Dear card readers,

I'm just word crocheting myself through a GT. First time using the 6 x 6 layout (usually 4 x 8 + 1 x 4) and I started wondering about the underlying house sequence in row 4.

Tower, Garden, Mountain, Crossroads, Mice, Heart. What is the connection between these cards? Is there some kind of universal evolution indicated by this sequence, a distinct psychological/sociological process? Just some sort of coherence. I'd say no. So then, what is the rationale behind giving all the cards that land in this row (or any other for that matter) the same undertone or background, like a fixed narrative? Why this "forced proximity" of certain modifiers or subtexts?

Of course, this also applies to reading boxes within the GT.

Sticking with the crochet analogy, or let's say weaving, this seems to me like having predetermined warp threads (colour, thickness, material) in every reading, irrespective of the subjective pattern that wants to appear.

For future GT I'll probably use a second deck and place the houses just as randomly as the other cards.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. I did use the search function to see if this had already been discussed, but nothing came up. Besides this interesting thread (that I reread) about the Master Method.

So please forgive if this is an old hat.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Ferrea

I never use house placements in a GT. So throwing that fact in is the only thing I have to add to your discussion. 🫥

I know the thread you linked to makes a case for the possibility that houses were traditional despite not showing up in the 1848 Phillipe sheet. I don't have a horse in that race. I don't actually mind how anyone reads for me if it's a method that works for them consistently. But proximity is what helps me the most, and the Phillipe sheet has things to say about proximity that I can use.)

Edited August 3Aug 3 by Rose Lalonde
Deleted irrelevant part

Not sure what you mean with: placing the houses randomly. @Ferrea 🤔

5 hours ago, joy said:

Not sure what you mean with: placing the houses randomly. @Ferrea 🤔

Shuffling the second (house) deck and laying down the cards randomly, like I'd do with the reading deck.

7 hours ago, Rose Lalonde said:

But proximity is what helps me the most, and the Phillipe sheet has things to say about proximity that I can use.)

Yes, I certainly can use the proximity of the Mice to the Heart and many other examples. But does it has to be like this every time? I could also go with the Heart being next to House, Clover, Sun. It could be very insightful, when houses and cards are paired situational.

2 hours ago, Ferrea said:

Yes, I certainly can use the proximity of the Mice to the Heart and many other examples. But does it has to be like this every time? I could also go with the Heart being next to House, Clover, Sun. It could be very insightful, when houses and cards are paired situational.

I meant that I don't use houses myself, and since there are different methods, if you want to read with houses and you want to shuffle a second deck to place them instead of using fixed houses, I'm not someone who would tell you not to do it that way. I'd say see if it works for your readings. (But likely I should have just stayed out of it, since I don't have experience reading with houses as some others here do. I just got excited to see a Lenormand thread, honestly. 🫠)

I understood that you're not using houses yourself. And even though that experience would help in this discussion I think the topic can be approached plainly conceptually.

For people reading the GT more punctual, like deliberately checking cards in certain houses and how they are connected in the same way you look for rulership in astrology – my issue would probably not have appeared to them. I guess it becomes more obvious when reading lines or boxes and the underlying house structure shows up in one's wording as clusters or sequences.

Edited August 3Aug 3 by Ferrea

17 hours ago, Ferrea said:

Shuffling the second (house) deck and laying down the cards randomly, like I'd do with the reading deck.

Interesting. It is just not how it is done normally. But I guess if you are clear how to do it before you start it is fine.

Like you mentioned in the title of this post, I have always thought of the houses as fixed placements. They’re just a sequence from 1-36, with no specific meaning behind the particular order whatsoever. I would find the idea of having random houses with a second deck redundant. We already have random combinations when we deal out the cards, so why make it even more complex? In my own practice, I note the houses, but only specific houses (like the Key, Clouds, etc.) or the house that a certain card grabbing my attention has fallen in. I don’t rely on it heavily, because I’ve always had difficulty grasping the concept fully; houses are not like combinations. They are boundaries that sort of limit how a card can behave in relation to its neighboring cards, and all of that is something I find more complex than using distance/combinations. It’s precisely the same reason why I prefer counting to following the chain of houses for clarifying my points, etc.

Thanks for sharing how you use the houses, @Moon-Hermit !

1 hour ago, Moon-Hermit said:

In my own practice, I note the houses, but only specific houses (like the Key, Clouds, etc.) or the house that a certain card grabbing my attention has fallen in.

