73
For the record:

19:45
Sunderland - Aston Villa 0-2
Dundee Utd - Rangers 0-3

20:00
Birmingham - Blackburn 2-1
Bolton - West Ham 3-1
Manchester Utd - Wolverhampton 3-0

Which means that my predictions were totally out of line for today! Clearly, all favourites were supported, and whether by the mysterious sky or sheer talent, I wouldn't know. :)
Peter

74
It's always a tough challenge trying to predict games kicking off at the same time. I wouldn't have expected all those favourites to win. Making up for the weekend I suppose! Villa and Brum are in particularly good form at the moment. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow but I'll definitely be steering clear of making any predictions! 8)

75
aquirata wrote:
Seiko wrote:No. The odds are just numbers made up by the bookies. It does not work that way. It's sports.
If this was true, it would be quite easy to make money betting. Reality is otherwise, however, which means your statement has no legs to stand on.
How does that make easier to make money betting on sports? I don't get it.
Where do you think the odds come from?

A certain service that works for the bookies come up with the odds. The bookies then change those numbers a little bit to get equal action on both sides because they have to think about the public perception of the game.
If the odds are like 1.80 vs 2.05 most of the time the actual favorite is the 2.05 team. A slight favorite but nevertheless.

76
Bookmakers are organizations in business to make money. They employ professional odds compilers, and their resources vastly outweigh yours or mine. Odds are not just 'numbers made up', they are arrived at after thorough research. There is a strong correlation between the probability of success and the odds for the outcome in question.

If odds were just made up haphazardly, it would be easy to take advantage of bookies because one would only bet when the odds were out of line. It is a well-known fact that it is extremely difficult to make money long term at betting due to the efficient nature of the odds markets. The favourites are fancied for a reason and not just because bookies made a guess. There is also a feedback mechanism from punters to the betting market, which is indirect in case of bookies (they have to balance their books, i.e. adjust odds so their profits are the same no matter what) and direct for betting exchanges such as Betfair.
Peter

77
They collect some data, yes, at the start of the season but they do not research anything. The techniques are known for a long, long time. Take NBA. Take basic data points for/against etc etc add and subtract and you will come up with the lines very close to those of the bookie. The NBA's LA Lakers are the nine-point favorite vs Chicago Bulls. The Lakers will probably win but will they cover the spread? Nobody knows. Not the bookies not you not me not the wise guys. The difference between the public and the wise guys is that the public loses 60% of the time while the wise guys 40% of the time. It's gambling, it's sports.

If the bookies are so good why do they need equal action on both sides?? They could come up with some crazy odds for the SuperBowl eventually getting one-sided action and collect the money. Millions of dollars. Why bother with the 9% juice?

The bookies do not know the outcome of the games and they do not care. All they need is the juice from the bets.

If you're a guy who makes the odds for the bookies. The number one guy. They fire you for some reason. Would you be close to 100% betting on sports against the bookies? No, you wouldn't.
Last edited by Seiko on Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

78
While this is an interesting discussion, it's going way off-topic. If you want to continue discussing odds and bookies in general, would one of you please start a new thread? Many thanks.

79
I'm sorry for that. On the other hand, it's not so far off. I'm saying that if there is a draw it does not mean that the underdog wins from the perspective of the chart.

80
What I would be interested in finding out are the following:
  • - Why did my analysis show support for the underdogs yesterday when none of that was apparent in the matches?
    - Can support for the winning teams be shown by any other method (colours, home/away, managers, captains, etc)?
I know from experience that none of Frawley's methods work, for example. Or at least I haven't been able to apply his methods successfully. He is a very skilled story teller and I enjoyed reading his Sports Astrology but I couldn't find any substance in it.

What boggles my mind is how astrological indications can be so precise at certain times and so off the mark at others. Is this an indication that we simply don't understand all the factors that need to be looked at or that there is absolutely no correlation between results and configurations in the sky? In other words, do we have a very limited understanding of astrology or is trying to correlate sports results to astrology just a pipe-dream?

We all have limited resources, especially time (which is the nature of time = Saturn), and I tend to think that only a concerted effort would lead to fruition. I for one am interested in finding out the truth but there is no way I could devote the time required to do a thorough analysis of thousands of past games. So I would be interested in hearing any ideas that would lead us to resolution in this subject.
Peter

81
Why thousands of games. Stick to a number of teams. I don't know, your favorite teams. Unfortunately there are no shortcuts or secrets so we need to practice. Doing two-three charts a week is not enough.

- It's not the favorite
- It's not colors
- It's not the home team

Maybe you should start looking at specific signs. For example, Lilly said Gemini was the sign of London. Or maybe it's the direction. Or maybe it's the significator's distance from it's cusp (in theory a significator in its own house is at home). But they are mere theories so you need to look at the actual charts.

82
Here's another idea - if one can determine the number of goals in the match in that case one does not need to tell the sides apart. One can bet on Over/Under 2.5 goals or even Goal Line (1-0, 2-0 etc) which offer excellent odds.

If one testimony allegedly means one goal then in that case Under 2.5 goals would be the way to go. Even if there's a draw 1-1 one can still cash the ticket. So there is a small room for error.

Just an idea which still needs to be tested.

83
I think, whichever method we choose to use, it all boils down to weighing up the testimonies. So, for example
Peter wrote:Why did my analysis show support for the underdogs yesterday when none of that was apparent in the matches?
In your Sunderland/Villa analysis you had 5 testimonies for the underdog and 1 for the favourite, yet the favourite won. This might suggest that the Moon/Venus testimony for the fave outweighed all those underdog testimonies - in this context. In a different context with a different collection of testimonies, the weighting might not be the same. This is why analysing thousands of charts of past games is of limited help because every chart has a different set of testimonies.

I tried to work out a hierarchy of testimonies once (there's a thread on it somewhere in the forum) but even that has its limitations. For example a testimony that works for a fave and/or home team may be less effective for an underdog and/or away team.

It's not easy and we're not going to get it right every time. But, with enough practice, I think the best we can hope for is that we'll be able to get it right more often than we get it wrong :)

84
aquirata wrote:Can support for the winning teams be shown by any other method (colours, home/away, managers, captains, etc)?
Coaches, managers... Aspects from transiting planets to the natal Mars can be significant. (It's practically what you said about Magilton a few pages back.) I have only been experimenting with this for a few weeks though. The results are somewhat promising, at the moment I think there is a correlation, but further research is needed because...
aquirata wrote:What boggles my mind is how astrological indications can be so precise at certain times and so off the mark at others.
...that's why! :) It happened to me quite a few times, and I guess it happened to others as well.
aquirata wrote:Is this an indication that we simply don't understand all the factors that need to be looked at ... In other words, do we have a very limited understanding of astrology ...?
Personally I have a very limited understanding :) but there are vastly experienced astrologers in this "business" as well, so yes I think we don't understand all the factors.

Game charts have failed me quite a few times so at the moment I'm interested in methods which are not based on the game charts. Like the natal-Mars idea mentioned above. Or, one can use a certain natal chart of the team (or franchise) - instead of the managers natal - and again, searching for aspects from transiting planets.

One of my main problem with game charts is the typical issue: many games in e.g. England, same starting time, charts almost identical, but very different results. For me, it suggests that the teams have something unique - like a natal chart or at least a ruling planet, their coach's natal, etc. - which they "carry" to the playing field, and so the same sky config can be good for one team and malefic for the other. An other problem is the good old "who is the ascendant" question. I have experimented with this, colors, etc. but had enough. :) Sometimes I still inspect the game chart, but am only looking for Moon/POF aspects which I found somewhat reliable. And for me the home team is always the ascendant. :)