The Prediction Zone | Every Forecast, Tracked

Why I just published a public, auditable record of every prediction I’ve ever made - including the ones that failed.

Executive Summary:

Today I’m publishing The Prediction Zone, a complete, publicly auditable archive of every financial astrology prediction I’ve made since the inception of this Substack. Wins, misses, partial calls, and predictions still in play. All of it scored, all of it timestamped, all of it open for any subscriber to fact-check.

---

In this piece I’ll walk through:

• How to use the Prediction Zone

• Why most financial astrologers won’t publish their misses, and why I think that’s a mistake

• The methodology

• What the numbers actually say

⏱ Estimated Read Time: 8 minutes

---

PART I | THE CASE FOR TRANSPARENCY

Pundits delete bad calls. Crypto Twitter influencers screenshot the wins and let the rest disappear into the algorithm. The accumulated effect is that an entire industry presents itself as more accurate than it actually is, and the consumer has no way to verify.

I want to do something different.

The Prediction Zone is a single page available to paid subscribers that contains every single financial astrology prediction I’ve made since the inception of this substack. Broad and specific, directional and price-targeted, on stocks, crypto, commodities, currencies, geopolitics, and macro themes. Each prediction is logged with the date it was made, the time window it was supposed to play out in, the astrological reasoning, the source link to where it was originally published, and an outcome score.

Why do I do this?

First, because it’s the right thing to do. If I’m asking subscribers to pay for predictions, they deserve to see how those predictions have actually performed. Not a curated highlight reel - the full record. You can’t make an informed decision about whether to keep subscribing if you can only see the wins.

Second, because it forces me to keep getting better. Once you know that every prediction you make will go on a public scorecard, your incentives shift. Vague calls feel less safe. Specific calls feel more meaningful. How can you trust someone who doesn’t log their predictions?

---

PART II | THE METHODOLOGY

The scoring system is simple. Each prediction gets one of four verdicts when its time window closes:

• Correct - The prediction played out as called within the predicted window. Worth 1 point.

• Partial - Directionally right but the magnitude, the timing, or a specific detail was off. Worth 0.5 points.

• Incorrect - The prediction did not play out. Worth 0 points.

• Pending - The window hasn’t closed yet, or the outcome isn’t yet clear. Not counted.

Some predictions have year-long windows that haven’t closed yet, but are tracking clearly in one direction. These get a (so far) suffix - they’re counted in the Provisional accuracy rate but not the Conservative one.

The Prediction Zone shows two headline numbers:

• Conservative Accuracy Rate - Counts only fully resolved predictions. This is the strictest reading.

• Provisional Accuracy Rate - Includes the in-progress “(so far)” calls.

WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY MEANS

The CXO Advisory Group’s landmark study tracked 6,584 forecasts from 68 public market gurus between 2005 and 2012. The average accuracy across all of them was just 47% - barely better than a coin flip. Only 5 of the 68 forecasters (around 7%) ever beat 60% on a meaningful sample. A follow-up re-analysis by Bailey, Borwein, Salehipour and Lopez de Prado, weighting forecasts by horizon and specificity, reached a similar conclusion: only around 16% of forecasters scored above 60%.

Those studies focused on directional calls on the broad market, while my work spans a wider mix of broad themes - stocks, crypto, commodities, geopolitics, world affairs - so the comparison isn’t perfectly like for like. But the bigger point holds: across the public forecasting world, sustained accuracy above 60% on any meaningful sample is rare.

WHAT ACCURACY DOESN’T CAPTURE

Pure accuracy percentage, counterintuitively, isn’t actually the right way to measure value in this work. The numbers count every prediction equally, but the value of any one accurate call can be far greater than several incorrect ones.

Take the Marvell Technology prediction: very bullish in April, published weeks in advance, with the astrological reasoning laid out openly. The stock delivered over 50% gains within the predicted window. A subscriber who acted on that single call paid for their subscription in one trade. Meanwhile, a broader miss like a vague monthly direction call costs nothing but a tally mark in the Incorrect column. The math counts every prediction equally. Your portfolio doesn’t.

The other thing worth weighing is timing. Predicting tomorrow’s price is easy, but calling a bullish month for a specific stock six months out, with the astrological justification published in advance, is a fundamentally harder skill - and it’s the one that demonstrates whether astrology actually has predictive power.

I also won’t pretend my work is static and system-based. The methodology has tightened considerably over the past year as the dataset has grown and certain techniques have proven themselves more reliable than others. Many of the calls in the Incorrect column come from earlier work where I was still calibrating. The trajectory matters as much as the snapshot.

---

PART 3 | HOW TO USE THE PREDICTION ZONE

This section is for paid subscribers only.