I guess you fall into the category of GT readers who only take the houses into consideration in a more punctual, selective manner. Which I think is a very effective method. However, by doing so you do not run into questioning the fixed house sequence, as I mentioned above.

1 hour ago, Moon-Hermit said:

I don’t rely on it heavily, because I’ve always had difficulty grasping the concept fully; houses are not like combinations. They are boundaries that sort of limit how a card can behave in relation to its neighboring cards, and all of that is something I find more complex than using distance/combinations.

My understanding of the houses' function is different. I use them as modifyier for the cards, or I see them as a kind of context – where does XY come from? What's the background of the card, its modus operandi? I've never seen the houses as having an impact on a cards' scope in relation to other cards. An idea I find quite intruiguing nevertheless.

It seems, my discomfort with fixed houses stems from my reading style that is a bit different than the traditional. I'm OK with that.

5 hours ago, Ferrea said:

I guess you fall into the category of GT readers who only take the houses into consideration in a more punctual, selective manner.

Well, yes. I tried pretty hard with the houses, but man using a lot of them was like a headache, lol. I’m happy to look for nuance only where I need it most. The rest comes from the cards.

5 hours ago, Ferrea said:

where does XY come from? What's the background of the card

I use mirroring for that purpose. The houses would be the flavor of the cards that occupy them, regardless of time. I think of that card as “possessed” by the house beneath it! 😜 The house is “getting into” the card, in other words, making it act in a certain way.

5 hours ago, Ferrea said:

It seems, my discomfort with fixed houses stems from my reading style that is a bit different than the traditional. I'm OK with that.

It’s right to go with what makes sense to you and is comfortable in your own practice. I agree with the others; give your idea a try. Even if it doesn’t work out, at the very least you’ve experimented with something new!

Admittedly, I only peek at Houses occasionally, and it seems to be helpful. But I fear that using them more consistently than that will turn the whole layout into a 36-card spread with fixed positions, which does, as you said, quickly expose the entire lack of any coherent underlying structure. To me, the charm of GT is in the flexibility of its positional meanings, a sort of an empty canvas on which the cards can paint whatever picture they see fit. Nailing the whole reading rigorously into all the 36 Houses seems, at least to me, like robbing it of that freedom.

Distributing Houses randomly seems like an interesting experiment, though. If you ever do it, I'd love to see what happens 😉

Edited August 8Aug 8 by dancing_moon

On 8/5/2026 at 9:59 AM, Moon-Hermit said:

They are boundaries that sort of limit how a card can behave in relation to its neighboring cards, a

Could you elaborate on this?

33 minutes ago, Sar said:

Could you elaborate on this?

Of course.

Take the Fox as an example. Normally, it would exploit the cards it touches, especially those to its left, right, and below (diagonals included). The severity is increased the closer it falls to the significator.

Suppose you have all that in a Grand Tableau, but decide to look at the house the Fox occupies and find it on 8-Coffin. The Fox would still seek to exploit the querent and all of its own surrounding cards (something is still wrong and we should still be cautious, in other words), but it's trapped in the casket itself. In other words, he is setting up a trap for you without knowing he is already standing in the grave himself. The demon is leashed. I would thus restrict what the Fox can do to the other cards with that detail in mind, where it's relevant. Whatever trick he's got up his sleeve is dead before it's even pulled. He may as well be likened to a hissing and fussing cat with no real damage done.

This is just how I have worked with the houses thus far, and why I am careful with how often I use them and where I need to use them. In my experience, the houses don't define/affirm the cards that occupy them in the usual way (or else I would have read the Coffin and the Fox like a combination, which definitely means something alarming). The house itself is stagnant; it doesn't engage with the card it hosts beyond giving it its own hue. It is the card on top that is animate and reacts to the atmosphere; that reaction is carried out to the neighboring cards, based on what four walls that one card is constricted in. Because the cards in the houses are considered separately, on their own, it is the individual card that is possessed by the house it falls on (more like a state that the one card on top is forced to be in, rather than a sentence with the two combined; you dump the Fox in the casket, you merge the Serpent's venom with the Fish on top, etc). The card is thus altered in one way or another, and behaves differently in relation to its neighboring cards, for better or worse.

I hope that was clear.

