Neither of those are 'my' claims.

Yes they are. They are not in the article. You made those claims using the article as a (very shoddy) basis to reach those conclusions.

You know, I do wonder why people are making such a simple thing so very complicated.

Fools stuff too much into their holds and we take it off them. Thats about as complicated as this needs to get.

You know, I do wonder why people are making such a simple thing so very complicated.

Fools stuff too much into their holds and we take it off them. Thats about as complicated as this needs to get.

No, although they are paraphrases not direct quotes.

Here, though. let's move beyond boring claims and into real testing and actions.

You pay me 50 billion ISK. I will then "abandon the risk model" personally, in EVE online. I will proceed to act in the game without calculation of risk for 3 weeks, thereby proving that it is possible to do so. If I fail, and accidentally calculate the risk formula, I will return the 50 billion ISK. Seems like a win-win for you, you'll get proof that it's impossible to abandon the risk model, and you'll get 50 billion ISK at the end.

No, although they are paraphrases not direct quotes.

because for some reason they feel entitled to 0 risk hauling.

Not even that.
Nothing of the kind is stated in the article. If you think they are, post the full quote you believe you're paraphrasing.

You lean on the article to extract claims that are your guesses and assumptions GÇö no-one else's. It GÇ£sounds likeGÇ¥ the first (according to you), and it is quite explicitly stated not to be the secondGǪ unless you've misunderstood what the risk value actually means.

Why can't you stand by your own claims?

yes he would.

the expected cargo pay out would be the total value of the cargo multiplied by the drop chance. as per the statistical formula for calculating the expected value, expected value = sum(probability * value). that puts the freighter at an expected 33bn isk pay out.

hence if he ganks enough freighters, he will always be "winning".

edit to correct a formula i rushed because my lunch was burning...

If that's not good enough for you, then I give up.

Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?

50M ISK are not the same as quotes, so no, that's not good enough a replacement for me. And while such a bribe certainly highlights that you aren't standing by your claims, it doesn't answer the question why you can't.

Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?

Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?

If physically testing a claim isn't standing by a claim, then I don't even want to stand by a claim.

GÇ£Physical testingGÇ¥ would be to provide the quotes you supposedly paraphrased. Unfortunately, they don't exist as physical entities, and I'm not interested in print-outs. So just the text and, preferably, some kind of paragraph reference will do.

The quote which the entire sentence you took this small snippet from was paraphrasing was : ""It's like a scratch-off lottery ticket. You know what you could win, you just don't know what you will win. Our guys do this because they make money every gank and they get free ships to gank with. They don't have to rat, mission, or otherwise carebear for income."

So, they're provided, now I expect 50B in my wallet from you to start the test.

i've already pointed out that this quote has been taken out of context and has nothing to do with the risk of ganking, and everything to do with the structure of their operation.

"Anything super valuable has always died."

Rereading the article more closely, like one would have to actually quote from it, he says he remembers one gank that went wrong that got away at 7% structure, and possibly others he doesn't remember.

"sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk"

This is a small snippet from a paraphrase, this particular snippet isn't a claim at all. It's just an obvious fact. There's nothing in our heads preventing us from ditching the technical definition of risk.

"It's like a scratch-off lottery ticket. You know what you could win, you just don't know what you will win. Our guys do this because they make money every gank and they get free ships to gank with. They don't have to rat, mission, or otherwise carebear for income."

on a bad luck streak lately? :P

And you were already answered :)

The other day I gankined an iteron. Everything dropped aside from one thing. So I ended up with an entire fitting for a hulk but no hulk

GǪand based on that, you conclude that the risk value is zeroGǪ how, exactly?

and from this you conclude that we can abandon risk calculationsGǪ how, exactly?

well...i hadn't read the article for a month.

Well, to be honest, I know that there's nothing in my brain preventing me from abandoning risk calculations.

on the bright side, if you were only using a catalyst that's almost profitable.

Poor evasion. I take it you can't actually come to that conclusion, then.

Well, to be honest, I know that there's nothing in my brain preventing me from abandoning risk calculations.

I made a mil

that's not an evasion

Now you're just off the deep end again.

Yes it is. Saying that you haven't read the article evades the question of how you draw the conclusion form the article, and does so poorly. In fact, it only raises more questions, such as how you can even claim to draw any conclusion from it.

No. Saying that you can imagine how to ignore how things work evades the question of how you draw a conclusion from the articleGǪ even more so in light of your new claim not having read it recently enough to remember things properly. It's just as poor an evasion as the previous one.

So at this point, based on your answers and your inability to demonstrate how you managed to come to your conclusions from the passages you quoted, we rather seem to be closing in on a different conclusion: you pulled those supposed conclusions out of your nether region.

The only evasion I see here is you evading the topic of the thread,

baldly lying, and making invasive personal statements.

I'd advise you to reconsider continuing with this course of discussion.