1
00:00:04,680 --> 00:00:08,400
Speaker 1: From the red carpet arrivals to glamorous after parties.

2
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:10,920
Speaker 2: It's the most magical night of the year.

3
00:00:11,520 --> 00:00:19,239
Speaker 3: Let's gamble on the Academy Awards. Welcome into the Action

4
00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:22,959
Speaker 3: Network podcast. We are presented by Fan Duel. This is

5
00:00:23,000 --> 00:00:27,680
Speaker 3: your Oscar's Best Bets episode, with the ninety fifth presentation

6
00:00:27,920 --> 00:00:32,599
Speaker 3: of the Academy Awards taking place this Sunday night at

7
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 3: the Doby Theater in Los Angeles. Today's guests two Oscars

8
00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 3: betting experts here at Action Network, Colin Whitchurch and Matt Remkey,

9
00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:44,240
Speaker 3: plus an additional best bet from our Director of Talent,

10
00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:46,920
Speaker 3: Katie rich Creek that's coming up later at the end

11
00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:50,960
Speaker 3: of the show. Quick reminder. I can understand that some

12
00:00:51,040 --> 00:00:53,800
Speaker 3: of you might be like, when is the football talk

13
00:00:53,840 --> 00:00:57,840
Speaker 3: coming back to this podcast? Understandably so, our first NFL

14
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 3: Draft betting episode is coming. It's really Thursday morning, which

15
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:05,440
Speaker 3: is tomorrow. For our interest, today's Wednesday, So dry your eyes.

16
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:08,000
Speaker 3: We'll have NFL betting talk every week leading up to

17
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:11,720
Speaker 3: the Draft next month. We're gonna talk Oscars today as

18
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 3: a reminder as well. The Academy Awards betting preview with

19
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,399
Speaker 3: Chris Raybond and Colin Wilson dropped earlier in the week

20
00:01:17,440 --> 00:01:20,480
Speaker 3: on the Action Network podcast, So if you need more,

21
00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:24,760
Speaker 3: that's available to nine total best bets, we take a

22
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:28,920
Speaker 3: deep dive into the Action, ripping right through Colin Whitchurch.

23
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:32,560
Speaker 3: We will start with you, my friend, what do you got? Yeah?

24
00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:35,920
Speaker 2: My favorite bet for probably the entire show is for

25
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:40,440
Speaker 2: Best Documentary Feature. That is Fire of Love at plus

26
00:01:40,840 --> 00:01:43,399
Speaker 2: three p thirty. This is always one of the tougher

27
00:01:43,440 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 2: categories to predict. We've got a pretty strong favorite this

28
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:49,720
Speaker 2: year in Navalney, but I think Fire of Love is

29
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:56,640
Speaker 2: a live underdog. The cinem The Film Editors Association gave

30
00:01:56,680 --> 00:01:59,400
Speaker 2: out their annual awards just this past weekend. The ACE

31
00:01:59,560 --> 00:02:04,000
Speaker 2: Eddie Award Awards Best Edited Documentary went to Fire of Love.

32
00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:08,000
Speaker 2: In the last eight times that the ACE Eddie Award

33
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 2: winner was also nominated for Best Documentary at the Oscars,

34
00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:19,000
Speaker 2: that film went on to win Best Documentary. Now, historically,

35
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 2: the best predictor of Oscar success beyond that is the

36
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:26,560
Speaker 2: baf Does. The baft dosts have been right three of

37
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:29,400
Speaker 2: the last four years. The baff Does gave their award

38
00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 2: to Navalney. Last year they gave it to Summer of Soul,

39
00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:36,000
Speaker 2: which won Best Doc two years ago, My Octopus Teacher.

40
00:02:36,360 --> 00:02:39,920
Speaker 2: They've aligned more often than not the last couple of years.

41
00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:43,320
Speaker 2: The other documentary awards show that people kind of focus

42
00:02:43,400 --> 00:02:47,840
Speaker 2: on are the ideas. The Independent Documentary Association that went

43
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:49,519
Speaker 2: to All That Breeze, which was kind of a shot,

44
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:52,880
Speaker 2: because All That Breeze is even longer long shot than

45
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:57,120
Speaker 2: Fire of Love. However, four times in the last eleven years,

46
00:02:57,200 --> 00:02:59,919
Speaker 2: the Best Documentary at the Oscar has gone to neither

47
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:02,720
Speaker 2: the Ida Winner or the bath To Winner. It happened

48
00:03:02,720 --> 00:03:06,720
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen, twenty seventeen, twenty thirteen, and twenty eleven.

