I think that the objections you raise to use of one chart for the games (changing angles, etc.) would apply to the vast majority of horary charts. When will my dog come home will have, perhaps, many rotations of the angles, and yet I've never seen anyone say we should cast multiple charts. Or the chart for a trip. Perhaps you stop for a day ot two to see the sights, or to rest. You don't cast another chart for the resumption of the journey: the stopover was just a part of the trip.

My thinking at the moment is not that the fundamental idea of a single chart for the game is invalid, but rather that we are not using all the tools that are necessary to interpret the one chart correctly. As I said in an earlier post, it has been my experience over the years that if you're having trouble doing a certain job one of the likley causes is a lack of the appropriate tools.

As I have shown in this chart, and several others I have posted, it appears that the missing tools are midpoints and some of the other Arabic parts. As far as using non-standard tools goes, followers of Frawley's method should keep in mind that you are already using two unusual tools: Fortuna and antiscia. Most astrologers probably know what Fortuna is, tho I doubt more than a very few actually use it, and I doubt most astrologers even know what antiscia are. Of all the non-standard tools midpoints are by far the best known and most used, and so it is puzzling to me why there is such reluctance to accept that they may be valid in these charts. I suspect at least part of the answer may lie in the well-known laziness of most astrologers: everyone wants to put up a chart with as few points as possible in it, and from that they expect to call the results of the games.

Sorry guys: it doesn't work that way.

This chart for the Superbowl was kind of a wakeup call for me. By Frawley's own rules this was a very emminent game, and his method should have worked 'excellently'. It didn't. I am finding in my continuing research, and I know Videohero is finding the same, that Frawley's method doesn't work nearly as well as he would like us to believe. I plan to spend more time evaluating Mason's method, and if anyone would like to share their experiences with it I would be happy to hear them.

Regards,

Bob