not so much

Along with the standard betting on Oscar Odds, come the much more interesting and novel side bets. Here are some of them:

Betting has been placed on the likelihood of a winner of a major award, Best Actress or Best Actor, shedding a tear. Last year there was a 4/1 payout and bettors in favour of the stiff upper lip ended up cleaning up when, despite Kate Winslett’s voice getting a little wobbly for a moment, she managed to keep the tears well contained.

In 2010 the focus seemed to be on the dresses worn by the female contingent. You could bet on the name/manufacturer of the dress worn by the Best Actress. The deceased Alexander McQueen was at the top with 7/4 to be the name worn by the winning leading lady.

The odds were in favour of Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress, but she wore McQueen to the SAG Awards so the question was would she dare to wear the same designer twice? Instyle Magazine predicted that Bullock would be best in Armani Prive. In the end she won the Oscar but wore a Marchesa gown.

More tears were betted on this year in the category of ‘Best Male Actor to cry during his acceptance speech’ at 3/1.

There was an 8/1 payout if anybody dropped their Oscar on stage during handover, and another one for any actor who was unfortunate enough to trip and fall. If any actor or actress said the words "Tiger Woods" in their speech, they were looking at 10/1. There was a 12/1 payout for anyone breaking the record for longest speech (held by Greer Garson at 5 minutes and 30 seconds), at a 12/1 payout.

Lastly, any nominated actress to be photographed in a Janet Jackson-style wardrobe malfunction would be paid off at 14/1 while a streaker appearing on stage during the ceremony (fully nude) would pay a solid 100/1.

It seems the events that go on in the imaginations of the Academy Award viewers and bettors are more exciting than the actual show.

Gambling is illegal in Texas. The state from which Texas Hold’em Poker originated does not legally allow its people to gamble. During the running for Texas Governor earlier this year several of the candidates highlighted the legalization of gambling as the primary focus of their campaigns.

In Texas law, gambling is defined as “an agreement to win or lose something of value solely or partially by chance”,” betting on any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other  gambling device” is considered illegal. The only time that these games are allowed is when there is no entry fee and no other way of losing money. The ‘chance’ factor is where the trouble starts. Advocates of poker are arguing that poker is in fact a game of skill, not chance.

Noted humorist author and musician, Kinky Friedman, who was running for Texas governor, argued that by legalizing casino gaming many of the state’s financial problems could be solved. With the money received from the taxing of casinos teachers could get raises, tolls could be removed to make roads free and the infrastructure could be improved. Added to this is his argument that Texans are still gambling anyway- they just drive to others states to do so.

Despite all the pro-gambling lobbying, the game still remains illegal in Texas. Arguments for and against gambling are strong but it seems the bottom line is that people will gamble whether it’s illegal or not and if this aspect was capitalized upon Texas could stand to benefit greatly from it.