Been pondering this for a while. Although it is well documented in freakonomics and other sources that our perception of risk is not good, those who actually perceive risk correctly are still not absolved from it. If we use the example of the stock market as a game were a few folks make a lot of money i.e. Jim Simmons, and most others lose money or break even, an axiom common denominator for all players is still the presence of risk. Regardless of Buffet's winning track record, he cannot be immune to risk because there simply is no free lunch. So here comes the innoculation cocktail conundrum of edge, technology, big money, psychology, and even illegal insider info that separates a few winners from the rest. But just because you are vaccinated/innoculated doesn't mean you can't get hit by a bus and die. So there must be something (or many things) that can bring Buffet and Simmons down although that something would probably bring everyone else down as well. You manage the micro risks within your control and hope the macro risks outside your control does not bite. If a true zombie apocalypse or an outer space asteroid that wiped away dinosars was about to hit, what good really will the doomsday prepper's risk management do? Reality never really plays out the way it looks in the movies. One could argue doomsday prepping will still count for something but I'm betting no one would care what your 20 year alpha or sharpe ratio is. It maybe took me much longer than others who might have come to the same conclusion earlier but if there is risk (seen or unseen) in everything we do, then risk must be our very existence. And on that note I have been at peace knowing that my existence itself is risk. Your thoughts?