February 1st, 2012, 06:29 PM
I notice that yarrow odds are used to cast the lines. So how are they generated ? Is it by yarrow simulation or by 16 token ? At the extreme end of the yarrow splits, 2 or 3 of the splits dont compute. No big deal with manual casting but it might be with computer generated casts.
February 2nd, 2012, 06:17 PM
yarrow loose end and the butterfly effect.
The yarrow odds we are familiar with , 1357 / 16 , are good enough for practical everyday purposes , since we rarely choose splits at the extreme end of the scale. But they are not real life.They are an approximation.
They would not be good enough for statistical analysis of long cast runs , esp. computer runs. For that , some fine tuning of the odds would be needed. Its a case of the butterfly effect. A small change at the beginning producing a big change further down the line.
If you include the splits 49 + 0 , and 0 + 49 , there are 50 splits. But they allow you to rig the result to some extent , so we can exclude them.
That leaves 48 splits.To get the familiar odds they would need to produce 36 x 5 , and 12 x 9.In actual fact they produce 37 x 5 and 11 x 9.Thats odds of 37 / 48 for a 5 , and 11 / 48 for a 9.
Similar for the second and third operations.
For eg if the first operation was a 5 , that leaves 44 sticks.The assumed odds are 1 / 2 ( equal amounts of 4 and 8 ).
The actual odds of producing a 4 are 22 / 43. And 21 / 43 for an 8.
If the first operation was a 9 , leaving 40 sticks , the actual odds are 20 / 39 for 4 , and 19 / 39 for 8.
Something similar for the third operation.
By multiplying the fractions we can get the actual odds for each line.
The familiar 1357 / 16 yields 6.25 % , 18.75 % , 31.25 % , 43.75 % for the four kinds of lines.
Andrew Kennedy in Briefing Leaders did a study of this problem using long computer generated cast runs.
Using revised odds qiuite similar to those above produced figures of 5.17 % , 21.11 % , 28.87 % , and 44.83 % for the four kinds of lines.
I use a different method than him to calculate the fractions above and get slightly different fractions , but he claims accuracy to within 0.1 % is possible.
Its a statistical analysis problem. Nothing to worry about in regard to everday casting.
But it is a loose end in yarrow casting.
Thats why I am interested in how the lines are generated.
Last edited by peterg; February 2nd, 2012 at 06:27 PM.
February 2nd, 2012, 07:00 PM
This is a good question I'm not qualified to answer - I will tell Ewald there's a post here that's for him!
But I agree that it's not something to worry about in everyday casting - or any casting, as I see it. The oracle has a way of working anyway.
February 2nd, 2012, 08:51 PM
I'm making this with the 16 token method, as that's what Hilary requested.
Originally Posted by peterg
February 15th, 2012, 12:43 PM
Here you go:
Those who wanted to stick with the old version will find it's still where it was, unchanged.
February 21st, 2012, 05:42 PM
Trojan, if you try the new reading and have a look at what it says at the foot of the page, you'll see that linking to the pdf-generating script and posting a poll are both Lilith's idea and nothing to do with the reading script. The footer actually suggests starting a thread with your question and reading (both of which it cites there for handy copying and pasting). It's also possible to link to a reading directly by copying its url from the address bar, but Ewald, probably wisely, didn't try to offer instructions for that.
February 22nd, 2012, 12:57 PM
I also need to go and lie down. My world is shaken to its foundations.
The Following User Says Thank You to hilary For This Useful Post:
pocossin (February 22nd, 2012)
May 23rd, 2012, 02:23 AM
I'm new here, but I can tell you that I like hitting the button once for each line. For me, it seems to take me deeper into the question. Hitting just once and getting the reading would not give that extra time to feel the deepening concentration.