49
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:09,679
Speaker 2: I think we get it again here in twenty thirteen.

50
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:13,640
Speaker 2: Ben Zeusmer, the Oscar math guy. You might be familiar

51
00:03:13,639 --> 00:03:15,679
Speaker 2: with him on Twitter. He writes every year breaks down

52
00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:17,959
Speaker 2: the math behind the Oscars. He gives Fire of Love

53
00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:20,680
Speaker 2: a thirty one point six percent chance of winning, which

54
00:03:20,720 --> 00:03:24,480
Speaker 2: is just slightly behind Navalney's thirty four point three percent chance.

55
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 2: That odds imply Fire of Love should be plus two fifteen,

56
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,240
Speaker 2: so plus three thirty is great value. I think that

57
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 2: this is a category ripe for an upset, so Fire

58
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:37,240
Speaker 2: of Love plus three thirty. That's my favorite Oscar bet

59
00:03:37,240 --> 00:03:38,120
Speaker 2: of the entire show.

60
00:03:39,200 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 3: Love it, Matt Remke. I'm looking forward to your pick

61
00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 3: because the angle you're taking it almost has like my

62
00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:52,200
Speaker 3: name in it, except it's Pleasin not glass Sheen. And yes, yes,

63
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:53,600
Speaker 3: I mean just I just want to get that out

64
00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:55,720
Speaker 3: there to the people listening, is wait a minute, is

65
00:03:55,760 --> 00:03:59,160
Speaker 3: this guy actually involved in this particular award show? That

66
00:03:59,240 --> 00:04:00,520
Speaker 3: is not true, everybody, but go ahead.

67
00:04:00,920 --> 00:04:02,560
Speaker 1: The fix might be in that something we'll never be

68
00:04:02,640 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 1: able to know. I'm happy to make my Action Network

69
00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:10,400
Speaker 1: podcast debut, oh talking about companies, talking about movies today,

70
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:12,880
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna be focusing on some of the closer

71
00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 1: races we have at the Oscars, and my first one

72
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:18,479
Speaker 1: is going to be Best Original Screenplay and my pick

73
00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:21,880
Speaker 1: is going to be Banchees of Intersteer Them at plus

74
00:04:22,160 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 1: one hundred. Betting against favorites is very tough at the Oscars.

75
00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:29,960
Speaker 1: People who know that favorites dominate this thing. Over the

76
00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:32,479
Speaker 1: past two years. Favorites are thirty eight and eight in

77
00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:35,880
Speaker 1: all major award categories, and everything everywhere, all at once,

78
00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: deserves to be the favorite in this category. I'm not

79
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:42,039
Speaker 1: saying it doesn't It's the most artistic, dramatic, and oscar

80
00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:46,760
Speaker 1: worthy version of the multiverse story we've gotten lately. But

81
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:49,840
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the multiverse plot point

82
00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:52,960
Speaker 1: is front and center, and not one but two of

83
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:56,920
Speaker 1: the comic book movie studios. It is Popcorn's favorite plot device.

84
00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:00,679
Speaker 1: And they took a fascinating idea and told a fast story.

85
00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:03,080
Speaker 1: Banshees have been a sheerm I think had a more

86
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:07,000
Speaker 1: challenging task. They had a story about two guys who

87
00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:09,760
Speaker 1: two grown men who simply don't want to hang out anymore,

88
00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:13,880
Speaker 1: and they somehow made that incredibly fascinating. The whole movie

89
00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:17,680
Speaker 1: feels like a trance because the conflict is weirdly childish,

90
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:21,359
Speaker 1: kind of stupid actually, and it slowly becomes a deep

91
00:05:21,440 --> 00:05:25,000
Speaker 1: rooted emotional rollercoaster. It's a close race here. I think

92
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:29,359
Speaker 1: Banhi's what Banshees did with simplicity is more oppressive to

93
00:05:29,400 --> 00:05:33,640
Speaker 1: me than what everything everywhere did with creativity. At plus money,

94
00:05:33,680 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put my money in Ireland for this one.

95
00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:37,640
Speaker 3: Okay, let's go back to Colin. What do you have

96
00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:38,800
Speaker 3: for us your second pick?

