Search planetary position pairs for a bias that survives out of sample

What happens when you check every pair at once?

The Daily tab’s Heatmap crosses one pair of planet positions that you picked. This is the Daily tab’s third view, and it checks every valid pair at once, then ranks the ones that look genuinely unusual.

Each candidate is scored against the same independence expectation (what that combination’s win rate would be if it carried no information beyond what each of its two positions already shows on its own) the Heatmap uses. Then it gets checked a second way. The most recent slice of history is held back from the search entirely and used only to see whether the pattern still points the same way on days the search never looked at. A result that only shows up in the years it was found in does not get presented as though it survived.

Judge by decides what “looks genuinely unusual” is measured against — direction by default, or a gap, a return, or volatility. Each choice reruns the whole scan and reports its own tested count, its own bar, and its own ranking.

When does a search beat a lookup?

When your question is “is there any planet-position combination with a real bias?” rather than a specific pair you already suspect. Checking pairs one at a time in the Heatmap could never answer that.

But checking many combinations means some will look striking by chance alone. So results here are read against how many would look that extreme by chance, not against zero. Most of the time nothing clears that bar. That is not a broken scan — it is the honest answer to whether a pattern this deep holds up, and it is worth exactly as much as a positive result would have been.

The Explorer's Daily scanner view. A form selects Market NIFTY 50, Session Closing, and Judge by Direction, with a one-line note underneath reading how often the market closes above the previous close, plus option fields Min days per cell 30, Min spans per cell 4, Z-minimum 3, Holdout fraction 0.3 and Results shown 50, and a checked Fast axes only box. Results headed NIFTY 50, Closing session, 7,610 matched days. A disclosure banner reads: we checked 1,518 combinations, 2 reached |z| at least 3, pure chance predicts about 4, the largest deviation found anywhere was |z| = 3.34 against a |z| at least 4.15 bar, nothing cleared it — 325 axis pairs considered, 1 excluded as structurally redundant, 36 pairs actually scored. Below it, in a state headed 'Nothing here clears the bar — and that is the result', a ranked results table's first row reads sun.rashi = Karka (Cancer) by mars.nakshatra = Ardra, n=41, spans=4, coverage 1996-2013, win rate 22.0%, residual -26.0pp, z=-3.34, holdout cross did not repeat out of sample.

Plate 05 — Explorer · Daily scanner·All planet position pairs·NIFTY 50·closing session

How do you run a scan?

1
Market and session — shared with the other two Daily views. Whatever you had set on Breakdown or Heatmap carries over.
2
Judge by picks what gets ranked. Direction by default — the scan ranks combinations by how far their win rate deviates. Switch it and the scan reruns against gap probability, a return, or volatility instead, with its own bar and its own count of how many combinations were checked.
3
Min days and min spans — the floor a combination must clear. Below either number a combination is treated as too thin to trust and never reaches the results table, however extreme it looks. Min spans starts at 4 here — planet positions cycle faster than KP sub lords do, so the same floor would be needlessly strict. Spans (separate unbroken stretches of matching trading days — 200 days in one unbroken run is one observation, not two hundred) catches the slow-moving positions that would otherwise pass on day count alone.
4
Z-minimum — how surprising a result has to look to be shown. Raising this only trims the table. It never changes how many combinations were tested or how many would be expected by chance — those numbers are fixed before this filter is ever applied, so tightening it cannot manufacture a better-looking headline.
5
Holdout fraction — how much history is held back to check the rest. The most recent slice of days is set aside and never used to rank a combination — only to check, afterwards, whether the pattern still holds on days the scan never saw.
6
Results shown — how many rows the table displays. Trims the table only; every combination is still scanned and counted.
7
Fast axes only — skip positions that barely move. On by default. A position that changes every year or two turns most of its history into a handful of long stretches rather than many independent occurrences — this keeps those out of the search rather than letting them crowd the results.
8
The disclosure banner — read this before the table beneath it. How many combinations were actually tested, how many would look this extreme by chance alone, and the bar a result has to clear once testing that many is accounted for — all specific to whichever factor Judge by is set to. The single most useful line on the page.
9
Click a row to open it in the Heatmap, highlighted. Jumps straight to that exact pair’s grid cell so you can see it in context — coloured against every other combination of those two axes, not just reported as a number in a table.

Where could a scan mislead you?

A null result here is the expected result, not a failure

Most scans find nothing that survives both checks — the multiple-testing bar and the out-of-sample holdout. That is what an honest search over many combinations against a finite price history looks like. A scan that reliably found “significant” results at this depth would be a sign something in the method was wrong, not right.

The Z-minimum control only decides what is shown. The tested-count and expected-by-chance numbers in the banner never move when you raise it. Otherwise tightening the filter could quietly make the page look more convincing while the underlying evidence stayed exactly the same.

The likeliest way to misread this

Reading a green “holdout consistent” tick as proof. The tick only checks that the direction agreed — a lean that shrinks from a real effect in-sample to nearly nothing on holdout still passes the direction check. Read the holdout magnitude next to the tick, not the tick alone.

And whichever of the six things Judge by is set to — even 3-day return — this is still a measurement, not a trade. It says nothing about a specific entry rule, a stop, or a moment to anchor a position to; that is the Backtest page’s job, over an actual occurrence rather than a trading day. A combination that clears every bar here is a reason to go looking for a real occurrence inside it — an event rather than a day.

Everything so far, though, has read the sky one way. The KP tab reads the same trading days through a different school of astrology — its own positions, its own chart, and a frame that sits slightly apart from the one you have been using. That difference turns out to matter, and it is what comes next.

The standing caveat

Celestial Market Lens measures what markets did around historical planetary events. That is a description of the past. It is not a prediction, not a recommendation, and not investment, financial, legal or tax advice. Past results do not tell you what will happen next, and you are responsible for anything you do with money.

Where next?

Open the Daily tab Next: KP Position →