john wrote:I wouldn't expect results on football games just to be decided on radicality.
I see you have the games as favourites, or not. With the printout on the combinations of LHR/Ascendant ruler they were described as home team/away team.

Hi again John,

yes, I have the information about who won (Home vs Away), who's the favorite (Home or Away), and if the chart is radical, "I'll say" the favorite, else, the underdog. Then I compare both the favorite and chart radicality info with the winner. As I've said, it does not seem to work well enough for football games.

About the subject of different leagues, I'm testing only one league (PT First League), but sometimes there are games at the same day/hour with different outcomes (regarding Home/Away).

But I'm not giving up yet!

Neptunehead wrote:Of course, Joao.

I have only been studying radicality for 24 hours so hope I have understood the technique correctly.

Neptunehead,

thanks for the info.
I'll check your results, and if I find any mismatch, I'll post here..


Regards,
Jo?o Ventura

Neptunehead,

I've check your notes about the Hour ruler agreement against my program, and everything matches except one.

On Doncaster, race 3 (14h50), you say that the LH and Asc Ruler are in signs of the same triplicity. However, I got LH=Moon in Libra and Asc Ruler (Sun) in Pisces.

Could you check if LH is indeed the Moon? If not, what software are you using and at what time did the LH changed to the next one (Saturn?)..


Thanks,
Jo?o Ventura

Joao

For Race 3, I have Saturn as LHR by 3 mins in Solar Fire Gold v8.

Let me know if this helps.

Thanks.

The Lord of the Hour is changing as the 14:50 race starts. Depending on exactly which option you have selected for the calculation of the time of sunrise the planetary hour changes just before 14:50, or just after.

The Sun starts to rise when its upper edge comes over the horizon and is fully risen when the whole disc is above the horizon. This process can take a few minutes, and in this case it makes a difference to the Lord of the Hour when the race starts.

I suggest ignoring races that start just before, or just after, the planetary hour changes.

Neptunehead wrote:Joao

For Race 3, I have Saturn as LHR by 3 mins in Solar Fire Gold v8.

Let me know if this helps.

Thanks.

Hi Neptune,

it helps indeed.. On my software, it only changes planetary rulership from Moon to Saturn less than a minute later. Nothing problematic though, it is either SolarFire or skyPlux (my software) which is wrong... Probably it's mine!

EDIT: Graham just posted that both softwares can be right! Thanks!


Thanks,
Jo?o Ventura

Just keeping with the horse racing theme

There seems to be a couple of ways of following the results.

The first is as we have been doing them, that is looking at the 'flow' of planetary energy each day.

The alternative is to look at the different race groups over the horse season. For example there are Group 1 races (which is the equivalent of the football Premiership). This starts with the 2000 Guineas towards the end of April. The flow of these equivalent standard races are potentially able to be considered over several months.

A quick summary of today's racing using the Radicality technique.

Ayr - 71% Correct

Huntingdon - 57% Correct

Sedgefield - 85% Correct

What's interesting is that this evenings card at Wolverhampton only scored 38% correct, and was the weakest performing. The same thing happened with yesterday's evening card at Kempton.

Maybe low grade racing doesn't resonate so much? More investigation needed...

Neptunehead wrote:A quick summary of today's racing using the Radicality technique.

Hi Neptunehead,

may I suggest you to publish also the numbers assuming the case where the favorite always wins?

In statistics, it is important to have a basis for comparison, to see if an approach is better that a baseline method. You can have a baseline random method, or preferably, a method based on the selection of the favorite.

For instance, using the hour rulers for "my" football research, I had "success" of 40% (which is better than the 33% random), but inferior to always selecting the Home Team (44%) or always selecting the Favorite (55%). However, since the Hour Ruler was based on information about the favorite, and I had lower results, I cannot claim that Astrology has anything to do with it (mainly because I attribute the degradation of the results to randomness)..

My opinion (and scientifically valid) is that the hour ruler method is only interesting if consistently scores higher (in average) than a baseline method.


Regards,
Jo?o Ventura

Hi Jo?o

I would be happy to study all races over the next 7 days, and post the results here.

I am a complete novice when it comes to working with data/statistics and would really appreciate your advice on how best to proceed.

How should I present this?

Plus, should I also record what the moon is doing in relation to POF and/or the angles?

NH

Neptunehead wrote: I am a complete novice when it comes to working with data/statistics and would really appreciate your advice on how best to proceed.
How should I present this?

Hi again Neptunehead,

do you know how to use a spreadsheet such as Excel (or LibreOffice Calc)?
With a spreadsheet, after setting it up (which is the hard part), it gets much much easier...

But if you want to keep it simple for now, just do as you were doing:
- race course (date/location/time?)
- the radicality reasons for each race
- and outcome for each race

Then for each race course (for the 7/8 races), just write:
- the statistics as if you choose always the favorite (number of times favorite won divided by the number of races)
- and the statistics for the method (the number of times the method work divided by the number of races - like you've done in the previous post of yours).

The comparison of both statistics over some set of races will provide you with enough information to decide if it promising to continue or not.

Neptunehead wrote: Plus, should I also record what the moon is doing in relation to POF and/or the angles?

If you think it's relevant, I guess yes!

However, personally, I would try to see first if the hour ruler method is promising enough. For this, if you have average results for the method consistently higher than, say, 5% to 10% of just choosing the favorite, then you may be getting something relevant here.

If the statistics for the hour ruler method is the same as choosing always the favorite, or worse, then you may want try other things, such as the moon to POF or angles!

(If you decide to continue after some time, I suggest to think about using a spreadsheet. It allows you to organize better your results)


Regards,
Jo?o Ventura

Neptunehead wrote:What's interesting is that this evenings card at Wolverhampton only scored 38% correct, and was the weakest performing. The same thing happened with yesterday's evening card at Kempton.

Maybe low grade racing doesn't resonate so much? More investigation needed...

About your last sentence, I don't know much about horse races, but I suspect that for those cases, even the statistics for choosing always the Favorite may not be that high..

If that is the case, it may be because in low grade racing, there is less study about odds and favorites (read, less money), and thus, "quality" is lower..

If this happens to be the case, it can serve as demonstration of the interest on having always a baseline statistic. If not, I stand up for my ignorance about horse racings!


Jo?o Ventura

Thanks, Jo?o - most helpful!

I have excel and will record all of the today's findings, broken down as suggested.

I think you are right about sticking to just Radicality for now. My thinking was in a few charts I noted that the Moon was in hard aspect to the POF and even though the chart was Radical, the fav lost - maybe the moon was being blocked from conducting the 'flow of events'.

Would you mind if I emailed you today's study in excel so you could check it out before I proceed with the next 6 days of investigation?

I would really appreciate your feedback in terms of worksheet set-up and rules.