laugh about, win or lose?
It was just to be consistent to my strategy of always betting the big favorites on the Oscars. Laying 215 to 1 seemed kind of ridiculous so I bet to only win a buck.
Quote: renoThe layman's argument against Martingale is that it's unwise to gamble hundreds of dollars to win $1. And yet here's a serious mathematician risking $215 to win a buck.
That's not really the layman's argument against Martingale. The layman's argument should be that sooner or later the bet will get huge, and you are just as likely to lose as to win.
The odds of losing the $215 were almost miniscule. There is nothing mathematically unsound.