Treasures in the trash: 5 betting gems on the 2024 Golden Raspberry Awards

Under the radar, this year’s Razzies present statistical anomalies for bettors willing to get down and dirty in the pursuit of profits to honour bad filmmaking.

Worst Picture bets in the bag

In August 2023, I wrote that Big Shark was destined for Razzies glory. However, by December of the same year, Tommy Wiseau’s latest film was underseen and was not popping up in the annual worst of lists.

Seeing the writing on the wall that Big Shark was going to miss out on nominations, in January I then recommended the following Razzies bets on X:

• Ghosted 19-1 odds

• Expend4bles 17-1

• Shazam! Fury of the Gods 17-1

While Ghosted missed a Worst Picture nomination, Expend4bles (now odds $2.88) was popular among Razzies voting members as well as Shazam! Fury of the Gods (now $5.00).

Bet against Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey

The frontrunner status of Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey to win Worst Picture is undeserved. The film knows what it is and is not attempting to be anything else: bad schlock and horror.

The pattern of Worst Picture winners points to either high profile duds like Cats or political fare like Absolute Proof. Pooh belongs to neither group and pattern of previous winners.

How to use Worst Picture as the anchor to build a betting thesis

At the Academy Awards, a bread and butter statistical correlation that our team of analysts apply is using Best Picture as the base upon which acting wins will historically win.

Since 2009, which was the start of the preferential voting system for Best Picture, an Actor win has matched with a Picture nomination 12 of the last 13 years (92%). The same Best Picture nomination for acting wins is also strong:

• Best Actress 8/13 or 62%

• Best Supporting Actress 10/13 or 77%

• Best Supporting Actor 12/13 or 92%

Does the same methodology apply to the Razzies? Across the last ten years, the answer is a thumping yes:

• Worst Actor 9/10 or 90%

• Worst Supporting Actor 6/10 or 60%

• Worst Actress 7/10 or 70%

• Worst Supporting Actress 6/10 or 60%

• Worst Screen Combo 7/10 or 70%

Using these statistics as a roadmap, there are several value bets, all as small conviction plays.

44th Golden Raspberry Awards - Worst Actor - Jason Statham

Using the 90% Worst Picture anchor as the basis of this bet, there is only one performer whose film is also nominated for Worst Picture: Jason Statham in Meg 2: The Trench.

Jason Statham, $4.00 Sportsbet

44th Golden Raspberry Awards - Worst Actress - Helen Mirren

The peculiarity in the Worst Actor race also appears in the Worst Actress race, with Helen Mirren’s turn in Shazam! Fury of the Gods as the only acting performance that correlates with a Worst Picture nomination. The other four contenders are not anchored by a Worst Picture nomination.

Helen Mirren, $3.00 Sportsbet

44th Golden Raspberry Awards - Worst Supporting Actor - Sylvester Stallone

Stallone has dominated the Razzies, and his Expend4bles is shaping up to have a bad night. Over the last 10 years, a Supporting Actor win has correlated with a Worst Picture nomination on 6 occasions.

Expend4bles is well placed to win the big prize, and Stallone’s trophy cabinet will likely be filled with one more dishonourable prize.

Sylvester Stallone, $2.50 Sportsbet

44th Golden Raspberry Awards - Worst Supporting Actress - Megan Fox & Lucy Liu

Like Supporting Actor, the winner in this category has matched with a Worst Picture nomination 6/10.

Megan Fox (Expend4bles) and Lucy Liu (Shazam! Fury of the Gods) are the only two performers in contention with a Worst Picture nomination.

Megan Fox, $2.37 Sportsbet
Lucy Liu, $6.00 Sportsbet