Thread Rating:
Best actor: J Bridges $4,708 to win $500
Best supporting actor: K Waltz $15,629 to win $500
Best supporting actress: Monique $9,115 to win $500
Best director: Bigelow $3,259 to win $500
Best art direction: Avatar $2,250 to win $500
They call bets like these "bridge jumpers," because if you lose, you're going to feel like jumping off a bridge. In the case of Vegas, a parking garage roof would have to do.
This is the first year I can remember where there wasn't a runaway favorite for best picture. According to the intrade the odds suggest the Hurt Locker has about a 53% chance of winning, and Avatar 41%, with other movies making up the rest. If forced to bet that one, I'd take the Hurt Locker, but I don't like it well enough to bet. For what it is worth, my vote would be for District 9, followed by Up in the Air.
I agree that Cameron cleaning up for Titanic will work against him this year. Lately the Oscars have tilted towards movies that were not big box office winners, which also works in The Hurt Lockers favor. Politics I don't think will play a big factor. If anything, that should favor Avatar.
Quote: DocI guess that even if I had been fully informed on the competition, I would have been very hesitant to place a set of wagers where I would HAVE to go 5 for 5 or lose a bunch of money. Going even 4 for 5 would mean losing $250 to $13,629, if I understood those wagers correctly. Go 3 for 5 and you are in deep. Not my kind of game.
It normally isn't mine either, but I strongly feel those bets almost couldn't lose. Like betting Obama against McCain in the last election -- the electoral math pretty much ensured he would win easily.
Quote: nyuhoosierDo you know of any other bridge-jumpers available in Vegas? I was tempted by one a while back when you could bet that the winner of the Kentucky Derby would NOT go on to win the Triple Crown. I'm interested in betting some of these, but of course, it's only easy money until you lose one.
There are some good ones in the Super Bowl, like laying 10 to 1 against a safety. Of course, that one lost last calendar year (Pitt vs. Ariz.). However, the term mainly applies to horse racing, in particular betting a huge favorite in a 5-horse race to show. The least you can win is $0.10 on a $2 bet, so if the probability of winning is over 95.24%, it is a good bet. However, I'm not strong enough in horse racing to know when the probability is more than that. Perhaps someone else can jump in on that point.
Quote: WizardQuote: DocI guess that even if I had been fully informed on the competition, I would have been very hesitant to place a set of wagers where I would HAVE to go 5 for 5 or lose a bunch of money. Going even 4 for 5 would mean losing $250 to $13,629, if I understood those wagers correctly. Go 3 for 5 and you are in deep. Not my kind of game.
It normally isn't mine either, but I strongly feel those bets almost couldn't lose. Like betting Obama against McCain in the last election -- the electoral math pretty much ensured he would win easily.Quote: nyuhoosierDo you know of any other bridge-jumpers available in Vegas? I was tempted by one a while back when you could bet that the winner of the Kentucky Derby would NOT go on to win the Triple Crown. I'm interested in betting some of these, but of course, it's only easy money until you lose one.
There are some good ones in the Super Bowl, like laying 10 to 1 against a safety. Of course, that one lost last calendar year (Pitt vs. Ariz.). However, the term mainly applies to horse racing, in particular betting a huge favorite in a 5-horse race to show. The least you can win is $0.10 on a $2 bet, so if the probability of winning is over 95.24%, it is a good bet. However, I'm not strong enough in horse racing to know when the probability is more than that. Perhaps someone else can jump in on that point.
As a horse player, I can say that even in a 5 horse field, 95% certainty is tough because they are animals that could always have something happen that would cause a problem. They could also be bumped or have a problem that has nothing to do with their ability to win. I don't see a lot of horse players doing well bridge-jumping. It is interesting that when you have those massive favorites, sometimes they are being so heavily bet in the win and show pools, that the place pool gets overlooked and you can make money there. Also, you can reverse bridge jump: If you see the pool has a bridge-jumper in it, bet 2 bucks on the other 4 horses. I've seen the show pool pay hundreds of dollars because of the favorite not hitting the board. You see this
Slew's Tizzy 12.80 8.40 320.60
Galloping Grocer 9.60 393.80
Eric The Kidd 243.00
Off topic: my bro-in-law and I had a similar type bet about an extra point being missed in an NFL game. If you bet one game and lay 15 to 1, you might win, but if you bet all games in a weekend, you probably won't.
A 97%
B 2%
C 1%
How much would a $2 show ticket on each horse pay?