97
00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 2: Yeah, my next best bet is best original score. And

98
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:45,040
Speaker 2: it's all quiet on the Western Front at plus one

99
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:48,479
Speaker 2: point seventy five. Babylon is actually the favorite here, and

100
00:05:48,520 --> 00:05:50,840
Speaker 2: benz Osmer, who I mentioned earlier, gives it about a

101
00:05:50,920 --> 00:05:53,839
Speaker 2: thirty percent chance of winning, with All Quiet checking in

102
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:55,719
Speaker 2: right behind it at twenty one point seven percent. This

103
00:05:55,760 --> 00:05:59,200
Speaker 2: is actually a wide open race. Babylon again at thirty percent,

104
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 2: All Quiet twenty one point seven, and then you have

105
00:06:01,520 --> 00:06:03,680
Speaker 2: the Fableman's there at nineteen point three. In Band She's

106
00:06:03,680 --> 00:06:06,000
Speaker 2: at eighteen point two. This is the one where the

107
00:06:06,000 --> 00:06:09,800
Speaker 2: math doesn't necessarily add up plus one seventy five doesn't

108
00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:12,159
Speaker 2: mesh with the twenty one point seven percent chance that

109
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:16,280
Speaker 2: All Quiet is given by benz Osmer. But it's against

110
00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:20,919
Speaker 2: Babylon more than anything else, because Babylon is only thirty

111
00:06:20,960 --> 00:06:23,560
Speaker 2: percent chance to win as the favorite, but it's minus

112
00:06:23,640 --> 00:06:27,599
Speaker 2: money favorite. I just don't think that makes sense. And

113
00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 2: in a wide open race like this, that means that

114
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:33,160
Speaker 2: an underdog is more likely to win. So I'm gonna

115
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:36,359
Speaker 2: go with the most likely hunderdog, if that makes sense.

116
00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:39,240
Speaker 2: All Quiet on the Western Front plus one seventy five.

117
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:41,440
Speaker 2: That's my bet there for best original score.

118
00:06:42,480 --> 00:06:44,960
Speaker 3: Matt Remkey, we haven't talked Black Panther yet you have

119
00:06:44,960 --> 00:06:46,640
Speaker 3: an angle on this particular film.

120
00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:48,840
Speaker 1: Absolutely, this is where I'm in my pocket. This is

121
00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: where I'm in my zone talking about the MCU. I'm

122
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 1: a child. This is my favorite type of movie. I've

123
00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:57,360
Speaker 1: grown up with the comic book genre of my entire life,

124
00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:00,680
Speaker 1: from the nineties to now. And to see angel Bassett

125
00:07:01,360 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 1: be nominated for Best Supporting Actress as Queen Romanda and

126
00:07:05,320 --> 00:07:08,000
Speaker 1: Black Panther Will Connor Forever already is such a win

127
00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:10,600
Speaker 1: for the fan base. But my pick is Angela Bassett

128
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,880
Speaker 1: Black Panther Will Connor Forever at plus one point thirty.

129
00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:17,000
Speaker 1: And you know, the nomination is already so big, But

130
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:20,080
Speaker 1: what makes this special is the weight behind it. The

131
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:23,040
Speaker 1: passing of Chadwick Boseman a handful of years ago. It

132
00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:26,600
Speaker 1: was so sudden and so impactful, and you know, speaking

133
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: for the nerd community leading into a Conda Forever, the

134
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:31,720
Speaker 1: only thing we talked about was how are they going

135
00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:33,920
Speaker 1: to make a sequel to one of the most important

136
00:07:33,920 --> 00:07:37,360
Speaker 1: comic book movies ever made but also pay an appropriate

137
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:40,880
Speaker 1: tribute to Chadwick Boseman. All the actors had a challenge

138
00:07:40,880 --> 00:07:43,400
Speaker 1: with this. I think everybody handled it well. But you

139
00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 1: watch Angela Bassett as Queen Romanda in this movie. It's cathartic,

140
00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:51,840
Speaker 1: it's it's a perfect blend of sadness and happiness, anger, acceptance.

141
00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:55,360
Speaker 1: Somehow she was able to find the exact emotion needed

142
00:07:55,400 --> 00:07:58,360
Speaker 1: to handle the challenge that was this movie and the

143
00:07:58,400 --> 00:08:01,440
Speaker 1: emotional weight behind it. So I'm gonna give her mind

144
00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:04,080
Speaker 1: not here in a very close race, because I think

145
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:08,120
Speaker 1: there's so much impact behind her performance this movie. And

146
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:10,160
Speaker 1: also she did it with the shoulders of a two

147
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:13,920
Speaker 1: thousand and nine Dwight Howard. She is absolutely ripped in

148
00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:15,840
Speaker 1: this movie, and that alone gets.

