I thought through all sort of stuff with the SheffieldU-ManC match.
The fact that the Sun was in the terms of Mercury and in the same sign as its dispotior by term (ie. both Sun and Mercury in Aquarius) attracted my attention. However, the thing we missed was the preceeding syzygy occuring at 1LE55. This was of course on the ascendant on the game in question, which had an ascendant at 1LE35!

My comments for Saturdays games relate to the four games kicking off at different times, Mansfield, Sheff U, Cameroon and Egypt.

These games were one-offs, as was the Liverpool/Villa game.

Are we drifting into other testimonies that are non astrological? The word default appears on past posts and also now a non astrological distinction between the teams!!(eg whether Liverpool played Villa or Brum).??

Are we now saying 1- Apply your own 'nouse' on the relative strengths of the team, then judge the ascendant and then plantary emplacement?

If we are saying that VoC moons have no weight to the decision whether the home/away/favourite/underdog or draw occurs, then so be it. If we are saying it does have an influence then we appear to have either contradictory results, or astrological factors which over-rides VoC, or non-astrological factors have first preference.

Great comments, John! I agree!
But default is a term I have come to accept for those teams that are either at the head of the tail of their respective division. It used to be Arsenal that were the default of the Premier league, but after Arsenal left the top and their winning streak - it's Derby! At the bottom!

Poor Derby! They are hero's in my world. Someone has to do the job!

I am interested in the league as a 'Continium'. When the leauge changes character, that is certainly interesting!!!

I will not be happy untill my astrology is getting almost ALL the games right. If that doesn't happen, this is nothing but a mess. But I agree with Ficina's comments fron JF that says that not all contest are equally credible.

Astrologer's have claimed that all people born at different times or different places are subject to different planetary influences. So even if 12 matches are being played at the same time, they are still not being played on top of each other. Do we agree?

We have to continue to ask questions. I am finding that on some days I get 4 matches right on a row. Some days one match is all it takes to prove a combination of matches wrong. Other days are totally upside down. But my mind keeps working...

When it comes down to it, I am quite happy if I can pick out those matches where the favourite win with the odds 1,40:1 or better. What you do learn from this study is that there is no such thing as a true default and the favourite by odds seems to win in no more than 50-75% of the cases. So if money is on the line - sorting out the predictable is an acheivement in itself!

Thanks Andrew. Thanks also to Ficina and Gem, anything that makes me question and look for a different way at looking at a subject can't be a bad thing.

I have the same problems predicting Test matches-got all but one for Australia/India. The one that doesn't work was the one immediately after the test series had been determined. So this now has me pondering!

Should we not be identifying the stronger team, or are we choosing the stronger asc or desc to match our predetermined view of who is more likely to win? I don't know yet, but I'll pick away at recent results and try something else.

Latest random thought, as I type. The Sheff U game had Leo rising. Another game did recently-can't remember which yet. Should Leo Asc 'default' to the home team? I'll go away and digest and support it, or discard it.

The 'continium' has some logic, I assume by referencing back to an inception chart for the Premier League. Trying to make sense of one chart, rather than two is bad enough.

Games not being credible, or in Andrew's terms, 'radical'also has merit. Spot the warning bells and stay clear- I think this concept will run for some time.

Different matches at the same time-different influences-ok. I'm staying away from this as one off games are interesting enough. I also wonder whether games starting at different times but overlaping should be avoided but I'm running with this-for now!

I'm not greatly into putting money on things, but will bet occassionally. I think non astrologers are more influenced by predicting things like football results rather than hearing about a prediction for another person being suggested as accurate!

I find it easier to define a game in terms of the favourite at present. Find out whether the moment is radical or not, if the POF/POS receives fortunate or infortunate aspects, whether aspects are sinister or dexter, whether a planet of significance 'sits' on an angle, if essential dignities carry any merit, whether eclipses or lunations affect the expected outcome of the chart. Apart from that, I am still in this for the research - and certainly not ready to publish a book!

Regarding the question of radicality, this is the first consideration in the interpretations of William Lilly! Is this merely stardust, or is there something to be gathered?

John,

Are we drifting into other testimonies that are non astrological? The word default appears on past posts and also now a non astrological distinction between the teams!!(eg whether Liverpool played Villa or Brum).??

The default option, according to John Frawley, is that the favourites will win if there is no evidence to the contrary. He doesn't mention VOC Moon, but I'd guess he would include this. I've certainly seen others who use JF's method apply the default option when the Moon is VOC. From my own experience I have found that VOC Moon often indicates a draw. This is where common sense or "nouse" comes into play by looking at the particular teams involved.

As with everything else, it's best to rely on your own observations and experience.

Thanks Ficina,

I'm holding back on JF's book for the moment, it seems more interesting as we go along questioning what we all find.

I assume JF goes for the favourite on the ascendant, regardless of home advantage and then looks for stronger testimony from the descendant to determine draw or loss for the favourite? I also assume JF's default covers the scenario where the situation where a draw can occur, rather than it being having to be a victory for either side?

We can go back to our ongoing conundrum of who is the ascendant-home/fav/colour/radical. I appear to need a clear methodology for saying who the ascendant is. If not, then when the desc is stronger I can say the desc was favourite and I would need a reason in advance to support this.

We've had 5 VoC games recently, home fav-draw and 3 fav wins away(1) and neutral(2) and an underdog at home!!!!!!

Yes, JF always give Asc to faves, then adds up the testimonies for each side. He gives one example of a goalless draw, but doesn't consider the default option at that point He mentions it further on in the book and then talks about common sense and combining discretion with art etc.

When there are no clear testimonies, perhaps that's the time to leave well alone!

I feel that the more details provided regarding any match commented by this forum, makes it easier for me to evaluate the contest and the work leading up to the astrological conclusion. This makes it much easier to back and take a look at work we've covered. If not it just like starting everything from scratch every time.

I try to include 1) Time of game start 2) Odds 3) Radical relationship 4) Asc., MC, POS/POF 5) Other significant testimonies

Maybe we should divide our predictive estimates into 3 categories, too; 'Safest bet', 'Fair spec.' and 'Long-shot attempt'.

I agree we've become a bit sloppy with giving details. We must remember at least to state the basics so we know we are all working with the same chart. These are:

Time + time zone
Place (+ coordinates?)
Ascendant

John

I also assume JF's default covers the scenario where the situation where a draw can occur, rather than it being having to be a victory for either side?

As Ficina said, JF gives only one example of draw in the book, which is very unsatisfactory and disappointing because as we've agreed that prediciting draw is a major problem.

appear to need a clear methodology for saying who the ascendant is. If not, then when the desc is stronger I can say the desc was favourite and I would need a reason in advance to support this.

I've doggedly stuck to giving home team AC, just for the sake of consistancy and it's worked relatively well but it also makes sense to take odds into consideration especially when there's a considerable difference between the two teams concerned. It may be a matter of finding out which method suits you best through trial and error??

I have have tried to define the default matches and found that difficult.
On one hand default may override the astrological considerations (?), but on the other hand I have several classic default games here - but where either default did not perform, or astrology got the upper hand.

I have several cases were the table leader meets table looser, which is a double default - yet the underdog wins. One game yesterday did actually prove the chart not radical and the Moon, AL10, was in the degree of his fall and opposite the MC. This would move victory away from the favourite and to the underdog. But even in view of that testimony (and the Moon was really debiliated) anything but a 'default' victory to the table top was nothing short of a miracle.

I think if we can share our observations ahead of putting bets - that gives a better option of checking our deductions.