Quote: WizardSandra Bullock is about a 2 to 1 favorite to win best actress. I didn't bet it because she is up against Meryl Streep, who I just learned was nominated more times for Oscars than any other actress. That is another one besides best picture that could go either way.
So much, I guess, for knowing the field you're betting on :)
Streep is arguably one of the best actresses that ever lived. Whatever character she plays, you only see the character, not her. naturally she's been nominated a lot, and has won twice (once for a supporting role).
How much would you have had to lay to win $500 on Sandra Bullock?
I think she was as near a shoo-in as you can get at the Oscars. She'd won the Golden Globe, the Critics Association and the SGA awards this year. That's a sweep.
Quote: NareedI think [Sandra Bullock] was as near a shoo-in as you can get at the Oscars. She'd won the Golden Globe, the Critics Association and the SGA awards this year. That's a sweep.
Don't forget, she won a Razzie this year, too (Yeah, it was for All About Steve, but still :^P ).
Quote: wildqatDon't forget, she won a Razzie this year, too (Yeah, it was for All About Steve, but still :^P ).
Oh, she did more than win. She accepted it.
Quote: WizardThis is getting off topic, but in the event a huge favorite does show, can the track take from the show pools on the other two horses to cover the 10 cents on the big favorite? For example, let's say the total show pool is $300,000, the take-out is 17%, and show bets on the three winning horses are divided as follows:
A 97%
B 2%
C 1%
How much would a $2 show ticket on each horse pay?
In Australia they would not take from other runners.
Thete was an Interesting case in Australia several years ago where a Canadian man manipulated the pari-mutual pool in a greyhound race so that the place pool looked similar to those percentages you quoted. When I'm home and on a proper computer instead of my phone I'll find the details for you.
Background is that in Australia we don't have place and show bets like you do in the US, we simply have a place bet which pays on the top 3 in fields of 8 or more and top 2 in fields of 7 or less. The minimum payout is $1 for every $1 wagered (yes just the return of the original stake) and the payout is simply 1/3 of the place pool less takeout divided by the number of dollars bet on the runner. Therefore is a huge amount is bet on one runner the dividend for the other runners is inflated to the point where in extreme cases (such as this) there could be more paid out that was bet ie the operator would lose.
In 2000 a Canadian man manipulated the place pool in a coule of obscure greyhound races. The place pool for this kind of race with this particular operator would typically be $2-4k. This man chose two dogs that he was very confident would run in the top 3 and bet $350k on each of them and $5k on each of the remaining 6 dogs. Total bet $730k. The massive bets on the two favoured dogs resulted in their place dividends being $1 with the other 6 dogs paying around $40. The two favoured dogs ran in the top 3 which meant he got $700k (2 x $350k) back plus $200k ($5k x 40) from the 3rd dog. Total return of $900k when there was less than $740k bet in total. He tried to do the same thing on another race later that night but the operator froze his account and prevented him.
The operator refused to pay but I believe they were taken to court and forced to pay eventually. Heres a transcript of an interview he did with a radio program shrotly after it occurred.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s202115.htm
This would not work in the U.S., by the way, because we make separate pots for the return of the original winning wagers and winnings. In this race there would not have been enough money after the takeout to cover all the original winning bets, so it would have defaulted to the minimum win of $2.10 for a $2.00 bet.
Quote: wizard
That is an interesting story. The terminology is a bit different in Australia. As I understand it, in Australia there are not separate bets for place and show, but just a place bet. The place bet will pay bettors on the first two dogs in races with seven or less dogs, and the first three dogs with eight or more total in the race. In the race in question there were eight dogs, two of whom where strong favorites. Following is the general way the winning odds are calculated on a three-dog place pool in Australia.
1. Take out the track cut from the total pool of place bets. For the sake of argument, let's use the usual American take-out of 17%.
2. Divide the rest into three pools.
3. Pay the winners on each dog a pro-rata basis according to the size of the pool and the amount bet on the dog. If the amount bet on the dog exceeds its share of the pool, then bettors will get a refund.
Let's look at an example. Suppose $100,000 is bet on the a pool with three dogs. Assume bets on the winning dogs totaling $5,000 on dog A, $10,000 on dog B, and $15,000 on dog C. First the 17% would be deducted, leaving $83,000. That would be divided by 3, leaving $27,667 to pay the winners of each dog. Winning bets on dog A would be paid $27,667/$5,000 = 5.53 for 1, before any rounding (I'm not sure how they round down under). Likewise, winning bets on dog B would be paid 27667/10000=2.77 for 1, and on dog C 27667/15000 = 1.84 for 1.
