They're at it again
Nov. 1st, 2005 02:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksFrom today's trial of the alleged murdered of Peter Falconio:
Carmen Eckhoff, a senior forensic biologist based in Berrimah, Darwin, said a DNA profile taken from Miss Lees' bloodstained T-shirt was compared with a profile obtained from a swab of Murdoch's mouth on New Year's Eve 2003 and was "found to be an exact match". Ms Eckhoff explained to the jury that the blood was 150 quadrillion - 150 million billion - times more likely to be his than any other caucasian male's in Australia's Northern Territory.
Now, without going too far into the statistics of forensic probability, I reckon that anyone who can write their own name will know that this number just has to be wrong. In fact, it's so gagaingly mind-bogglingly wrong that I'm still trying to work out how the biologist came up with the number. My best guess is that the entire seqience was taken. As we know, there are four basic "building blocks". So, if you take the entire genome sequence, and make each one a one-in-four chance, I suppose that you might come up with this kind of number.
Except, as we also know, building blocks don't work like that. DNA doesn't work like that.
Now, I'm not denying that the DNA sample is a powerful piece of evidence. But it isn't an irrefutable piece of evidence. In addition, for mixed populations and inbred populations the product rule is not as accurate. To the extent that the product rule is inaccurate, the error usually works against the suspect, unfairly exaggerating the strength of the evidence.
++++
And, on a different tack: this month's figures.
Carmen Eckhoff, a senior forensic biologist based in Berrimah, Darwin, said a DNA profile taken from Miss Lees' bloodstained T-shirt was compared with a profile obtained from a swab of Murdoch's mouth on New Year's Eve 2003 and was "found to be an exact match". Ms Eckhoff explained to the jury that the blood was 150 quadrillion - 150 million billion - times more likely to be his than any other caucasian male's in Australia's Northern Territory.
Now, without going too far into the statistics of forensic probability, I reckon that anyone who can write their own name will know that this number just has to be wrong. In fact, it's so gagaingly mind-bogglingly wrong that I'm still trying to work out how the biologist came up with the number. My best guess is that the entire seqience was taken. As we know, there are four basic "building blocks". So, if you take the entire genome sequence, and make each one a one-in-four chance, I suppose that you might come up with this kind of number.
Except, as we also know, building blocks don't work like that. DNA doesn't work like that.
Now, I'm not denying that the DNA sample is a powerful piece of evidence. But it isn't an irrefutable piece of evidence. In addition, for mixed populations and inbred populations the product rule is not as accurate. To the extent that the product rule is inaccurate, the error usually works against the suspect, unfairly exaggerating the strength of the evidence.
++++
And, on a different tack: this month's figures.
| SITE | $3-$6 | $1-$2 | 50C-$1 | $25 | $5 | $2-$4 | $5-$10 | Grand Total | ||
| PTY | $559.00 | $559.00 | ||||||||
| UB | $33.00 | $168.50 | $83.90 | $9.00 | $47.00 | $341.40 | ||||
| Betfair | $14.50 | $5.50 | $35.25 | $142.00 | $157.25 | |||||
| SJ | $1.25 | $1.25 | ||||||||
| EMP | $530.75 | $95.50 | $29.10 | $655.35 | ||||||
| PS | $10.50 | $48.75 | $123.50 | $182.75 | ||||||
| PP | $9.00 | $25.00 | $34.00 | |||||||
| Total | $574.25 | $231.75 | $98.40 | $1.25 | $35.25 | $111.00 | $482.90 | $498.50 | ||
| Total Hours | 23.25 | 30.50 | 10.00 | 3.50 | 11.50 | 23.25 | 4.50 | 106.50 | ||
| Avg per Hour | $24.70 | $7.60 | $9.84 | $0.36 | $3.07 | $4.77 | $107.31 | $4.68 |
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 08:59 pm (UTC)The defence
Date: 2005-11-02 04:48 am (UTC)As such, your prediction on what line the defence will take is irrelevant to my point. This is a general principle here, not a reference to a specific case and whether or not the defendant is guilty (or indeed whether or not it is his DNA).
My point is, just because something is "very likely" (as it is in this instance), that does not mean that you can throw numbers like "one in xxx quadrillion" around with gay abandon.
Of course the defence is not going to fight the case on the fact that the true chance is (say) one in 7000, rather than one in 150 million billion. How does that deflect my argument? Your point is correct, but a complete non sequitur.
PJ
Re: The defence
Date: 2005-11-02 12:33 pm (UTC)This is really my point; they wouldn't, logically, gain any ground in knocking off a couple of zeros, since it would only add a trivial amount to reasonable doubt. Whether or not it impacts on the subcosncious of the jury, makes the expert-witness/defence less credible is another matter.
Your Monthly Figures
Date: 2005-11-02 06:33 am (UTC)I notice you didn't break down the figures by HE or PLO etc. as in the past. I think it is clear though that a huge number of your hours that were spent in 1/2 and .50/1 were wasted since your EV at the 3/6 is so much higher. Unless of course that was at the start of the month following a poor last month. But really you seem to be beating the 3/6 well so why not stick with that this month on empire and party and pump your roll?
BluffTHIS!
Re: Your Monthly Figures
Date: 2005-11-02 02:48 pm (UTC)The reason for a lack of PLO is simple -- I didn't play any.
I think that the 3/6 and 5/10 really should be lumped together. This gives them a total earn of about five bucks an hour. That said, I did plan to move back to 5-10 in the near future.
The reasoning behind the strange width of stakes is as follows.
The 50-1 is 6-max on Ultimate, just to get the hang of the game, while playing 1/2 at two other tables.
Some of the 2/4 is two-tabling on Empire because I withdrew my initial deposit (in other words, it's all Empire's money), which left me a little bit thin for 3/6.
Other 2/4 stuff is two-tabling on Stars to knock off the $150 bonus (nearly there) and two-tabling on Paradise to knock off the $100 bonus there.
The big Betfair 2-4 loss was mainly heads-up waiting for other people to arrive at a 6-max table. I've won a LOT at heads-up on Betfair while being propped, but the volatility is pretty horrific.
So, as soon as the bonuses are knocked off, the strategy will probably be 5-10, possibly on Stars, plus two-tabling at 2-4 on Empire until my bankroll is at about 800.
Oh, and there was one other reason for not playing 3-6 on Empire. The games have died, at least in the early afternoon UK time. As you pointed out, part of the deal when it comes to winning money is getting into the good games. I have been focusing more on that area of things this past month, with reasonable results.
PJ