Saying what?

GǪstill not addressing the topic at hand and still trying to deflect from the fact that you cannot address those simple facts about risks.

This term is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:

And your repetition of stuff that has nothing to do with risks, much less with ganking, certainly qualify. We already know this, and there's no real need at this point to prove your inability to disprove or dispute a simple definition any further.

Would you like to discuss the topic at hand instead of relying on fallacies?

You apparently need to be educated on the finer points of calculating risks.

Risk = probability +ù cost. Probabilities range from 0 to 1. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean that it's suddenly not a risk GÇö it just means that it's a trivial case where risk = cost.

Soooo...you missed the part where I said it was purely semantical and completely meaningless?

Dont bring me into your "mathematical arguement", thats not what i posted about

Your other unknowns in the math constitutes whatever risk you are calculating.

Maybe if you took the time to actually read what I write instead of spamming off-topic nonsense, you'd know the response already.

Fit a tank, use orcas corporation cargo hold. Do not think that a "Faster" ship is always better. Use a webbing alt to instantly align and remain in transit as long as possible. Use couriers to take the risk. Use an ECM alt, understand typical gank areas and do not overload cargo holds unless necessary.

Don't move cargo in obvious ships - Ex: Cloaky Crane (Unless you know how to use it properly), Interceptor (Hurrr I'm so fast they'll never see my blueprints!), Noobship "I'm cheap and they'll never expect my shuttle or noobship of having billions in isk BWUHAHAHAHA".

If you are moving faction modules, considering fitting them to your ship - This way if you are cargo scanned and not ship scanned they will be unaware of the real value of your ship (This is subjective)

yes, because arguing the semantics of what to call the fact that a ganker loses his ship is SOOO ontopic here.

Quite. So why you keep doing it is beyond me at this point. I can only surmise that it has something to do with your not being able to present a good case for why we should leave out an critical part of the risk calculation for those gankers.

What? I never said we shouldn't include the Tippia Tax.

If you wanted to argue with anyone, you should argue with yourself, just a few posts up you called it a cost instead of a risk in your equation

GǪaside from claiming that it's not a risk because the probability is 1.

How GǣfewGǥ would that be? More than on this page at leastGǪ

What? I never said we shouldn't include the Tippia Tax. I just love calling it Tippia Tax. Trips off the tongue tunefully, Tippia Tax, Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!

If you wanted to argue with anyone, you should argue with yourself, just a few posts up you called it a cost instead of a risk in your equation, was startling to see after all this time arguing that it should be called a risk not a cost.

100% probability or 0% probability isn't risk. It is cost or lack there of. I said it before and I'll say it again. 0.00000000001% chance or 99.98% chance are risk. 100% is cost.

It is still a (trivially) calculable risk, though. Probabilities don't end just below 1; that last step is an equally valid value. As mentioned (much) earlier, the problem with saying that 100% probability isn't a risk is that it immediately leads to the conclusion that gankers would have infinitely higher risk of CONCORD had a 1% chance of responding to a gank GÇö much more risk if there is much less chance of an unfavourable outcome. That rather falls on its own absurdity, don't you think?

Again, note the example above to see why we need to include this 100% risk to get to the true value of the total risk a ganker faces, and how not including it means we're calculating something completely different.

You're intentionally dividing by zero.

Again, no one is advocating not including the cost in the calculation.

Yup, but that's the beauty of it all: even if you skip that description-for-effect, it still holds true given that brand of logic: much lower probability of dying creates a much higher risk. The rejection of 100% as a valid probability for risks leads to an absurd conclusion and it leads to the assertion that, to make life harder for gankers, CONCORD's effectiveness must be nerfed.

And again, yes they are, by saying that they aren't risks. If they aren't risks, we can't include them. If we include them as 1+ù cost, then guess what? We just defined a risk GÇö a probability of 1 multiplied with a cost.

To calculate the total risk, we have to include all risk elements. The very-nearly-absolute-to-the-point-of-just-as-well-counting-it-as-absolute chance of losing a ship is one of those risks.

If a player wants to add risk to a gankers life then double wrap everything. Send three frieghters for every cargo load. Two of the frieghters will have zero value double wraped contracts. Only one of the three will have a cargo with value.

Then does that one frieghters cargo value = its cost to gank it, or equal the cost to gank all three frieghters? Risk = chance of the unknown.

Incorrect. The expected value of the decision function gives you the expected risk. The expected value includes all elements of the decision function, whether or not the constant portion of said function is called a risk with probability one, or a cost.

You are now going from merely making a bad and boring semantic distinction, to arguing false math, because you are trapped in the formula risk = probability * value, without a full understanding of the underlying properties of the value function on the probability distribution.

Analogously, if we recognize that the probabilities 0 and 1 are indeed meaningfully different than the probabilities between them, and give them recognition by calling things at that probability "costs" and "nonexistent", it does create the possibility of ridiculous comparisons, if we intentionally make them in the way that you did. The solution is to not do that.

words

I removed some off topic discussion of the dictionary definition of terms that had ventured into trolling territory. If you want to discuss the meaning of words, EVE General is not the place to do it.

See, I said a bunch of new mathematical things, but it just went over your head

Making money every gank, sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk and just use the commonsense definition for profit. Gain - cost. Short and sweet.

or just don't stick over 1bn in your cargo hold because most gankers won't even bother trying to pop your freighter for that little potential reward.

especially if it's 1bn isk worth of trit.

Making money every gank, sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk and just use the commonsense definition for profit. Gain - cost. Short and sweet.

sure. but then you're making some rather dangerous assumptions.

for example, you're assuming there's no logi about to drop out of warp and rep the freighter, or some other type of escort. mayhaps a wartarget appears on grid to ruin your day.

even if you know that the cost of their cargo is greater than the costs of the ships to gank the freighter, they are not the only variables you must consider.

no matter what you do in eve, there is always a chance some one is about to land on grid with you and **** up your day. always. sure that risk might be tiny, but it's always there.

That works as well, but the assumption is as of right now that any double wraped cargo is worth ganking because it is double wraped.

So until a few ganks happen on double wraped frieghters with zero value there will imply no risk to the double wraped cargo gank.

The known value of the cargo if below ganking value is still not adding risk, as it just defines the value as not being worth the cost of the gank. No risk in this case. It simply is not worth the effort.

So why do I say it like this?

Assume you want to ship 66 billion. And it fits in one frieghter. You can send 66 frieghters of 1 billion each and be safe.
Or you can send 3 frieghters one has 66 billion the other two zero all double wraped. So the values are unknown.
If a zero value frieghter gets ganked it has to get posted to a kill board to become known that this is occuring.
That is how risk gets known and becomes calculated. By the kill boards.