Sorry that Rosenborg lost, Andrew, but they still have a chance of qualifying

No blame on either Leeleelee or Frawley

Frawley would not have used Uranus as L7; he would always use Saturn. So with his method of giving the fave the Asc, the Moon trine Sun (L1) gives them the victory.

Ficina close to something.

I'm not sure what I was close to Normally I would give the Asc to the home team, but not when there are eight matches kicking off at the same time. I did say that Moon trine Sun is a general indication for the faves to win, but this only proved true in three cases tonight. The odds-on fave British teams did the bizzo However, the other faves either lost or drew.

Just give me my money back for getting the team colours right and we'll call it a day!

I couldn't believe it when I saw Chelsea in blue! That's the last time I contact a club to enquire about team colours. I can only assume I must've been talking to the office junior

Good feedback, Ficina! Your points are good. Particularly in reference to too many matches starting at once to be sure of anything. We can try giving the Asc as favourites next time but the favourite should probably give 2:1 or less. Or else we do not have a favorite.

But isn't this a bit messy? Unless we can agree upon the basics of who is who, there appears to me to be to much guesswork involved. Either my astrology allows me to predict the unlikely or be right in 9/10 times, or it doesn't quite feel good enough.

Frawley would not give Uranus to the 7th and neither would I. The presence of the outer planets in the 7th would in my opinion have been more significant.

I consider the sportsforum as an arena and playground were we can test out our techniques and pose questions of a philosophical and technical kind.

Unless we can agree upon the basics of who is who, there appears to me to be to much guesswork involved. Either my astrology allows me to predict the unlikely or be right in 9/10 times, or it doesn't quite feel good enough

I don't think we need to agree who is who. It's probably a case of choosing your method and sticking with it. As long as it works more often than it doesn't, then that's fine. I'd say 9/10 times is unrealistic. 6/10 is good enough.

Or else I am more comfortable with the horary than the event chart

Andrew, I think a horary in this instance would have probably been more appropriate, since your interest was in one particular team of the many that were playing last night.

I consider the sportsforum as an arena and playground were we can test out our techniques and pose questions of a philosophical and technical kind.

Absolutely! And we're certainly doing plenty of that

On page 90 of the pink book, he spoke about Uranus.

I did not use uranus as L7.

Ironically, I was doing pretty well until I got the book.

My apologies, Leelee. Yes, he does say Uranus opp PoF favours underdogs, although he doesn't mention antiscion PoF. It was definitely worth a try though

It's always interesting to test out other people's methods, but nothing beats one's own experience. If you were doing pretty well beforehand, then I'd say stick with your own tried and trusted methods.

I was devastated when Rosenborg got slaughtered last night (no money involved, but it didn't really help throw off an oncoming flue!) But I took liking to LLL's creative and intelligent observation. In another setting, something like that will provide the key to resolving the chart.

I also think Ficina wraps it up rather nice - with a lot of sensible things said that will clear the mind in the next time round.

Ficina said:
I don't think we need to agree who is who. It's probably a case of choosing your method and sticking with it. As long as it works more often than it doesn't, then that's fine. I'd say 9/10 times is unrealistic. 6/10 is good enough.

Really, Ficina, this is not a question of 6/10 or 9/10 but its all a question of odds. If your are constantly going with those times when your tools agree with the favourites, you should probably be scoring 9/10. If you contantly are going with those occasions were your tools suggests the underdogs, then I would hope to be right at least 5/10.

Rosenborg-Chelsea yesterday was 6:1 if Rosenborg won. This means you could put money on the underdogs 6 times and if you were right on one occasion your bank would still be in balance.

Concerning the lotto, if you manage to hit the bucket in 1/1000, you have still proved that astrology improves on chance. The odds of me hitting the 3rd prize in the Norwegian in my 2nd attempt on the forum was 1:28.000. After that I do not have to get it right every time - but if my numbers do come up I'm not complaining!

I see what you mean, Andrew, but I think there's a difference between getting it right and winning money. After all, some people don't bet at all and wouldn't use financial profit as a yardstick. Personally speaking, if I can manage 60% accuracy, that's fine. If I win some money along the way, then that's a bonus.

The discussion Gem and I had just recently on the Review thread is a kind of illustration of this, regarding Mars teams winning or losing.

BTW, guys, I've posted up a new thread for December predictions, so if you're doing the EPL games this weekend, please post your predictions there. We still have the UEFA games tonight, but I'm not sure I've got the energy for those! If anyone else has, please feel free to post them on this thread.

Cheers,
Ficina