awesome stuff

In reply to GB's comments on Sepharial's method.

I think he is quite clearly speaking to an audience of astrologers.
If Sepharial used sun signs as the basis of his method he could address the public.
But most non-astrologers would be hard put to find the MC or even know what it meant.

You distinguish between simple and proper means of arriving at the houses.
I think this is a false distinction, a more complicated method of calculating houses does not make it more "proper".

Sepharial stops where Astrology starts - at the MC.
And in the circumstances this could well be the correct thing to do.

Frawley talked about the food chain of Astrology and the appropriateness of tools and techniques as you move up the food chain.
Here, right at the bottom of the food chain, Sepharial could well be right to go no further then the MC.

Any weight on the Scale can be indicated.

Sepharial's formula for finding the Direct Proportion is
DP = half the scale * Measure / 90
And the Converse Proportion is half the scale - DP.

The Measure ranges from 0 to a (theoretical) 45.

At a Measure of 0 the Proportions of the Scale are 0 and 50%, normally from the top and bottom, but they may be reversed.
At Measure of 45 the Proportions of the Scale are 25% and 25%.

For the measure to be 45 the Significator must be mid-house and as the Significator is that which is closest to a house cusp this is almost nigh impossible.
Once a prospective Significator moves beyond 7.5 degrees from the cusp, it is likely that another will be the significator.
So 37.5 or 38 rounded may be a more likely practical maximum measure giving Proportions of the Scale of 21% and 29%.

What you identify as a "bug" in Sepharial's method, that not all weights are equally likely to be indicated, may be more of a "feature".
Either by accident or by design, as above so below. Sepharial's astrology reflects the real world where top weights tend to win.

Using your half-quadrant divisor, will tend to find midweight targets, and is likely to prove less successful in finding winners.

Frawley, when discussing, football predictions, bemoaned the fact that he was seldom asked the question which would allow him to move up the food chain and use horary techniques.

For the two races asked about Sepharial did well to find an 11/1 winner and a placed 5/1 in one race and a non-advised placed 33/1 in the other.

skyrack wrote:Sepharial's formula for finding the Direct Proportion is
DP = half the scale * Measure / 90
And the Converse Proportion is half the scale - DP.

The Measure ranges from 0 to a (theoretical) 45.

Suppose the weights run from 9-0 to 10-0, so the scale is 14 and half the scale is 7.
If the measure is 0 we have DP = 7 * 0 / 90 = 0 and converse = 7 ? 0 = 7
If the measure is 30 we have DP = 7 * 30 / 90 = 7 / 3 = 2.33 and converse = 7 ? 2.33 = 4.66
If the measure is 45 (the maximum it can be) we have DP = 7 * 45 / 90 = 3.5 and converse = 3.5

The indicated weights would be:
Measure 0 gives 10-0 and 9-7
Measure 30 gives 9-11.66 and 9-4.66
Measure 45 gives 9-10.5 and 9-3.5

It seems to me that the only weights indicated are 9-10.5 up to 10-00, and 9-3.5 up to 9-7
The only cases where other weights (such as the bottom weight 9-0) could be indicated are if DP and converse are switched. This may be what Sepharial intended, but it seems unlikely as the switching indication is quite rare.

The switching condition I would not describe as rare.
It is less common but still quite frequent.

It does require calculating the target weights for both the non-significators though.

It is the switching mechanism that does provide full coverage of any scale, as you say.

Yesterday's 13:45 Listowel is a pertinent race re reversing/switching the Proportions.

Sepharial first says to reverse the Proportions of the Significator if the non-significators show the same weights as each other but these are different from the Significator's.

Then for a particular example race he adds another condition: that the Measure of both non-significators is to the same Angle.

I have not fully made up my mind on the second condition, and currently do not apply it.

So, for me at least, the switch does take place for this race.
And as it happens, the bottom weight became the indicated horse.
It duly delivered at 7/1.

GB - what conditions do you apply to trigger the switch?

skyrack wrote:Then for a particular example race he adds another condition: that the Measure of both non-significators is to the same Angle.

I have not fully made up my mind on the second condition, and currently do not apply it.


GB - what conditions do you apply to trigger the switch?

I do require the second condition, which may be why I find it is rare.

Yes - applying the second condition would make reversal much rarer.
That second condition has some interesting ramifications for the "simple" house method employed by Sepharial. I am just working through them now.

As an aside to that, do you use a night-time formula for the PoF with evening races or not?

Yes - applying the second condition would make reversal much rarer.
That second condition has some interesting ramifications for the "simple" house method employed by Sepharial. I am just working through them now.

As an aside to that, do you use a night-time formula for the PoF with evening races or not?

I avoid the issue by not looking at races that start after sunset. There are plenty of daytime races to analyse and I don't want to introduce yet another uncertainty.

Astrogooner,

Why don't you work through it for yourself?
All the information you need is on this thread.

The chart is very minimal: Angles and Sun, Moon and PoF.

I hope you were on the winner which you asked for.

GB,

Yes - that avoids the issue, and one that did not concern Sepharial.

Re the second condition for switching:

For non-significators to take their Measure from the same Angle, they must be within 90 degrees of each other.
The Sun and Moon can only be in concert a quarter of the time around the new moon from the waning crescent to the waxing crescent.

Taking the big race of the day, as an example, at say, 4pm in the summer and 3pm in the winter, and ignoring for the sake of argument any longitudinal difference, the Sun is in the 8th House and some 135 degrees from the ASC/1st Cusp from which the PoF is cast.

Now the PoF at the New Moon is on the ASC and travels house-wise during the course of a month.
So the PoF must travel 180 degrees to come into concert zone with the Sun which is from Full Moon to Last Quarter.

The final pairing of non-significators is the PoF and the Moon.
But as the PoF is always 135 degrees from the Moon, at this race time, they can never act in concert.

About 3 hours earlier, the Moon and PoF are just within concert range, so these can only act in concert for the very first races of the day.
If you use the night-time reversal formula for the PoF, then the Moon and PoF are also capable of acting in concert for the later evening races.

Over and above, whether the non-significators indicate the same horses/weights, the same angle condition reduces the switching by a factor of more than four.
Typically you are looking for the first races on the card from Full Moon to the Last Quarter and either side of the New Moon.

All this ignores the marginal affect for GB racing of longitude which benefits eastern courses against western courses for the early races.
So the 12:30 Yarmouth stands a better chance than the 12:30 Cork of switching. Although evening races at Cork are more likely to switch if you use the night-time formula for the PoF.

Again all this uses the MC + 90 degrees ASC of Sepharial's method.
The same principles apply, especially re the Sun and Moon, but using the true ASC to calculate the PoF will have a more variable affect.
Where the ASC is closer to the MC, then more of the early races, come into the concert zone.

I think these arguments stand up to scrutiny, but I am more than capable of making elementary mistakes.