What our little corner of sports astrology is doing is no different than what any other astrologer does in any other field of interest. The difference is that in other areas astrologers make look several times a year/month/week at a chart for a person/event/question, etc. We can do this several times an hour, so the issue of the same thing not working each time is more pronounced.

Our area of interest also takes us into the realm of either being 100% correct or 100% incorrect, we don?t try to be merely helpful, suggesting events are simply ?meaningful?. The question of what is going on and techniques being used becomes critical.

Bullseye.

More investigation leads to knowing when it works better than at other times. I have made numerous points on this forum about it. The whole point about this forum is to discuss one's findings, is it not? We know, for example, that it doesn't work with whole houses, but we also know that it tends to work better on maiden and novice racing. Why do you think that is? I've given my own opinion on that several times, and there seems to be a general agreement that that is the case.

I think that more investigation leads to knowing something better if you have more solid foundation than the multitude of highly subjective variables that Addey's method uses. How are you isolating factors when in a single race you could make a good argument for 5 or 6 of the horses' names fitting that significator?

Conflate - to fuse into one entity; merge: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Personally, i only ever use JAM. If there is a mergence of techniques, then that must show that said investigation is progressing, surely?

Due to your answer here, I don't think I was very clear in what I was saying was being conflated. It was in response to:

But i think this method still needs some degree of investigation - and that's something only two or maybe three of us actually do on this thread.

That sounds like a bit of an attack on Frawley to me. I'm not defending him and i've had my own run-ins with him in the past. But the tone of your original post was an attack on JAM. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but you haven't, as far as i can see, contributed anything to the investigation of this technique.

No, it is no attack on Frawley, it is a statement of fact. Tone is also very difficult to gauge in writing since its interpretation is often entwined with the position of the reader. To suggest I am attacking something is to suggest that I am invested in its failure, or in disproving it. Neither is true.

Your last point there is moot. Just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and your view is no more valid than mine because you take the time to post your predictions and results on this forum, and I don't. I worked with Addey's method for a year some years back, and also variations of it involving other points in the chart. My conclusion was that I couldn't predict winners with any consistency and that the results are so difficult to test since the transmutation of a planet's natural significations into a horse's name is too subjective to be applied rigorously. This is my point, and my questioning is aimed at seeing if there is a way to deal with these issues and thus improve upon the ability to pick winners.

That's an irrelevant argument because i have literally 1000's of winning charts. I record every single win. The chances of picking so many winners from charts on the basis of luck alone is minuscule.

That still doesn't really solve the problem I put forward. The only way to get past it is to prove consistently that one can pick the winner, and this is something that is not being done as this thread itself proves, and you yourself admit.

I'm not sure that that has anything to do with finding the signifying plant for a winning horse.

Well it should since we are looking for the one who will have success in that moment.

And how do you know? I'm talking about 100's of regulars, many of them serious gamblers and a few of them big-money pros.

I know because the vast majority of people who gamble lose more than they win.

If you back a horse e/w at 20/1 and it places, you'll collect more than you would if you backed the winner at 1/2. Of course, finding the winner is what it's all about, but sometimes you have to know a little bit about how to gamble and the sport itself. The simple idea of gambling on horses is to make a profit. If you make a profit, you're a winner.

Yes, absolutely, but taking any notion of gambling out of it since this is about astrology, if we say Venus is the winner's significator and a horse with a martial sounding name wins, we can't claim accuracy there.

Look at it this way, if a jockey is in a period of time of great success via their broad time-lords, in a year that promises great success via their profected ASC and the lord of their year sits on the midheaven of the chart supported by benefics and in its own sign at the time of the race, do you think the fact that the 5th Campanus cusp first sextiles Venus and that there is a horse called A Whole 'Lotta Love in the field is going to override that?

I think that more investigation leads to knowing something better if you have more solid foundation than the multitude of highly subjective variables that Addey's method uses.

What are these variables? The method works by finding the 1st aspect from the 5th cusp and then taking it from there.

How are you isolating factors when in a single race you could make a good argument for 5 or 6 of the horses' names fitting that significator?

This is one of the problems that we find. If the 1st aspect is to Mars for example, how do we distinguish between a tiger, an eagle, a warrior or something with red in it's name? This is where it comes down to the astrologer's skill at interpreting the chart.

My conclusion was that I couldn't predict winners with any consistency and that the results are so difficult to test since the transmutation of a planet's natural significations into a horse's name is too subjective to be applied rigorously. This is my point, and my questioning is aimed at seeing if there is a way to deal with these issues and thus improve upon the ability to pick winners.

This is exactly what i have been saying on this here thread. My own point is why doesn't it work with consistency? And that is my current investigation.My thought on the matter is that Jupiter's current state may very well have some sort of influence at the moment. Or maybe it's the square to retrograde Pluto? There is obviously a reason behind why JAM isn't working particularly well at the moment. But that's not to say that it isn't working - as GB pointed out Handsome Dude won at 8/1 yesterday.

