For roughly two years now I’ve been using tarot to attempt picking the winners and the comparative scores in sporting events. Needless to say, my track record until recently has been less than stellar. I started off with a bang, accurately predicting the regulation tie between the Patriots and the Falcons in the 2017 Super Bowl (26-26 vs an actual score of 28-28), and the Patriots’ overtime win (Pats by 3 points – a field goal – vs an actual spread of 6 points – a touchdown). I’ve been using my “Enemy at the Gate” head-to-head confrontation spread for this purpose, although it wasn’t designed for such contests. As a pair of opposing four-card lines, it seemed tailor-made for any game situation involving four quarters and a fairly low point yield. Unfortunately, that was the only time I achieved such remarkable success with naming both the winner and the approximate scoring outcome, and I haven’t been even remotely close with football playoff game scores since. One thing I learned from this is that American football has well-defined point-break “pods” that follow the 3-point and 7-point scoring convention (3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24, 28, etc.) with a rare 6-point or 2-point increment thrown in; this made a final score of 26 for either side highly unlikely. The other thing is that the raw scoring model has a maximum point spread of 7-0, so creative extrapolation had to be done to produce higher numbers. Anyone who is interested can find my reasoning here:
This year I decided to try my luck with the 2018 World Series. The scoring routine wasn’t set up for a nine-frame breakdown, so I endeavored to use the raw scores from the five “strength/weakness” comparisons in a cumulative way, with potential totals falling into the single-digit range as might be expected in a match-up between championship baseball teams. What I soon realized is that scores of “1” to “5” are quite common with this approach, but occasional totals from “6” to “9” or higher aren’t readily accommodated if the teams are evenly aligned according to the cards drawn. Some form of multiplier was needed to account for the potential for a blow-out of even modest proportions. Although I didn’t need it for the last game of the Series after discovering its utility in Game 4, I figure that a “doubler” will serve the purpose by multiplying the projected single-digit scores by 2x as an alternate projection.
The nominal success rate of this predictive effort over the five games of the Series was quite encouraging, as can be seen from my daily posts over the last few days. You can find all of my previous forecasts and commentary under “Sports Readings” in the sidebar Select Category drop-down search window. My next significant attempt will occur with the conference championship games in football, although I might take a stab at a couple of regular-season games of particular interest. The double and triple digit scoring in professional basketball doesn’t lend itself to the design of this spread without abnormal tweaking, and the scoring in hockey can be too meager and irregular to be a good fit as well.