I disagree. I have done it too. The reward is having killed someone and made them rage. This is probably the most rewarding thing you can get in EvE in my experience.

So tell me, how would you write the two in order to control for this dependence on p(stolen)GǪ?

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/condprob.htm

Yes but lets be realistic here. When the probability falls so low its not a discernible factor there is little to no risk to the person ganking. But if you like than I'll say

"The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".

Does that satisfy you?

GǪand you would write the two in order to control for this dependence on p(stolen), how, exactlyGǪ?

"If events A and B are not independent, then the probability of the intersection of A and B (the probability that both events occur) is defined by P(A and B) = P(A)P(B|A)."

If you're trying to refer to something else, you'll have to clarify.

If you wish to make people understand that, you are in for a hell of a long time arguing before anyone agree to that.

A multiplication, eh? The thing that you said you couldn't do if they were dependentGǪ hmmGǪ

I'm asking you to write the combined probability of the gank succeeding, the item dropping, and the item not getting stolen, and doing it using p[stolen] as your measure of probability.

You can if you want; I'd throw it under profit though - deviation maybe under investment (as in, you have to do it for longer to see the same consistency in payout)

How often do your ganks fail?

Called it on page 3. You guys are all wasting your time. I'll see what progress have been made by page 23...

P(B|A) is not dependent on P(A) because it assumes that A happened.

Do it yourself?

Would you like another dead orca to feast upon while you wait?

For the average ganker, yes the changes should make it harder. But someone on goons scale it shouldn't be hard. Alt in each ice system checks for belts. When one is up roaming gang of gankers flys to system and causes havoc. To be fair, if they are doing there job correctly, the belts will be up 24/7 :P

It's early days yet, it could be awhile before we see how this progresses.

Since we're agreed that the loss of the gankers ship to CONCORD is not a risk and serves no purpose in deterring ganking, shall I go ahead and ask CCP to remove this useless mechanic? It's rather demanding of system resources, and takes up development and code maintenance resources that could be applied on more useful mechanics

There's also the risk of nothing of value being dropped in a hauler gank. You also risk your looting ship being blown up, even moreso now that you have suspect flags for looting wrecks. There's also the risk of getting your hauler alt suicide ganked on the way to Jita while moving the loot.

Anybody who says this is "risk-free" is just posting fanfic. In the case of miner ganking, how can one argue that it's "risk-free" when you inherently operate at a loss when doing this? Even if it's sponsored by somebody else, somebody is taking a loss unless the secondary effects (i.e. the supply constraint and speculators driving the price of ice and isotopes up) outweigh that loss.

So is losing a mining ship in highsec.

Since we're agreed that the loss of the gankers ship to CONCORD is not a risk and serves no purpose in deterring ganking, shall I go ahead and ask CCP to remove this useless mechanic? It's rather demanding of system resources, and takes up development and code maintenance resources that could be applied on more useful mechanics

1 Cata with T1 may risk not killing a Mack if it has a tank which the Cata could have checked.
15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.

It is like saying "Someone who commits suicide risks death."

See how stupid that sounds...

As has been explained, ship loss isn't the only factor that we have to take in to account for suicide ganking. There are plenty of things left to chance. You're trying to pidgeon-hole the definition of risk in to 'ship loss only'.

Let's break it down. When you fire your gun, you don't risk losing a bullet. You know it's going to fire, you know it's going to leave, you know you're going to lose it.

Yep, but that suicide cat is going to die the second it engages an aggression act 100% of the time.

15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.

The majority of suicide attempts fail.