Astrological Prediction: Super Bowl
Paracelsus
Sunday, January 28th, between the Baltimore Ravens and the New York Giants.
It is possible to predict the outcome of sporting contests involving two
opposing teams by adapting the techniques of medieval 'battle astrology'. I
am assuming the Ravens are the favourites to win.
The favourites are represented by the Lord of the Ascendant (the Sun) and
the Lord of the tenth house (Venus), the house of success and achievement.
The Sun is weak, in the sign of its detriment, and sitting just inside the
seventh house of open enemies, and thus in the power of the opponents.
Venus is in exaltation, giving it perhaps more the impression of being the
stronger side, although Lilly tells us exaltation is sometimes stronger than
rulership.
The underdogs are represented by the Lord of the Descendant, or seventh
house of open enemies (Saturn, or Uranus under modern rulership), and the
Lord of the fourth house (Mars), ie the tenth from the seventh. Saturn is
dignified by term and face. Although in the tenth house (of the
favourites), Saturn is too far from the MC to come under its power. Uranus
is in the sign of its rulership, and in the seventh house (the underdogs).
Mars is also in its own sign, and also in the house of the underdogs (the
fourth).
The Moon's movements are crucial, aspects to and from planets being good
indicators of where victory will lie. Unfortunately the Moon is here Void
of Course. However it does oppose Pars Fortuna (PF) - more testimony for
the underdogs. The Moon is also separating from conjuction with Venus
(favourites), suggesting the Ravens will lose momentum in the course of the
game.
A look at the antiscia is very instructive. The antiscion of Saturn
(Giants) is approaching the Ascendant, suggesting again the Ravens to come
under the control of the Giants. The antiscion of Mars, representing the
Giants, is tucked safely inside the seventh house. The antiscion of PF is
opposed by the antiscia of both the Moon and Venus - further testimony for
the underdogs. (Although the Moon moves towards conjunction with the
antiscion of PF, a change of sign prevents completion of the conjunction.)
The beauty of the horoscope of the moment can be seen in studying the
antiscia: the antiscion of Mars falls directly, to the minute, on the Sun's
radical position, and the Sun's antiscion falls directly, again to the
minute, on the radical position of Mars.
In conclusion, the planets tell us the favourites are likely to lose. I
know nothing of American football, but I understand the Ravens are
favourites, although the margin is not great. Therefore I predict victory
for the Giants.
Spamster_<"uce"@ftc.güv>
Paracelsus wrote:
> In conclusion, the planets tell us the favourites are likely to lose. I
> know nothing of American football, but I understand the Ravens are
> favourites, although the margin is not great. Therefore I predict victory
> for the Giants.
So? There's a 50% chance of being correct no matter what.
Paracelsus
Spamster <"uce"@ftc.güv> wrote in message
news:t71eiuh...@corp.supernews.com...
You cynics have certainly honed your mathematical skills to perfection,
although I'm not sure the pundits would agree my chances were quite 50%. My
bookie is giving odds of 8/13 on the Ravens, and 5/4 on the Giants, making
them the underdogs although, as I said, the margin is not great.
The nature of this type of astrology is that it weighs up the prospects of
two competing forces, whether on the battlefield or the sportsfield. Of
course, the disadvantage is that a single prediction is not altogether very
persuasive, and, moreover, an incorrect prediction would be highly
embarrassing. It would be much more impressive to pick a winning horse from
a large field or, better still, the lottery numbers, but these require
different astrological techniques.
Thos
> The nature of this type of astrology is that it weighs up the prospects of
> two competing forces, whether on the battlefield or the sportsfield. Of
> course, the disadvantage is that a single prediction is not altogether very
> persuasive, and, moreover, an incorrect prediction would be highly
> embarrassing. It would be much more impressive to pick a winning horse from
> a large field or, better still, the lottery numbers, but these require
> different astrological techniques.
In other words, it's useless.
Cujo
Paracelsus wrote in message
>
>Spamster <"uce"@ftc.güv> wrote in message
>news:t71eiuh...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> Paracelsus wrote:
>>
>> > In conclusion, the planets tell us the favourites are likely to lose.
