betting on the oscars?

[WiccanPagan]

saw the link at the top of all the forums and had to click it. i couldn't makes heads or tails out of what was on the site, though. for instance here are the numbers for best pictures:

chicago 1.45
the hours 4.50
gangs of new york 5.00
the pianist 13.00
two towers 17.00

so what's the deal with the numbers? here (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/announcement.php?s=&forumid=17) is a link to the thread if you missed it.

[Rypro 525]

Originally posted by WiccanPagan
saw the link at the top of all the forums and had to click it. i couldn't makes heads or tails out of what was on the site, though. for instance here are the numbers for best pictures:

chicago 1.45
the hours 4.50
gangs of new york 5.00
the pianist 13.00
two towers 17.00

so what's the deal with the numbers? here (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/announcement.php?s=&forumid=17) is a link to the thread if you missed it. I am guessing that if you vote for chicago for instance, you get 1.45 and so on. Since ttt is the long shot, thats why you'd get 17.00

[audrey]

Those are essentialy the odds. E.g. if you bet $1 on Chicago you would receive $1.45 (1 * 1.45) if it won. If you bet $1 on The Hours you would receive $4.50 if it won (1 * 4.5).

[Pants]

I'm surprised to see The Pianist as such a long shot. I think it has a better chance than The Hours and definately a better chance than GONY. Sure it's foriegn, but it's about the holocaust and H'wood loves that.

I'd put the Piano as 3 to 1 but Chicago is 2 to 1 all the way, that f'er is the LOCK

[Rypro 525]

I think the betters have Pianist as a long shot due to the directors rape convictions and that he is not allowed into the country or he would be arrested.

[Pants]

Originally posted by Rypro 525
I think the betters have Pianist as a long shot due to the directors rape convictions and that he is not allowed into the country or he would be arrested. That's why he won't win Best Director. But there's nothing keeping them from giving the Oscar to the Pianist producers for Best Picture

[audrey]

Originally posted by Pants
I'm surprised to see The Pianist as such a long shot. I think it has a better chance than The Hours and definately a better chance than GONY. Sure it's foriegn, but it's about the holocaust and H'wood loves that.

I'd put the Piano as 3 to 1 but Chicago is 2 to 1 all the way, that f'er is the LOCK
Unless the house is taking a <i>position</i>, that is adjusting the odds for who they believe will win to maximize their profits (and risk), those odds are intended to attract bets in a ratio to balance their books and lower their exposure---odds like this don't generally reflect actual odds of winning.

[WiccanPagan]

ah, so the odds are pretty crappy for chicago, then. bet a dollar make $.45 cents would have to bet a lot to make it worth it. has anyone seed other odds elsewhere? i wouldn't begin to know where to look.

[LBPound]

I'm going to take them up on their odds that Cuba Gooding Jr. will be the next James Bond. If I bid just $1,000 and Cuba becomes Bond, then I get $34,000. Show me the money!

[WiccanPagan]

show you the door. no way he'll come close to that job. and i seriously hope colin farrel doesn't either. jackman would rule. he's dreamy. :)

[LBPound]

C'mon, James Bond just seems like the logical follow-up to that gay cruise movie.

[WiccanPagan]

gooding jr. easily gets my vote for academy award winner gone retarded. snow dogs and that gay cruise movie are just the tip of the iceberg for this man. be prepared for crap like you've never seen before.

[hahn]

it's ironic - miramax decides to hold back on the widespread release of Hero in order to promote City of God for the oscars. City of God didn't make the cut, thus it is eligible for next year. and because of the one nomination for best foreign film, Hero is no longer eligible for next year. gaaah...let this be a lesson to future foreign filmmakers to never go to miramax for distribution.

[hogfat]

Originally posted by audrey
Unless the house is taking a <i>position</i>, that is adjusting the odds for who they believe will win to maximize their profits (and risk), those odds are intended to attract bets in a ratio to balance their books and lower their exposure---odds like this don't generally reflect actual odds of winning.

so, there's not actually a 125% chance of one of those five films winning?

