I recently participated in a forum discussion involving ways to increase one’s accuracy when reading for others. Many readers experience occasional lapses in querent satisfaction after a long string of successful attempts, and are puzzled why this should be the case since nothing has changed in their approach. My thought on this is that they are trying to put too fine a point on their divinatory pronouncements. Some experienced readers report a rate of accuracy as high as 80%, but I’m inclined to believe this is much too high and is probably based more on anecdotal evidence than empirical fact-checking. Granted that one’s performance should be superior to the 50/50 success ratio of a coin flip or there is no reason to bother reading the cards, the degree of precision in the answer is really a function of the phrasing of the question. “Yes-or-no” questions and answers are likely to gravitate to the 50% end of the spectrum, while those that are more open-ended enjoy a higher success rate (my own experience has been in the 70% range). In particular, answers to questions like “Will I meet my next boyfriend soon?” that rely heavily on the actions and reactions of another (probably unknown or at least unknowing) person are notoriously prone to failure. Asking “What do I need to do to increase my relationship potential?” is much more likely to produce the kind of useful advice that is an emphatic strength of the tarot.
I tend not to focus on specific “events,” but rather on what I call “situational awareness and developmental insight” – where do things appear to be trending, and what is likely to accelerate or inhibit them? My goal isn’t to tell my sitters exactly what will happen, but to help them prepare to chart their own course through emerging circumstances that may exhibit particular qualities and characteristics. I talk about probabilities rather than certainties, and I steer clear of most psychological profiling as well. (I read the cards, not minds.) You could say I treat a reading like a “road-map” with the individual cards as “sign-posts.” In this way I can inform my sitters whether the road ahead appears to be clear of obstructions, or whether to expect delays and detours. The degree of accuracy in the outcome depends on how well the querent is able to avoid or overcome obstacles to progress. If they appear and are successfully negotiated, the reading was a success; if they don’t appear as predicted, whether through the querent’s anticipatory action or the simple vagaries of fate, they suggest that reader accuracy wasn’t a material factor in the querent’s response to the situation. Any result that empowers the querent to effectively engage with uncertain circumstances should be judged a success, even if the particulars are off the mark.