149
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 4: Her my vote.

150
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:19,440
Speaker 3: Colin, you have another angle on all quite on the

151
00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:22,560
Speaker 3: Western front. What would that be, my friend? Because you

152
00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:23,880
Speaker 3: have another wave you can play this.

153
00:08:24,440 --> 00:08:27,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going back to the screenplay category. Matt talked

154
00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:30,080
Speaker 2: about original screenplay earlier. I'm going to adapt and screenplay

155
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:33,240
Speaker 2: and this is probably the most fascinating category of the

156
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:36,800
Speaker 2: entire show, only because the top two contenders all quite

157
00:08:36,880 --> 00:08:40,160
Speaker 2: on the Western front and women talking haven't squared off

158
00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:43,520
Speaker 2: at all in award season because all the different award

159
00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 2: shows have different eligibility rules for screenplay nominations. Every single

160
00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 2: award show before that, either one of them wasn't nominated

161
00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:55,400
Speaker 2: because it wasn't nominated, or one of them was nominated

162
00:08:55,400 --> 00:08:59,640
Speaker 2: because it was an eligible The OSCARS is a very

163
00:08:59,679 --> 00:09:02,920
Speaker 2: strange animal with adapted screenplay with its eligibility for this.

164
00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:07,880
Speaker 2: For example, any sequel is automatically an adapted screenplay, even

165
00:09:07,880 --> 00:09:11,280
Speaker 2: if it's an original thought, because it's technically adapted from

166
00:09:11,360 --> 00:09:13,679
Speaker 2: its original piece of work. That's why Top Gun Maverick

167
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:17,040
Speaker 2: is an adapted screenplay. That's why Glass Onion is adapted streamplay.

168
00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:18,880
Speaker 2: That's why Avatar would be an adapted screenplay if that

169
00:09:18,920 --> 00:09:22,400
Speaker 2: had been nominated. However, going back to the original point,

170
00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:25,280
Speaker 2: this is essentially a two horse race right now because

171
00:09:25,480 --> 00:09:27,800
Speaker 2: none of living Top Gun, Maverick or Glass Onion has

172
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:29,880
Speaker 2: more than about a five percent chance of winning. This

173
00:09:29,920 --> 00:09:32,480
Speaker 2: is women talking against All Quiet on the Western Front,

174
00:09:32,679 --> 00:09:35,200
Speaker 2: and Women Talking has a ton of momentum right now.

175
00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:37,960
Speaker 2: It won the USC Scriptors Award this past weekend. It

176
00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:42,120
Speaker 2: won it the Writers Guild. However, All Quiet wasn't nominated

177
00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:44,920
Speaker 2: by the Writers Guild, and All Quiet won the BAFTA

178
00:09:45,280 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 2: the last time, I'm sorry, the last two times the

179
00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 2: Writers Guild and the baft TO disagreed, which it did

180
00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 2: in this case, it went to the BAFTA winner, and

181
00:09:53,840 --> 00:09:56,880
Speaker 2: I think that trend continues here. The baft has correctly

182
00:09:56,880 --> 00:09:59,240
Speaker 2: predicted the Oscars in each of the last five years

183
00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:01,920
Speaker 2: and stick of the last seven years, with the only

184
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:06,040
Speaker 2: exception coming in twenty sixteen. If the trend continues, the

185
00:10:06,080 --> 00:10:08,000
Speaker 2: Oscars agree with the bat is All Quite on the

186
00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:12,680
Speaker 2: Western Front has the momentum here It's actually been moving

187
00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:15,719
Speaker 2: in women talkings directions. So now All Quite on the

188
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:17,640
Speaker 2: Western Front is plus one eighty and I think there's

189
00:10:17,679 --> 00:10:18,440
Speaker 2: good value there.

190
00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:20,960
Speaker 3: Well, more from each of you will go to Remkey,

191
00:10:20,960 --> 00:10:23,079
Speaker 3: and then we'll wrap with Colin and then our special

192
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:24,440
Speaker 3: pick from Katie rich Creek.