That still doesn't really solve the problem I put forward. The only way to get past it is to prove consistently that one can pick the winner, and this is something that is not being done as this thread itself proves, and you yourself admit.

Can you rephrase your question please?

Well it should since we are looking for the one who will have success in that momen

But it doesn't. Finding a horse who's significator is L12 seems to be a more important factor, because a horse is bigger than a goat. Planets on the 10th angle are important but according to Lilly, a horse race is a 12th house matter - Lehman's Rulership Book, page 118. If you use the 10th as the house of victory, as you suggest, (Victory is Mars, btw), then one would need to look at the turned 10th - the 9th - because a horse is a 12th house creature. And it is the horse that wins the race, not it's pilot, trainer, owner etc...

I know because the vast majority of people who gamble lose more than they win.

Football betting is the single most profitable sports market for bookmakers, dogs 2nd and horses 3rd. Patrick Veich won over ?10M in an 8 year period betting on horses. In his book 'Public Enemy No.1', he says that his best strike rate for any given period was at about 33% and this is a man who once placed ?120k on a 100/1 outsider that won by 6 lengths over 7 furlongs. So to get to a strike rate of 1 in 3 is pretty good going by anyone's standards. The thing is with JAM, is that we know it's not 100% accurate at all times but there is no doubt that it greatly helps one's chances of making a profit over a period of time. And that was one of the findings i made when i had that awful job. I'm ok now, thanks for asking.

Yes, absolutely, but taking any notion of gambling out of it since this is about astrology, if we say Venus is the winner's significator and a horse with a martial sounding name wins, we can't claim accuracy there.

That would depend on where Venus is. We have to take into account sign, house, aspects etc... As i stated above, the astrologer's own chart reading skill has a massive part to play.

Look at it this way, if a jockey is in a period of time of great success via their broad time-lords, in a year that promises great success via their profected ASC and the lord of their year sits on the midheaven of the chart supported by benefics and in its own sign at the time of the race, do you think the fact that the 5th Campanus cusp first sextiles Venus and that there is a horse called A Whole 'Lotta Love in the field is going to override that?

That would depend on the current situation. And it's these very situations call for the need to engage brain. You are suggesting that a natal chart is preferable to read over the event chart. Yet Ryan Moore doesn't win every race, even when he's on the odds-on favourite for an in-form trainer and neither does Frankie who is a big race performer. How would you explain that? I would suggest that it's down to the horse on the day. But there are jockeys who seem to have a virtually empathic relationship with horses - these two are among them. And certainly AP had that, so there is something to be looked at in natal charts. Maybe you could be our man for that angle of investigation?

What are these variables? The method works by finding the 1st aspect from the 5th cusp and then taking it from there.

The variables are surely the factors that distinguish between each of the Mars sounding names when Mars is the first aspect.

This is one of the problems that we find. If the 1st aspect is to Mars for example, how do we distinguish between a tiger, an eagle, a warrior or something with red in it's name? This is where it comes down to the astrologer's skill at interpreting the chart.

Again though, it only depends on the astrologer's skill if the method is flawless in the first place.

This is exactly what i have been saying on this here thread. My own point is why doesn't it work with consistency? And that is my current investigation.My thought on the matter is that Jupiter's current state may very well have some sort of influence at the moment. Or maybe it's the square to retrograde Pluto? There is obviously a reason behind why JAM isn't working particularly well at the moment. But that's not to say that it isn't working - as GB pointed out Handsome Dude won at 8/1 yesterday.

Yes, and that could be it doesn't really work at all. Handsome Dude winning on its own doesn't really prove it either way. If the method was being used to consistently pick winners, then yes, but it isn't. The way I approached it was to take charts that are similar enough to have the same first aspect, but more often than not the names of the winning horses were not of a similar theme. There are enough races in the UK beginning at a similar time to make this a valid approach.

But it doesn't. Finding a horse who's significator is L12 seems to be a more important factor, because a horse is bigger than a goat. Planets on the 10th angle are important but according to Lilly, a horse race is a 12th house matter - Lehman's Rulership Book, page 118. If you use the 10th as the house of victory, as you suggest, (Victory is Mars, btw), then one would need to look at the turned 10th - the 9th - because a horse is a 12th house creature. And it is the horse that wins the race, not it's pilot, trainer, owner etc...

This is an area I really didn't want to get into since no-one looks at a chart the same way, suffice it to say, we see the chart much differently. For me and the kind of astrology I practise, houses don't signify things like horses generally, planets do. The 12th lord would be the horse (or the enemies, or the suffering and so on) of the subject who is represented by the 1st. In an electional chart for a race, there is no person or entity shown by the degree rising, so no horse belonging to them or found in their experience.

That would depend on the current situation. And it's these very situations call for the need to engage brain. You are suggesting that a natal chart is preferable to read over the event chart. Yet Ryan Moore doesn't win every race, even when he's on the odds-on favourite for an in-form trainer and neither does Frankie who is a big race performer. How would you explain that? I would suggest that it's down to the horse on the day. But there are jockeys who seem to have a virtually empathic relationship with horses - these two are among them. And certainly AP had that, so there is something to be looked at in natal charts. Maybe you could be our man for that angle of investigation?