I
>> > know nothing of American football, but I understand the Ravens are
>> > favourites, although the margin is not great. Therefore I predict
>victory
>> > for the Giants.
>>
>> So? There's a 50% chance of being correct no matter what.
>>
>>
>
>You cynics have certainly honed your mathematical skills to perfection,
>although I'm not sure the pundits would agree my chances were quite 50%.
My
>bookie is giving odds of 8/13 on the Ravens, and 5/4 on the Giants, making
>them the underdogs although, as I said, the margin is not great.
One or the other is going to win, a one in two chance is 50%. Odds only
reflect an attempt to influence the betting behavior of the public in
general. Using astrology to predict such an outcome is laughable. Too bad
Kettler and Wollkook are kooky as hell today, you stood a chance of real
ridicule.
>The nature of this type of astrology is that it weighs up the prospects of
>two competing forces, whether on the battlefield or the sportsfield. Of
>course, the disadvantage is that a single prediction is not altogether very
>persuasive, and, moreover, an incorrect prediction would be highly
>embarrassing. It would be much more impressive to pick a winning horse
from
>a large field or, better still, the lottery numbers, but these require
>different astrological techniques.
>
So do that then, you can't expect to be accurate and we'll all expect you to
back it up by using your own money. That's sufficiently kooky enough to
garner notice.
--
"Screed"?, you mean my offer of service in astrological
writings that I also post in the proper groups--Because I am
EXTREMELY competant, I am able to carry 30 units, write
articles, date 25 year olds, kill spinics accounts, do artworks
of high calibur, and read 10 books at a time. Where do
you find the courage or audacity to challenge me?
Eddie Wollmann, laughingstock of astrology posts his
'competant' delusions once again.
Paracelsus
Thos <t...@aloft.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A70C7F1...@aloft.lucent.com...
No, it's not useless, just not as impressive as if there were more options
to choose from.
Xcott Craver
>
>It is possible to predict the outcome of sporting contests involving two
>opposing teams by adapting the techniques of medieval 'battle astrology'.
Here is something very interesting about your prediction,
which might separate it from other predictions of the superbowl
outcome: it relied entirely on the position of stars on the
date of the game, something we can compute for any date.
Therefore, one can apply the same method for every previous
superbowl date, and determine if it predicted those outcomes
as well. Did the underdog always win when the stars said so?
-S
Xcott Craver
>Paracelsus wrote in message
>>
>>You cynics have certainly honed your mathematical skills to perfection,
>>although I'm not sure the pundits would agree my chances were quite 50%.
>>My bookie is giving odds of 8/13 on the Ravens, and 5/4 on the Giants,
>>making them the underdogs although, as I said, the margin is not great.
>
>One or the other is going to win, a one in two chance is 50%.
No, just because there are two outcomes doesn't mean the
probability of one outcome is 0.5. In fact, it is highly
improbable that this is exactly the case! The game would
not be interesting if the probability distribution is *severely*
skewed, but the probability of a chosen team winning is not
likely to be 0.5.
Better to say that the odds of either outcome is large enough
that guessing right is not impressive. On the other hand,
Paracelsus can apply his same logic to all past superbowls,
and see if the underdogs always won when the stars said so.
Unfortunately, we already have knowledge of who won those
games, and someone with that knowledge might fudge. I urge
Paracelsus to obtain a list of previous superbowl dates
without knowledge of who won, and predict before peeking.
-S
Paracelsus
Xcott Craver <sacr...@use.my.princeton.address> wrote in message
news:1%3c6.1970$xn.4...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> Paracelsus <parac...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >It is possible to predict the outcome of sporting contests involving two
> >opposing teams by adapting the techniques of medieval 'battle astrology'.
>
> Here is something very interesting about your prediction,
> which might separate it from other predictions of the superbowl
> outcome: it relied entirely on the position of stars on the
> date of the game, something we can compute for any date.
>
This is very true. In fact, my knowledge of American football is so meagre,
I at first thought the Ravens were the underdogs (I'd heard of the Giants,
but not the Ravens), until I saw the odds!
> Therefore, one can apply the same method for every previous
> superbowl date, and determine if it predicted those outcomes
> as well. Did the underdog always win when the stars said so?
