Luke (and all), I've pretty much left your predictions alone, and it is good to have a few people predicting on this page. The question is whether lack of challenge of your predictions here might be taken by some as endorsement of them. But, your maps and predictions just are not interesting to me because you do not state what they are based on, and because it is probably impossible or nearly so to evaluate your maps (Roger, feel free to chime in). I rarely look at your UTube reports in part because of this and in part because I'm very cautious about internet security (never, never hook up your laptop to a Turkish internet cafe!. Lots of Turkish spam now).

For your more specific predictions like the one above, it seems to me (in an unscientific way, meaning it is my impression and not based on statistics) that your results have been worse than chance. As others have commented here (Canie?), you will sooner or later have a larger quake that falls into one of your high risk zones.

I encourage you to make prediction-related posts now and then that are science based; which fault zones you consider hazardous and why, and why the hazard should be time-dependent.
Chris