Not sure what I'm missing, but I agree with Amit, again. I agreed with him a few weeks ago when he said that multiple hits on one day should be counted (I think they should be subtracted from the total expected quakes). I think Roger's statistics are assuming that M6 quakes are not clustered, and if they do cluster, then the evaluation is not correct. Roger never answered my question about Amits example of a few weeks ago that he could have 100% of his predictions correct, but if some came on the same dates, Rogers evaluation at that time would give him a lower score.

And I totally don't get how beating 92% of random predictions is below chance. Is Roger expecting 97% significance? Isn't one standard deviation 67% or something like that?
Unlike some here, I don't think a prediction has to be useful for evacuation or whatever to be useful for understanding earthquakes.

But, scientists are never going to Amit seriously because the methods he uses make no physical sense at all.

Chris