Edited August 8Aug 8 by Moon-Hermit

On 8/2/2026 at 11:12 PM, Ferrea said:

For future GT I'll probably use a second deck and place the houses just as randomly as the other cards.

Hi @Ferrea

I'd say have a go and see what it does for you.

If it gives you more grip on your reads, that's what matters.

Chances are there'll be a takeaway to the exploration making it worthwhile, maybe you'll even stick with it.

It is the same reason why some like to give their rows a certain meaning, be that by incorporation of houses, giving meaning to certain sections of the tableau, or ordering it in a timely manner - it does make sense to use if it gives more grip on the read and that's why some use it.

And some don't want to do without and use two packs of lenormands to lay a 3x3 in order to use houses in their read.

It has precedence: The use of two pack Tarock's/Jass for example, or the use of Triumphs and Suits as two sepearate packs, one clarifying the other.

Or a pack of tarots with an oracle-overlay.

Even using the arkana/suits/both and then placing runes thereon for further detail or pairing astrology with cards is based on the same principle.

Maybe to Pitisci-People it can be put under 'clever ways to incorporate conceptual blending'.

It is also the same reason why some like to give their rows no meaning or 'observe the cards naturally' - it does make sense if it gives more grip.

There's anotherone: "grip" is what I like to use, others may prefer "insight". Or "precision". Or "accuracy".

While they are not the same, the sentiment linking them likely is.

Edited August 12Aug 12 by Mister

On 8/2/2026 at 9:52 PM, Ferrea said:

Shuffling the second (house) deck and laying down the cards randomly, like I'd do with the reading deck.

I lay my house deck as a 6x6 GT ordered 1-36. Then I lay the randomized spread deck atop those.

To me, randomizing the houses would add unnecessary complication to an already complex spread.

Being familiar with Lenormands 1-36 laid in a 6x6 grid, it's easy for me to identify when a card falls in its domicile [own house]. If I randomized the house positions this becomes diificult to spot / easy to miss.

Likewise for house exchanges [ring falls in snake's house and snake falls in ring's house for example].

I don't necessarily read every house of a GT. Sometimes I only want to know about one topic [lets say money for example]. Because I'm familiar with house placements as a 6x6 GT, my eyes can go immediately to H34 [fish's house] to check finances. Or to H15 to check investments.

You get the idea. For me it's purely pragmatic.

Randomizing both decks is an interesting idea--but my eyesight isn't sharp enough to do it 😎

Edited Tuesday at 07:43 PM2 days by Misterei

When I use Houses, which is rarely, it is only to see what House the Significator or Clouds has landed in. That sometimes can make sense of a GT that seems to be making none.

All of the various methods of forming combinations, whether through counting, mirroring, knighting, or the use of houses, produce different results and are best employed with discernment. Of these techniques, the use of houses is the one I rely upon least, and I genuinely believe it is rather overused.

Whether one adopts the 8 × 4 + 4, 6 × 6, or 9 × 4 layout should, in my view, make very little difference. I tend to think of the tableau as a large house containing thirty-six rooms, each belonging to a particular card. Every room is enclosed by four walls and is defined by the character and essence of the card that resides there.

Thus, the House of the Birch Rod is the house of correction. If the Cloverleaf falls within that house, there may be an opportunity to correct something swiftly and successfully. More often than not, however, this tells us relatively little, as it remains merely a two-card combination in isolation. What appears in House 10 or House 12 is largely irrelevant in terms of house interpretation, because each room is confined by its own walls and therefore by its own essential meaning.

If one is employing the Master Method, then the traditional essence of the house is replaced by the meaning assigned to it within that system.

There is also no reason why the houses cannot be randomised. I vaguely recall Tali teaching something along those lines.

Ultimately, they are your cards, and you are free to work with them in the manner that best serves your practice. The key, however, is to use all of these techniques with purpose and discrimination. The objective is not to apply every available method simply because one can, but to employ those techniques that help uncover the information one actually needs.

For me, most tableaus can be read primarily through proximity, master cards, attendance (vertical, horizontal and diagonal) and counting. I only use other techniques if I need further information.

@timtoldrum , since this is a topic concerning the houses, may I ask you a question related to that if it’s okay?

