Ship loss being a cost of chancing a pay out is not an asinine idea.

How can you mitigate 100% ship loss?

The only one pretending the ship isn't a part of the risk calculation, is you.

The risk is that the higher the isk cost, the higher the chance is that you won't make a profit or even get the isk back, for various reasons.

It's a cost ffs. You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. It's godamn fuel =P

It's a cost ffs.

You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back.

GǪand as luck would have it, no-one has claimed that it is.

What's asinine is to say that by reducing losses and increasing profits, you've increased the risk. You know, the thing you did by claiming that a guaranteed loss was the same as no risk, before you admitted that it was a rather silly position to hold.

By adding a suitably large risk of loot to the equation.

Indeed it is asinine, but it is also what you effectively say if you claim that guaranteed ship loss is not a risk.

It's a cost ffs. You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. It's godamn fuel =P

Hint: Risk = Probability +ù Cost.

[As luck WOULD indeeeed have it, you did in fact insinuate that.

If you go and put a coin on a slot machine and pull the arm, what have you done?

Nope. It was just you failing to read and comprehend entire clauses at once (much less in context).

You spent a coin. Regardless of outcome, that coin is gone.

risk = 1 * cost

risk = cost.

cost is risk.

Your quote, your words.

Risk implies a chance of 2 different outcomes.

GǪand at no point do those words contain the insinuation, and you're free to search for a quote that does. I'll have to warn you, though: it'll keep you from posting for a very very long timeGǪ

Okay, that is a better phrasing of it. The probability is 1 though - there is no reduction possible; which to my mind makes it a meaningless part of the equation. The only risk I see is that you may not earn any ISK from the transaction.

That would be asinine. I did not read that into anything that Murk wrote; rather - it seems to be a viewpoint somebody is trying to paint him with against what is common sense.

Risk implies a chance of 2 different outcomes. Cost does not.

[Challenge accepted.

Now, about that threat?

Now, about that threat?

Which threat?

I underlined the parts you seem focused on

I'm guessing that he's talking about my warning him that he's going to spend an awful amount of time if he wants to find a quote that doesn't exist.

actual point of the discussion aside.

i love how you use the dictionary definition of a word when it suits, and random implications associated with a word when the actual use of the word goes against you.

Or the one I already posted.

Or the one I already posted.

You mean when it's apparent that I need to use a fact to cite my reasoning? Yes, it's called a debate.

And based on that factual find of "risk" cost of ship loss when known is going to be 100% loss, cannot be defined by risk, but as cost. Expecting any other outcome is foolhardy.

no i mean by sidestepping an issue when it's obvious you're wrong.

don't mistake this for me having a go or anything, i think you're an excellent troll.

Finally someone noticed I only post when I'm at work =P

Doesn't make me wrong however.