The bettor in this case exploited the rules by betting such huge amounts that he pretty much controlled the odds. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume he was the only bettor. The article said he bet $350,000 on the two favorites, and $5,000 on each additional dog. With six underdogs (pun intended) that resulted in a total pool of $730,000. After the takeout and split, there was 201,997 to the winners of each dog. The rule about getting at least a push resulted in bets on the two favorites being refunded. However, the share of the pool on the third dog was huge compared to wagers on it. The winning odds would have been 201,997/5000 = 40.4 to 1. So the profit on the third dog was $5,000 * 39.4 = $197,000. He actually only won $170,000, probably because of other bets on the third dog.
This technique would not work in the U.S., by the way, because here we deduct the original wagers made on each winning dog from the total show pool, and then add them back in after dividing by 3. This deduction would have caused the pools to be negative, resulting in just small winnings of the minimum $0.10 per $2 bet.
One point of clarification though, you dont automatically get your money back if the dividend on a runner is $1. That runner must still run top 3. So in effect you can lose but you cant win. In the incident, if both the favoured runners had missed the place he would have lost $130k. If one missed the place he would have won $20k and if neither missed the place (which is what happened) he would win $170k.
It didnt really encourage me to see it.
Quote: WizardThanks. Did the tracks do anything to prevent this from happening again?
In Australia the parimutual pools are statewide anD run by listed companies with wagering rules based on govenment legislation. I believe they lobied and were successful in getting Some minor rule change passed by government to prevent it happening again.
Quote: nyuhoosierAnyone think Avatar got the shaft by not winning best director/best picture? The Hurt Locker is an important, well-made movie, but I think Avatar deserved to win on degree of difficulty. It's a ground-breaking, historic film -- more of an experience than a movie.
Quote: CroupierA friend of mine summed up Avatar as "The plight of the Native American people diluted into a love story, told by people with blue skin. And Dinosaurs."
It didnt really encourage me to see it.
Quote: WizardPerhaps the Academy voters thought as I did that the special effects in Avatar were too over the top and self-important. It should be a story that carries the movie, and Avatar's story was nothing new. Dances with Wolves comes to mind. I didn't like The Hurt Locker much either. However, if forced between the two, I would have pinched my nose and voted for The Hurt Locker. As I've said before, I would have gladly taken District 9 or Up in the Air over both of them.
I liked them both, but for different reasons, and I'm not sure I'd have given Best Picture to either. I agree with Wizard about Avatar, and that the story should carry the film first; but I still think it was one hell of a thrill ride, and excellent entertainment value for the visual appeal alone.
Regarding Hurt Locker, I had real empathy for the characters. Every now and then I come across a returning Iraq vet as a client, and I'm struck by how young many of them are. What I liked about the film was the way it got so close to the characters and the situations that nothing else mattered; the politics didn't matter, the battles didn't matter, nothing mattered but staying alive. At the same time, that was its weak point; it was so close to the characters that the story became sluggish and lost its way several times. How you reacted to that I think depends on how vested you became in the characters. But IMO a "Best Picture" winner shouldn't have that flaw, or really any flaws. I think The Hurt Locker won partly to stick it to Cameron, as a double entendre in the most literal way. I didn't see all the nominees this year, so I can't say which I'd choose; perhaps they were all flawed, and THL was flawed the least; I don't know.
I do know that if I'd lost any of those bets I'd have jumped off a bridge, or a parking garage. Yikes. Kudos, Wizard!
It seems as though betting on the Oscars is entirely about hunches. At least with football and horse-racing, numerical values can be assigned to players, teams, horses, etc. Even if you study the Oscar odds at Intrade, you are still using your gut hunches, not math, to determine if the Intrade odds are reliable. How does one assign a numerical value to "Hollywood Buzz"?
Quote: renoCommandment #4 from The Ten Commandments of Gambling: Thou shalt trust the odds, not hunches.
It seems as though betting on the Oscars is entirely about hunches. At least with football and horse-racing, numerical values can be assigned to players, teams, horses, etc. Even if you study the Oscar odds at Intrade, you are still using your gut hunches, not math, to determine if the Intrade odds are reliable. How does one assign a numerical value to "Hollywood Buzz"?
I think historical odds and results would back me up by saying that the big favorites almost always win. I've been doing this several years, and the only upset I can think of is Crash beating Brokeback Mountain for best picture, and that was not a huge upset, about a 4 to 1 favorite. Meanwhile I have won every other bet out of about 40 made on the Oscars. I'll admit part of is based on hunches. For example, I just couldn't picture Jeff Bridges losing for best actor. Just ain't gonna happen.