193
00:10:25,520 --> 00:10:28,520
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I'm gonna go to Best Film Editing and a

194
00:10:28,559 --> 00:10:30,400
Speaker 1: little bit of a personal pick here for me, but

195
00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:33,560
Speaker 1: I don't really care. It's top Gun Maverick at plus

196
00:10:33,760 --> 00:10:36,600
Speaker 1: one seventy five. Going back to the well, another underdog,

197
00:10:36,679 --> 00:10:37,679
Speaker 1: another blockbuster.

198
00:10:38,040 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 2: Again.

199
00:10:38,360 --> 00:10:40,560
Speaker 1: The favorite here is everything Everywhere, all at once, and

200
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:44,320
Speaker 1: again a very worthy favorite in this category. My argument

201
00:10:44,360 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 1: against it is actually really similar to my argument in

202
00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:51,040
Speaker 1: the Best Original Screenplay category. The idea of the multiverse

203
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:55,680
Speaker 1: lends itself to creative and fantastic editing the same way

204
00:10:55,880 --> 00:10:59,880
Speaker 1: a biopick roll lends itself to a Best Actor nomination

205
00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:03,520
Speaker 1: one way or the other. I think Taka Maverick as

206
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:06,280
Speaker 1: an underdog here has a little bit of juice. It

207
00:11:06,440 --> 00:11:10,520
Speaker 1: just has such a big screen, big screen charm to it,

208
00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:13,520
Speaker 1: and the editing plays such a role to that, capturing

209
00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:16,320
Speaker 1: the eighties vibes, being in the cockpit with all the pilots.

210
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:19,000
Speaker 1: But for me, it's the scene with Val Kilmer, and

211
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:22,920
Speaker 1: it's the way that they have two iconic actors talking

212
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:25,120
Speaker 1: to each other, one of them can't even speak, the

213
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:27,960
Speaker 1: way that they use the text on screen, letting both

214
00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:30,920
Speaker 1: Cruise and Kilmer eat. You know, like I said, a

215
00:11:30,920 --> 00:11:32,800
Speaker 1: little bit of a personal pick, just because I really

216
00:11:32,880 --> 00:11:35,880
Speaker 1: do think the editing brings so much weight to this

217
00:11:35,960 --> 00:11:38,840
Speaker 1: movie in a blockbuster kind of way. I think this

218
00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:40,880
Speaker 1: is one of the best steals ever made. I think

219
00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:42,840
Speaker 1: this is one of the best action movies ever made,

220
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:44,560
Speaker 1: and I want it to win an award. This is

221
00:11:44,600 --> 00:11:46,760
Speaker 1: my spot where I think it could maybe make some

222
00:11:46,840 --> 00:11:48,280
Speaker 1: noise at plus one seventy five.

223
00:11:48,880 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 3: All right, Colin, what do you got?

224
00:11:50,240 --> 00:11:51,880
Speaker 2: I've actually got two more picks here, but I'll roll

225
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:53,959
Speaker 2: through them real quick because they're both kind of boring.

226
00:11:54,000 --> 00:11:57,880
Speaker 2: Math plays best in amatography for Elvis plus three forty.

227
00:11:58,520 --> 00:12:00,880
Speaker 2: Benz Osmer's Oscar math gives it a twenty seven point

228
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:03,400
Speaker 2: nine percent chance of winning, which implies odds of plus

229
00:12:03,480 --> 00:12:06,480
Speaker 2: two fifty eight. So plus three forty is good value.

230
00:12:06,840 --> 00:12:08,880
Speaker 2: The favorite there is all quite on the Western Front,

231
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:10,920
Speaker 2: a movie that I've talked about quite a bit already.

232
00:12:11,320 --> 00:12:14,080
Speaker 2: It's minus three forty, which would imply a seventy seven

233
00:12:14,080 --> 00:12:16,760
Speaker 2: percent chance of winning, but it's only been being given

234
00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:19,640
Speaker 2: a forty eight point four chance of percent chance of

235
00:12:19,679 --> 00:12:22,960
Speaker 2: winning by ben Zousmer's model. I want you to keep

236
00:12:22,960 --> 00:12:24,319
Speaker 2: in mind. I'll do a little bit aside here. I

237
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:26,200
Speaker 2: want you to keep in mind that when you're betting

238
00:12:26,320 --> 00:12:30,319
Speaker 2: underdogs at the Oscars, you're not going to win as

239
00:12:30,360 --> 00:12:32,120
Speaker 2: often as you lose. I think that's the case with

240
00:12:33,080 --> 00:12:36,800
Speaker 2: any betting. Benzosmer's model correctly predicted the favorite in nineteen

