what do you think the odds are of abduction in this case?

[Vertigo Swirl]

'It' being one of a number of potential outcomes, one of which is still abduction. You specifically said 'after'. So, if you like, after 'it'.

What are the odds Madeleine was abducted?  Over to you to put a number on it.

[misty]

Statistically, what are the odds of a 10 year old boy at a school summer camp in France being the victim of abduction & murder by a serial (20+ times) abuser/abductor/murderer who'd committed all his other crimes in Germany?

[The General]

What are the odds Madeleine was abducted?  Over to you to put a number on it.

In the exact circumstances that she may not have been?

[The General]

Statistically, what are the odds of a 10 year old boy at a school summer camp in France being the victim of abduction & murder by a serial (20+ times) abuser/abductor/murderer who'd committed all his other crimes in Germany?

You tell me, I've no idea what you're talking about. Hit me with a number Scotch Mist.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In the exact circumstances that she may not have been?

Just answer the question.

[The General]

Just answer the question.

Need to get the context right. Bearing in mind you wanted to know the odds of two scenarios after the event had already occurred. So, you know, for accuracy.
Besides, the German serial killer one or your one?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Need to get the context right. Bearing in mind you wanted to know the odds of two scenarios after the event had already occurred. So, you know, for accuracy.
Besides, the German serial killer one or your one?

Just answer the question.  Give as many odds as you like so long as you clearly describe the different circumstances.

[The General]

OK, I've worked on this most of the night. Here's the odds, in no particular order:

Woke and wandered - 28%

Abducted - 34%

Parental involvement - 37%

Other (i.e. Cubby Hole theory) - 1%

[Vertigo Swirl]

OK, I've worked on this most of the night. Here's the odds, in no particular order:

Woke and wandered - 28%

Abducted - 34%

Parental involvement - 37%

Other (i.e. Cubby Hole theory) - 1%

Fabulous.  Now, explain how Monkey was right when he said the odds that Madeleine was abducted were 57 million to one. 

[Mr Gray]

OK, I've worked on this most of the night. Here's the odds, in no particular order:

Woke and wandered - 28%

Abducted - 34%

Parental involvement - 37%

Other (i.e. Cubby Hole theory) - 1%

reasonable based on your understanding of the evidence

[The General]

Fabulous.  Now, explain how Monkey was right when he said the odds that Madeleine was abducted were 57 million to one.

OK, so the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials, as per my pigeon analogy. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. So Monkey was doing the latter, calculating the probability using rough estimates of the known variables - it's simple mathematics at this stage - what was it? 57 million to 1?
Now what I've done is a separate thing entirely. I'm not calculating the probability of purely a child being abducted in those exact circumstances, which may be slightly subjective; I'm calculating the 'odds' or 'chance' of one of the three (or four) scenarios laid out, using a similar calculation, but deriving a likelihood given the evidence to hand and referring back to the empirical evidence of such crimes.

[Vertigo Swirl]

OK, so the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials, as per my pigeon analogy. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. So Monkey was doing the latter, calculating the probability using rough estimates of the known variables - it's simple mathematics at this stage - what was it? 57 million to 1?
Now what I've done is a separate thing entirely. I'm not calculating the probability of purely a child being abducted in those exact circumstances, which may be slightly subjective; I'm calculating the 'odds' or 'chance' of one of the three (or four) scenarios laid out, using a similar calculation, but deriving a likelihood given the evidence to hand and referring back to the empirical evidence of such crimes.

Nice waffle, so was Monkey correct to say that the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted was 57 million to one?

[Mr Gray]

OK, so the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials, as per my pigeon analogy. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. So Monkey was doing the latter, calculating the probability using rough estimates of the known variables - it's simple mathematics at this stage - what was it? 57 million to 1?
Now what I've done is a separate thing entirely. I'm not calculating the probability of purely a child being abducted in those exact circumstances, which may be slightly subjective; I'm calculating the 'odds' or 'chance' of one of the three (or four) scenarios laid out, using a similar calculation, but deriving a likelihood given the evidence to hand and referring back to the empirical evidence of such crimes.

no...monkey said...
57,000,000/1 that Madeleine was abducted abroad

monkey seemed to beleive that Maddie couldnt have been abducted becasue the odds were so great

[The General]

Nice waffle, so was Monkey correct to say that the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted was 57 million to one?

Well correct in so far as Stan James might have Tiger Rolls at 10/1 to win the National, but Paddy Power might have him at 12/1. It's not finite, it's finely nuanced and can be subjective. If you ran the numbers through Deep Blue it might spit out something utterly mindblowing - or it might explode as it's a chess computer.

Where do you stop with the variables? Where do you start? Monkey had 3 million as a working number of children  going on holiday abroad - but where? Tanzania? Sierra Leone? Algarve? An aggregate of all holidays? And that's just one variable, as I've mentioned.
I will say the assumptions he gave were relatively reasonable and the maths was performed in a standard manner.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well correct in so far as Stan James might have Tiger Rolls at 10/1 to win the National, but Paddy Power might have him at 12/1. It's not finite, it's finely nuanced and can be subjective. If you ran the numbers through Deep Blue it might spit out something utterly mindblowing - or it might explode as it's a chess computer.

Where do you stop with the variables? Where do you start? Monkey had 3 million as a working number of children  going on holiday abroad - but where? Tanzania? Sierra Leone? Algarve? An aggregate of all holidays? And that's just one variable, as I've mentioned.
I will say the assumptions he gave were relatively reasonable and the maths was performed in a standard manner.

No, he was talking crap, obviously, as your own calculations show.  Thanks.