In appendix #5 of your book you mentioned that there are seven house methods. I searched a lot but could never find anything other than the master method and the normal game of hope houses. May I know where to look for the other five methods? Even though I do not use the houses that much in my own practice, I am curious regardless. Thank you

5 minutes ago, Moon-Hermit said:

@timtoldrum , since this is a topic concerning the houses, may I ask you a question related to that if it’s okay?

In appendix #5 of your book you mentioned that there are seven house methods. I searched a lot but could never find anything other than the master method and the normal game of hope houses. May I know where to look for the other five methods? Even though I do not use the houses that much in my own practice, I am curious regardless. Thank you

Of course. I’m always happy to answer questions and discuss the cards.

Unfortunately, that must be a typo. It should read several.

I know of four systems: the Game of Hope, the Master Method, the Gong Hee Fot Choy and one used by a reader Sarajevo. The latter is much like the master method, but the houses’ significations are different and include family, enemy, blessing and curse.

The Game of Hope and master method tend to be the dominant systems. If I use them with the Petit Lenormand I keep to the Game of Hope, but I use the master method with the Petit Cartomancien and tarot pips.

1 hour ago, timtoldrum said:

and I genuinely believe it is rather overused.

Currently, at least in Germany, we see the emergence of a crop of readers putting heavy focus on it, especially online.

It seems some like to use the Master-Method as the foundation of their personal blend; there's been an upspike ever since Malkiel opened his course.

And it is blending all right, maybe so much that it's safe to say they already practice the "houses-method" instead of what strictly constitutes the MM.

I am sure it blended so much that some come to the cards thinking that's the way to read them, the one you gotta know - Well, it is what it is.

Personally, I am waiting for the emergence of the Psycho-Astrological-Houses-Master-Method, it'd be a very german thing to do.

Is it alround already?

11 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Of course. I’m always happy to answer questions and discuss the cards.

Unfortunately, that must be a typo. It should read several.

I know of four systems: the Game of Hope, the Master Method, the Gong Hee Fot Choy and one used by a reader Sarajevo. The latter is much like the master method, but the houses’ significations are different and include family, enemy, blessing and curse.

The Game of Hope and master method tend to be the dominant systems. If I use them with the Petit Lenormand I keep to the Game of Hope, but I use the master method with the Petit Cartomancien and tarot pips.

Thanks for being so kind.

Ooh, that clarifies things! I had come across a book that was about the Gong Hee Fot Choy when I was first learning how to read with the playing cards, though I never sat down to study the thing extensively. Seems like a revisit is in order 🙂

It has been the same for myself as well, i.e. using the Game of Hope method if I decide to look at the houses in a GT. While I certainly appreciate the detail that the master method can offer, I feel it makes the reader focus more on the pips than the actual Lenormand images. Besides, there are so many associations, and I'm afraid I don't have the memory required to memorize them all, lol.

19 minutes ago, Mister said:

Psycho-Astrological-Houses-Master-Method

I would certainly not use that with the Lenormand, especially the psycho astrological stuff, lol.

I think that because Lenormand seems to be easier than the other systems at first glance, a lot of those that are newly introduced to it are tempted to experiment and see if they can enrich it with additional stuff (if it even needs that in the first place). I know that after some time I did (for a while I tried incorporating geomancy and everything that can come with it into my readings); while it seemed fun and fascinating and all that, it really didn't add anything significant to what I was doing. It was unnecessary, in other words.

I feel the same towards the master method, at least when it's being used heavily. The couple of times I used it myself I had to constantly look through my book to find the associations and naturally, what I was trying to say ended up sounding very much disconnected. If a reader can make it work smoothly, though, I'd certainly admire them. I enjoy watching Malkiel's videos, even though I don't understand German and have to rely on captions.

7 minutes ago, Moon-Hermit said:

I would certainly not use that with the Lenormand, especially the psycho astrological stuff, lol.

I'm sure there is a bunch on it already, really.

There must be.

It's just how things are at the moment.

And of course, there is the urge to experiment here and there (it once got me using a Black Pete pack - it still gets me occasionally), and while often the experiment itself doesn't stick, I found them worthwhile.

If only to know for sure that this'n'that doesn't work for me or to experience which tendencies carry over and by virtue of that qualify for examination of what constitutes the core relied upon.

@timtoldrum and @Moon-Hermit , when you speak of the "Game of Hope"-Method, is that the same thing I'd call "houses-method", in that you use the numbers on the card and their line-up to determine which house is where and what it speaks of or is it yet another thing?