241
00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:39,199
Speaker 2: of twenty categories last year. The favorite is going to

242
00:12:39,240 --> 00:12:41,320
Speaker 2: win more often than not. However, this year's show is

243
00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:44,600
Speaker 2: a little bit more wide open, with favorites getting less

244
00:12:44,600 --> 00:12:47,800
Speaker 2: than fifty percent odds to win. So that's why we're

245
00:12:47,840 --> 00:12:50,600
Speaker 2: looking at a lot of underdogs here. The other underdog

246
00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:53,080
Speaker 2: I'm looking at right now is Best Original Song, Lift

247
00:12:53,120 --> 00:12:55,640
Speaker 2: Me Up by Rihanna at plus four thirty. I know

248
00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:59,079
Speaker 2: Colin Wilson and Chris Raybond talked about this as one

249
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:01,960
Speaker 2: of their favorite bets the other day. I am on

250
00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:05,000
Speaker 2: board here, despite the fact that I will be aggrieved

251
00:13:05,040 --> 00:13:06,959
Speaker 2: and I will be devastated if not to not To

252
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:10,320
Speaker 2: does not win Best Original Song because r RR and

253
00:13:10,400 --> 00:13:14,800
Speaker 2: that song fucking rule. Not to not Too's at forty

254
00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:17,760
Speaker 2: five point nine percent based on Zosmer's model, but at

255
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:20,400
Speaker 2: minus four thirty, you'd expect it to be more around

256
00:13:20,400 --> 00:13:23,440
Speaker 2: eighty percent of the time. Lift Me Up is obviously

257
00:13:23,520 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 2: a more critical acclaimed song. It's by Rihanna. Everyone's familiar

258
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:30,480
Speaker 2: with Rihanna. Everyone loves Rihanna. It's at twenty one. It's

259
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:32,920
Speaker 2: at twenty point one percent by his z Osmer's model,

260
00:13:32,920 --> 00:13:35,360
Speaker 2: which implies plus four hundred. So there's a small edge

261
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:38,520
Speaker 2: there on the Rihanna song. I'll be sprinkling that while

262
00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:41,160
Speaker 2: hoping I lose my money because I want to see

263
00:13:41,320 --> 00:13:44,040
Speaker 2: RRR get the credit it deserves.

264
00:13:44,640 --> 00:13:48,880
Speaker 3: So perhaps the Rihanna super Bowl momentum is real here

265
00:13:48,920 --> 00:13:52,040
Speaker 3: in the month of March, and again, as Colin referenced,

266
00:13:52,040 --> 00:13:55,280
Speaker 3: you can find the Academy Awards betting preview from Raybahn

267
00:13:55,360 --> 00:13:58,199
Speaker 3: and Colin Wilson on the Action Network podcast Before we Go,

268
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:00,360
Speaker 3: We Know have Katie rich Creek join us us here

269
00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:03,000
Speaker 3: quickly with her favorite Oscars bet.

270
00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:06,880
Speaker 4: Thanks guys. My best bet for this year's Academy Awards

271
00:14:06,960 --> 00:14:09,439
Speaker 4: is going to be in the Best Actress category. This

272
00:14:09,480 --> 00:14:12,560
Speaker 4: is effectively a two woman race between Michelle Yo from

273
00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:15,880
Speaker 4: Everything Everywhere, All at Once and Kate Blanchett for Tar,

274
00:14:16,320 --> 00:14:19,240
Speaker 4: but the odds no longer reflect that after they're both

275
00:14:19,320 --> 00:14:21,720
Speaker 4: listed at minus money Earlier this week, Yeah, I was

276
00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:24,400
Speaker 4: now the clear favorite at minus one forty and Blanchett

277
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:27,200
Speaker 4: is now at plus one oh five. From a totally

278
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:31,240
Speaker 4: subjective POV, I do believe Blanchett's performance was stronger than Yo's.