>
This is a very good question. Unfortunately, I can't answer it, as I
haven't done a retrospective study on the Super Bowl.
I should say that sports astrology is not really my prime focus. My main
interest is trying to develop astrological techniques to predict lottery
numbers. I say "trying to develop", as I'm not aware of any techniques in
the corpus of astrological knowledge dealing with lotteries, so I'm working
with a clean slate.
I saw a question in alt.astrology on the Super Bowl, so I thought I'd have a
crack at it. I should say, the techniques I mentioned were garnered from
"The Astrologer's Apprentice", a periodical by the English astrologer John
Frawley. Frawley said that his predictions didn't always come true
(although he had the guts to publish them in advance anyway), but that they
tended to be more accurate as the game became more important. So, for
example, the result of a local game might be only poorly represented in the
planetary alignments, but for a final at national level, the horoscope
tended to be a good indicator of the result. As for the Super Bowl, I
really don't know how accurate his techniques are in the long run (although
it should be very accurate, if this reasoning is followed) - that will soon
be known! That's the fun of predictions!
Paracelsus
Cujo <cu...@usenet-performance-art.org> wrote in message
news:94qhd0$3en$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>
> One or the other is going to win, a one in two chance is 50%. Odds only
> reflect an attempt to influence the betting behavior of the public in
> general. Using astrology to predict such an outcome is laughable. Too bad
> Kettler and Wollkook are kooky as hell today, you stood a chance of real
> ridicule.
>
From a group with no constructive contributions to make, and who are
obsessed by Messrs Wollmann and Ketler, and seem to spend their whole lives
responding to their every post? How soul-destroying!!
Cujo
Paracelsus wrote in message ...
Looks like you really didn't like having your arguments refuted. I noticed
you couldn't address my logic and attacked me instead. Learn to lose
gracefully, you're going to lose a lot of arguments anyway, get used to it.
--
If I was gullible, you spinics would still be in control of your
neverending campaign to kill anyone's ideas but your own.
Hence, the fact that I DON'T buy YOUR garbage is evidence that I am
less gullible than you had hoped. -- Ed Wollmann, still clueless.
John C. Randolph
No, you starry-eyed loon, it's useless, just as astrology has been ever since
the first swindler trotted it out.
-jcr
Thos
The nature of this type of astrology is that it weighs up the prospects of
two competing forces, whether on the battlefield or the sportsfield. Of
course, the disadvantage is that a single prediction is not altogether very
persuasive, and, moreover, an incorrect prediction would be highly
embarrassing. It would be much more impressive to pick a winning horse from
a large field or, better still, the lottery numbers, but these require
different astrological techniques.
I wrote:
In other words, it's useless.
Paracelsus replied:
No, it's not useless, just not as impressive as if there were more options
to choose from.
And I now reply:
I'm not quite sure I'm following you then. From what you describe it seems
to me that when evaluating the results of this method, the final call boils
down to, "It could go one way or it could go the other." Since this is also
what guessing based solely on random chance also boils down to, I fail to see
what benefit the method has. I see no value in it whatsoever.
Paracelsus
I don't believe you have followed me. What I was saying was, in a straight
choice between two teams, a correct prediction is not very impressive, and
an incorrect one is highly embarrassing. I wasn't saying that the technique
itself couldn't choose between the two options, only that there were only
two options to choose from.
As to whether it works or not, or how well it works, this is a suitable
subject for scientific enquiry. As Xcott Craver suggests, it requires
repeating the technique for a number of games, counting up how many times it
works, comparing this with the score to be expected from random guessing,
doing a spot of statistical analysis, and working out how significant it is.
gar...@my-deja.com
this page: http://www.astrozero.btinternet.co.uk/lottery.htm
In article <Zh4c6.657$Jx5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Paracelsus" <parac...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I should say that sports astrology is not really my prime focus. My
main
> interest is trying to develop astrological techniques to predict
lottery
> numbers. I say "trying to develop", as I'm not aware of any
techniques in
> the corpus of astrological knowledge dealing with lotteries, so I'm
working
> with a clean slate.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/