I was talking to ChatGPT, trying to figure out what kind of results I would need to get in my Poker Prediction Experiments for them to be considered statistically significant when I realized that there is one thing about proving tarot to be real that perhaps all of us have been thinking about wrong: it’s not about causation. It’s about correlation.

When I told AI about the test that I designed, it began making recommendations for how I could improve the process so it would prove that drawing a particular card causes a particular outcome. I instantly replied that tarot is not about causing an outcome, it is about whether or not the message reflects reality; a moment which exists whether or not the tarot reading occurs.

Until then, I too had been questioning the strength of my research model. Part of me wanted to keep searching for a better way to prove the truth. In that moment, as I instantly explained that correlation is the point, I realized that deep-down, I was already confident. The issue is my ego. I didn’t feel confident about expressing my confidence… or, rather, I was letting the public’s lack of response to the information I have put out thus far affect my confidence.

The truth is I have already provided ample evidence that the tarot meanings which have been associated with the cards for centuries are correlated to some degree with hands of No Limit Texas Hold’em. I have shared tarot reading analyses of Memorable Poker Hands with Phil Ivey, Patrik Antonius, Daniel Negreanu, Johan Guilbert, Maria Ho, Alan Keating, Vivian Yang, Vladimir Korzinin, Leo Margets, William Kassouf, and more. Each shows that the meanings of the cards can apply to each player’s unique point of view; that the definition can remain constant while the precise interpretation changes; that the fact we may or may not interpret the meaning correctly doesn’t change the fact that the card meanings are correlated to the events.

Since I can’t afford the time it would take to produce hundreds more videos in that style, I came up with a new plan; a better plan: Poker Prediction Experiments.

First, I shuffle the AWEsome Deck of tarot playing cards and ask what card will appear in the first poker hand on the first poker video that comes up when we search for ____ on YouTube… and pull a card.

Second, I run the search on YouTube… and watch to see if the card appears.

I have performed the test thirty times thus far and found the card I was looking for nine times. Technically, that’s one “hit” below statistically significant, but we were above the benchmark until the last video… and the meanings of the cards that do appear continue to show correlation with player actions… and the tests will continue…. tomorrow, Sunday, November 15th at 9 AM PST.

By the way, many trials which I marked as “unsuccessful” actually had a bit of correlation…

Multiple times, the card drawn appeared in the thumbnail and flashed on the screen at the start of the video… but was not played in the first poker hand on the video. Even though it was one of the first things I saw in the video, it didn’t count.

Day 8, I drew the ace of hearts and, although the ace of diamonds was the card that appeared in the hand, those who produced the televised hand erroneously showed the ace of hearts instead of the ace of diamonds on the screen. So, the card which the deck predicted did appear as if it was in play in the video, but it shouldn’t have because it wasn’t actually in play in the poker hand. So, after much deliberation, I marked it “unsuccessful”… because its appearance was an accident.

If I did not mark these “gray area incidences” as unsuccessful, I could say that “hits” have occurred far more frequently than probability predicts. However, even using the strictest parameters, the results have been statistically significant. Stay tuned to see what happens next… and shop the AWEsome Stuff Shop to show your support.