As someone who practises astrology and is also a maths teacher, I would just like to say that when doing statistical research, the probability of a planet being in a certain sign isn't necessarily going to be 1/12 (or 0.083̅).

I remember a certain someone who looked at the purported charts of 1800 gay men and concluded the placements of Mars and Venus in them were statistically significant. The only problem is, he assumed that Mars and Venus occupied each sign for 1/12 of its orbital period.

I looked at the data myself; if you did in fact assume that Mars spent 1/12 of its orbit in each sign, then yes, there was a statistical significance to the spread of data (p < .01); BUT, if you take into account the fact that Mars actually spends more time on average...

... in Gemini through Scorpio, then the p-value of the spread rises to p = .41, far more than the .05 cap below which statistical significance could be inferred.