Roger to Chris: "I've gotta learn not to post preliminary results."

Ya mean like the one above, with 33 meaning 3 sigmas above the center?

Ironic that we have predictors who cannot or who are not willing to explain their method, and we have prediction-evaluation not doing any better in the explanation department. Roger, re-read that paragraph (below)-- did ANYONE make sense of it?

As for specifically Don's cop-out -- he says he is using a "proprietary" method that is not his. Great, whose is it, Don? That a secret too? OK, you have a proprietary method not yours that you are using to publicly predict earthquakes. Next question: do you have permission from the proprietary owner to do so? Has he told you to go ahead and use his method as long as you keep it secret?

To use Glen's apt phrase, none of this "cuts it" with me. Either you tell us about the method, or (if you have not been given permission by the owner) you do not use it and post results publicly.
--------------------

> Not sure if I am getting this right. After 10,000 repetitions, "chance" did no better than 40. Don only got 33. So how is it that "chance" lost? Are you assigning "chance" the median score of 30 and saying that Don's score is higher than that? If so, how do you avoid the temptation to say that Don's score is only slightly higher "by chance"?

Paragraph that stumped me:

No, you're not getting it right. I made 10,000 repetitions of 226 random numbers, comparing them to Don's probabilities and counting the number of times the random number was smaller than Don's. Those counts made up a histogram and the largest number was 40 Don's 33 is 3 sigmas from center.