[badger1997]

I have an account with Sportsinteraction, the company in the ad, and was considering some of these bets, but really didn't see any odds that looked interesting. The only one i saw that really raised my interest was Jack Nicholson for 3.5 times your bet. I figure it's between him and Daniel Day-Lewis, but I'm not sure I would be willing to take a flyer on Jack or not.

Then again, either Streep or Zeta-Jones for supporting actress might be decent bets, but I'm never sure about who is going to win.

[audrey]

Originally posted by hogfat
so, there's not actually a 125% chance of one of those five films winning?
No. It doesn't work like that; these are not "true" odds. These odds are calculated to attract bets in such a way so that no matter who wins the house makes money. They adjust the odds to attract bets with the goal of having an even risk/reward across all bets. When bets pile up on one team (or in this case movie) they lower the odds to attract bets on other choices. If a choice attracts too few bets, they raise the odds. I'm not sure why you think it s/d total 100%; it doesn’t--look at the lines on the sports page in any major paper.

[hogfat]

Originally posted by audrey
No. It doesn't work like that; these are not "true" odds. These odds are calculated to attract bets in such a way so that no matter who wins the house makes money. They adjust the odds to attract bets with the goal of having an even risk/reward across all bets. When bets pile up on one team (or in this case movie) they lower the odds to attract bets on other choices. If a choice attracts too few bets, they raise the odds. I'm not sure why you think it s/d total 100%; it doesn’t--look at the lines on the sports page in any major paper.

i know. . . . you already stated as much in what i quoted. (background for what i stated above, if necessary: probability of outcomes cannot be greater than 1. probability of all possible outcomes, in fact, is 1. the probability of one of the five events occurring is 1.25. 1.25 > 1.)

[audrey]

Originally posted by hogfat
i know. . . . you already stated as much in what i quoted. (background for what i stated above, if necessary: probability of outcomes cannot be greater than 1. probability of all possible outcomes, in fact, is 1. the probability of one of the five events occurring is 1.25. 1.25 > 1.)
True. But if you understand how betting odds work, then you must realize that probability doesn’t apply—this isn’t like calculating the chances of rolling an eleven with a pair of dice. I’m not following your point. If you look at the betting odds on a crap table or roulette wheel, for example, you’ll quickly realize that those odds do not reflect the “true” odds or probability of an event occurring—this is how the casinos make money.

[Drexl]

Originally posted by Pants
That's why he won't win Best Director. But there's nothing keeping them from giving the Oscar to the Pianist producers for Best Picture

Polanski was also one of the producers. Maybe they could just not make him an award but tell him he would get one and all he has to do is come by, in person, and pick it up. :)

[audrey]

Despite some tepid recent work and the rape charge, Polanski remains one of my favorite directors. This article presents a fairly balanced view on the subject: http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/oscars/cl-ca-baker2feb02,0,4850751.story?coll=cl-movies-features

[Mittman]

Best bets IMO are Scorsese at 2.37:1 and Paul Neuman at 6:1

[Pants]

From the article: By 2000, when he made the lukewarmly received occult thriller "The Ninth Gate," starring Johnny Depp, he was reduced to explaining: "I needed work. I had to do something.") I think that's totally uncalled for. The Ninth Gate is very good, I think Polanski is proud of it, and I bet that quote was taken way out of context.

But otherwise great article. Thanks

[WiccanPagan]

Originally posted by Mittman
Best bets IMO are Scorsese at 2.37:1 and Paul Neuman at 6:1i was thinking the scorcese bet was the way to go as well. since he has never won and they always seem to give these things to people who should have won before (eg the doode who sang for monsters inc.).

[hogfat]

Originally posted by audrey
But if you understand how betting odds work, then you must realize that probability doesn’t apply—this isn’t like calculating the chances of rolling an eleven with a pair of dice. I’m not following your point.

probability cannot exceed 1. 1.25 > 1. 1.25 != probability . . . feigning ignorance for humor; sardonic comments; etc.

[audrey]

Originally posted by hogfat
probability cannot exceed 1. 1.25 > 1. 1.25 != probability . . . feigning ignorance for humor; sardonic comments; etc.
Oops. Didn’t realize that you were being sarcastic. :-)

[WiccanPagan]

i wish they could play like a bookie. ie more bets you make better your odds. i'd be thinking renee, chicago, and scorcese would be a good trio.