Actually, I am saying the natal chart should sit above an event chart in importance, but that perhaps they should be used together to predict the outcomes of sporting contests. I would explain Ryan Moore not winning every race even in what would be a successful year by pointing out that the year itself is subject to ups and downs, and that is true of every single person in every area of life we can predict. Obviously, the idea of using the event chart against the nativity is complete conjecture, the problem is that we do not have the nativities to even begin testing it and there is virtually no way of getting them. If it is as I suspect, and we are missing something here and that something is the nativity, then we are at an impasse.

Yes, and that could be it doesn't really work at all. Handsome Dude winning on its own doesn't really prove it either way. If the method was being used to consistently pick winners, then yes, but it isn't. The way I approached it was to take charts that are similar enough to have the same first aspect, but more often than not the names of the winning horses were not of a similar theme.

Ok, but i have 1000's of winning charts to prove that JAM does work. You once posted that you thought that a system should have 90% accuracy. I believe you need to lower your expectations a little. 90% win rate is never going to happen. I also remember that you posted that you used whole sign houses with JAM, which completely goes against the theory of campanus houses. Little wonder you have no faith in it.

There are enough races in the UK beginning at a similar time to make this a valid approach.

That's a little bit like saying 'all 18th September Virgos will fall off a ladder tonight'

If it is as I suspect, and we are missing something here and that something is the nativity, then we are at an impasse.

Our conversation is at an impasse for several reasons. But let me ask you this one last question; How are you going to find an accurate birth chart for a horse?

Conversations about nativities for horses have been going on for years. All that is happening here is that the same old predictable arguments are being recycled, yet again.

Is there anyone here who would like to take a rather progressive approach to this topic?

I do not have a solution, just a few thoughts.

Timed charts for each horse in a race would be very useful, but we do not have them. However, we do have the birth date, so we are in the same situation as in normal natal prediction when we do not have a person's birth time. We can still do some good prediction.

However, this assumes that natal astrology works for horses in the same way as for people, or in a different detailed way, but still that it works. This is a big assumption. Doing a natal chart for your pet cat may, or may not, give useful information, but it is not a common technique. Cats (or horses) are not people.

So, should we give-up trying to predict horse race results? Perhaps, but I will continue because it's fun

I find the C5th method is often unreliable, but sufficiently often correct to be worth investigating. In particular I think there are times (for which read astrological circumstances) when it works better than at others. I don't know the details yet, but I will continue researching and testing and recording results.

Something like C5th, or using the angles, etc. has the advantage of using a method that is 'impersonal' (or "imequine"). It does not assume the birth chart for a horse works like a personal natal chart, it is more general. This may, or may not be an advantage. I don't know.

Great responses - I have enjoyed this thread immensely. Thank you

I want to take Handsome Dude as an example...

The first 3 aspects from 5th house are:-

-ssqr Saturn 0.02 d
-bqnt Mars 0.05 d
-novl Moon 1.19 d

In my opinion, 'Handsome' would be ruled by Venus. Yes, Jupiter (Male Planet) is in Libra, and the biquintile Mars (Male Planet) sextiles Venus.

But I suppose, my point with Addey has always been, there are often too many choices. Look at the other horses that finished in the top 3:-

2. Major (Jupiter or Mars) Pusey
3. Snappy Shots (Mars)

I appreciate what ModWasp is saying; it's down to the skill of the Astrologer. But how on earth would anyone decide against picking any of the top 3 finishers?

There has to be another 'filter' put in place (which goes back to what GB is saying). Something has to be repeated 3 or more times for it to 'ring true'.

Handsome Dudes Solar Arc Mercury is exactly conjunct the race angle.

Major Pusey Solar Arc Sun is less than a degree away from the race angle.

Snappy Shots Solar Arc Mercury is less than a degree away from the race angle.

Now, there is no way I'm doing this '2nd filter' for every horse in a race, and it only works 40% of the time - I tested it out on every winner for Saturday's racing. And, that was just on Saturday.

Who knows if that stat would hold up over time?

I think I will continue my 'Sports Astrology' research on sports with 2 opponents, as I want to concentrate on the natal charts of participants.

Horse Racing astrology has been fun, but I think after 6 years of doing it every day, I'm gonna pop it back on the shelf.

But how on earth would anyone decide against picking any of the top 3 finishers?

That, surely, comes down to savvy?

Now, there is no way I'm doing this '2nd filter' for every horse in a race, and it only works 40% of the time - I tested it out on every winner for Saturday's racing. And, that was just on Saturday.

Here's one filter for you - 1st aspect to L12.

18:30 Windsor - Think Fashion (Venus)

21:00

Light Gunner - ant. Sun conj.Mars, L12

18:30 Windsor - Think Fashion (Venus)

Laughing
_________________

L12 for you.