Bayes theorem-Real Life Example

This is the third installment of my Bayes Theorem videos. The theorem uses updated probabilities as a key factor in the result. It is applicable (practical) in industry, in sports, in every day living, and even in the court room.
This video is pertinent to a real life court case (United Kingdom, 1990's). I show how the theorem is used to impact a decision as to whether or not a woman killed her two young children. One of the difficulties in Bayes theorem (and part of its beauty) is that you may achieve results that go against your intuition.
If you like it, feel free to hit subscribe button. Thank You

[@julianabalta]

Thaanks! I'm glad I found your channel! Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us! 😄

[@GQElvie]

Thanks Julia, much appreciated. more to come. I want to do more on Bayes theorem. It is a somewhat difficult topic, but very important in the world of statistics, and I think it is going to "gain steam" in the near future.

[@conjuredm]

Thank you very much for such an interesting case and great explanation of the topic! :)
Just a little remark on the board, I believe there should be one more '0' after the decimal for probability of murder of 2 kids = 0.0000046.

[@GQElvie]

Thanks for watching. indeed, 30/650K was what I showed, and multiplying by 1/10 moves it over one place as you said. Thanks for correction and have a great day. John

[@adityakejriwal1376]

Loved it ❤️🙌. Keep making more of such videos.

[@GQElvie]

Thank you very much. Please tell your friends. I need more subscriptions. :-) I am going to do a few more on Bayes. It is such a powerful theorem.

[@popeyeluv]

Fantastic explanation John

[@GQElvie]

Thank You

[@christophergame7977]

Great RUclips!

[@GQElvie]

Thank you very much

[@sandeepgodbole758]

Volume is too low😢😢

[@GQElvie]

Thank yoiu.. will keep that in mind for future

[@MG-gg9dh]

But… isn’t it like saying everyone charged with a rare crime without other evidence is innocent as any given person is statistically unlikely to have committed it?

[@GQElvie]

well. this gets a little tricky. the rareness of the crime can be evidence itself. that is one reason circumstantical evidence can hold up in court. the whole idea is that for those circumstances to have happened would be "too rare" to have happened by chance

[@lemao7010]

I don’t think so, since if the probabilities in this case would had been inverted the argument for convicting would be as strong as it was for acquittal without any other evidence

[@GQElvie]

@@lemao7010 I am not sure if you are disagreeing with me or the person I responded to. it seems you concur with what I said-- in a nutshell, one could argue that she was guilty because of rare evidence, so to speak, but by the same token one could argue she was not guilty due to different rare evidence.... without any other evidence being introduced. not 100 percent sure what you mean by inverted......