Hi Roger. Thanks for the response.

In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make how much accuracy Jim Berkland claims.

Also, if you can calculate a different accuracy for him, will it change his claims? Did he agree to change his claims in accordance with your calculation?

Probably in the ring of fire, for a week long window, once a month has limited benefit. It is meant to show a relationship I think. When someone starts pinpointing temblors in populated areas, then maybe the probability should be investigated. Not by us, but by the government that can put the necessary resources into what ever method is being used.

My posts were not actually about evaluating one person or another. My posts were about evaluating the probability calculation itself and how the data is limited. Still no response has been provided to some serious flaws in the formula.

Prediction of an >M6 here in Taiwan the week before our M7.6 would actually be much less probable than a prediction posted immediately after the temblor. After the temblor, an M6 within one week is a pretty sure thing but your calculation doesn't show much of a difference. Common sense does.

If we have an M5 every week on average, but someone could tell me what day, time and location, you would give that a large probability and little significance but I would want to hug them. Your calculation would also only serve to discourage them.