279
00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:34,920
Speaker 4: Her character, Lydia Tar is not your typical villain, and

280
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 4: Blanchet's masterful performance of her not only carries that movie

281
00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:42,960
Speaker 4: but forces the audience to grapple with the vast gray

282
00:14:43,040 --> 00:14:46,640
Speaker 4: area that most symbols of power exist within. Most are

283
00:14:46,680 --> 00:14:49,320
Speaker 4: not all good, most are not all bad, and Blanchet's

284
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:53,080
Speaker 4: performance of Lydia tar makes it impossible to escape that truth. Now,

285
00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:56,320
Speaker 4: momentum is on Yo's side. She won Best Actress at

286
00:14:56,320 --> 00:14:59,840
Speaker 4: the Screen Actors Guilds Awards about a week ago, which

287
00:14:59,880 --> 00:15:03,280
Speaker 4: is last notable precursor before the Oscars. But the SAgs

288
00:15:03,320 --> 00:15:06,560
Speaker 4: are not the most predictive for Best Actress at the

289
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:10,000
Speaker 4: Academy Awards, and I know that thanks to our friend

290
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:12,560
Speaker 4: ben z Osmer and the historical research he did for

291
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:15,800
Speaker 4: his book Oscar Metrics. The more predictive show leading up

292
00:15:15,840 --> 00:15:18,120
Speaker 4: to the Oscars for this award is the Golden Globes,

293
00:15:18,320 --> 00:15:21,160
Speaker 4: which What's Acting awards by drama and category, and Kate

294
00:15:21,160 --> 00:15:24,960
Speaker 4: Blanchett won the more predictive of the two, i e. Drama.

295
00:15:25,640 --> 00:15:28,200
Speaker 3: To be clear, she didn't beat Yo at the Globes.

296
00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:31,280
Speaker 4: Yo was nominated in the comedy category, but Blanchett did

297
00:15:31,320 --> 00:15:34,440
Speaker 4: win Best Actress head to head against Yo at the Critics' Choice,

298
00:15:34,480 --> 00:15:37,560
Speaker 4: and the BAF does so. Between winning those precursors and

299
00:15:37,600 --> 00:15:39,800
Speaker 4: the odds movement we saw earlier this week, this is

300
00:15:39,880 --> 00:15:42,880
Speaker 4: ultimately a value play for me. This award is, as

301
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:46,160
Speaker 4: I mentioned, effectively a toss up between the two. Blanchet

302
00:15:46,160 --> 00:15:48,920
Speaker 4: was favored to win earlier this Award season. Yo then

303
00:15:49,000 --> 00:15:51,480
Speaker 4: lead brogged her after winning at the SAgs, and now

304
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:53,440
Speaker 4: the distance between them on the odds board is too

305
00:15:53,480 --> 00:15:56,960
Speaker 4: great for me to ignore, especially with Blanchet at plus money. Thankfully,

306
00:15:57,080 --> 00:15:59,920
Speaker 4: Osmer did release his Oscar metrics model this morning which

307
00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:03,320
Speaker 4: corroborates this prediction for me. He does have Blanchet winning

308
00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:05,800
Speaker 4: it nearly fifty three percent of a time, compared to

309
00:16:05,840 --> 00:16:07,960
Speaker 4: you at only twenty six percent of a time. So,

310
00:16:08,040 --> 00:16:09,920
Speaker 4: as far as I'm concerned, give me a Blanchet at

311
00:16:09,920 --> 00:16:11,040
Speaker 4: anything plus money.

312
00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:15,080
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you very much, Katie. That will do it

313
00:16:15,240 --> 00:16:19,160
Speaker 3: for us. Thanks for tuning in, everybody, for Colin wit Church,

314
00:16:19,320 --> 00:16:23,960
Speaker 3: Matt Remkey, Brendan Glass Sheen. Everyone enjoy the Oscars on Sunday,

315
00:16:24,040 --> 00:16:27,640
Speaker 3: the ninety fifth presentation of the Academy Awards Sunday night

316
00:16:27,960 --> 00:16:30,560
Speaker 3: in Los Angeles. We'll be tuning in. Best of luck

317
00:16:30,720 --> 00:16:32,640
Speaker 3: and we'll join you next time on the Action Network

318
00:16:32,680 --> 00:16:37,360
Speaker 3: podcast presented by Fandom. All right, you've really made this

319
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:40,520
Speaker 3: a night to remember it every way. Now let's go

320
00:16:40,600 --> 00:16:41,560
Speaker 3: party till dawn.

321
00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:51,720
Speaker 1: Action Network reminds you please gamble responsibly.

322
00:16:52,120 --> 00:16:54,960
Speaker 3: If you or someone you care about has a gambling problem,

323
00:16:55,240 --> 00:16:57,880
Speaker 3: help is available twenty four to seven at one eight

324
00:16:57,960 --> 00:16:58,760
Speaker 3: hundred gambler