It strikes me variance does not have to be the big bad wolf some people claim it to be!
Who are most likely to be the victims?
*progression players would be at the top of my list..... One bad run increasing your bets and it's likely to be 'goodnight Vienna'.
*Mechanical system players..... The player who sticks to playing his system despite the fact it's plainly not performing on the day.
*The underfunded gambler...... This is the guy who thinks he can turn 50 euros into 500 euros with just 100 chips :-[ (we all make mistakes)
All the above can be corrected.
We don't need to bet every spin.
We can have several methods of play which are interchangeable.
We can be properly funded for our sessions and set workable targets.
So variance does not have to be the bogeyman. (That's the house edges job :P )
cheers
Quote from: Bally6354 on December 14, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
Who are most likely to be the victims?
Th victims of variance is anybody who plays close
to 50% or lower. A card counter has an edge of 2-3%
and they have devastating variance. Even the casino is
a victim of variance. They often have months and even
entire quarters where they lose money. Their edge
just isn't high enough to escape occasional negative
variance. The math says its possible for a poker player
to never have a winning session for his entire career!
The only way to escape it is to have a bet selection so
good that you have at least a 20%+ edge over the casino.
And how many people can claim that.
Variance is the biggest killer, even more responsible for losses at last than house edge. If there is no variance in a session, nobody will lose. Variance strikes those with flat bet and those using progression alike and momentarily can defeat anything.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 15, 2012, 04:21:00 AM
Variance is the biggest killer, even more responsible for losses at last than house edge. If there is no variance in a session, nobody will lose. Variance strikes those with flat bet and those using progression alike and momentarily can defeat anything.
That is very true. There are Random Generators with no zero, thus no house edge on Ec bets.Also true that Variance or fluctuation is unavoidable no matter what the bet selection is. Despite i believe some bet selections have lower variance than others. What is not so often referred is that a symmetrical system as the roulette produces outcomes that have a statistical propensity, and this is unquestionable phenomenon in the real world. No confusion with the wheel has no memory, or the maths says that everything is possible, that is basic maths, not Maths. It is a false inference, because it does not take into account the nature of the system that produces those outcomes. -Statistical propensity is the phenomenon that we Always observe.Problem is to determine the spread of it. Time. For me, the focus is on working out bet selections that present me with lower fluctuations.Would like to add up that expectation and probability are two distinct things.Quote from: spike on December 14, 2012, 11:27:38 PM
The math says its possible for a poker player
to never have a winning session for his entire career!
The only way to escape it is to have a bet selection so
good that you have at least a 20%+ edge over the casino.
And how many people can claim that.
It depends on the length of the poker player career.
The variance can also produce an incredible win. Had once 12 number 3 in a session of M7. 20% of the outcome were number 3.
Variance is less effective when you play H.A.R because you are not staying there long enough to be hurt. That's why a progression such as the one I use with PB will be more effective.
Everybody talks about VARIANCE of the game. What they don't talk about is VARIANCE in our money managment, that's how you negate the effect of variance in the game. You learn the common win loss pattern of your given method. Then stake to take advantage of this. You don't mechanically stick to the same staking plan.
Especially if you are betting against small odds. With odds of 7/1 you don't bet on auto-pilot nada. That's not going to get you very far in the longterm. With odds of 242/1. You can bet MORE rigidly. Because H.A.R will take care of business and give you a definitive edge.
Landing dead on top of a losss at odds of 242/1 playing H.A.R is very hard to do. Landing dead on top of a loss at odds of 7/1 isn't. You bring in smart MM and on the spot decision making to garner the edge that secures a longterm overall profit.
Everything comes down to your BR and your given risk for a method. Many players want something without risking anything. It doesn't work like that. I have to laugh out loud when I read of players willing to let their bankrolls drawdown by three or four hundred units playing level stakes. Before they can expect recovery and hopeful profit.
Yet these same people will sneer at and criticize anyone using a martingale that might risk 80 or even 242 units. But is alot mote certain of winning. This thinking Makes absolutely no sense at all. Risk is RISK. You only need to find out through plenty of testing how justified that risk is.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 03:30:32 PM
Variance is less effective when you play H.A.R because you are not staying there long enough to be hurt.
You know, when you make comments like this that are
just totally wrong, you have the potential for hurting
people who play for real money and might believe you
know what you're talking about.
Variance plays NO favorites with anybody. It has nothing
to do with how much you bet or how long you play. You
can bet once every two days and variance will kill you
sometimes. Variance isn't an idea, it isn't a myth, it isn't
something you fool by being clever. Any real player that
says he isn't affected by variance is a liar, plain and simple.
Variance means your edge isn't high enough for you
to avoid inevitable losing streaks. The BJ counter who has
a 2% edge over the casino, and plays full time, can expect
a profit at years end. But in that year of playing, he can also
expect losing streaks that last for weeks, sometimes months.
He can lose half his bankroll. And he has the edge!
Now imagine some poor guy who has a system that depends
on progressions and doesn't even have the edge. He can expect
devastating negative variance that might wipe out his whole
BR. It doesn't matter if he sits and grind for hours, or plays hit
and run. Variance plays no favorites.
Saying you're not affected because you 'don't stay there long enough
to be hurt' is the talk of somebody who's never seen real casino play
in his life.
JL
QuoteLanding dead on top of a losss at odds of 242/1 playing H.A.R is very hard to do.
Please explain how you come up with 242 / 1 odds with your version of hit and run?
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO PROVE EVERYTHING.
Please don't pass this up. I'm convinced that it's only 7.4 to 1.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 15, 2012, 07:38:50 PM
JL
Please explain how you come up with 242 / 1 odds with your version of hit and run?
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO PROVE EVERYTHING.
Please don't pass this up. I'm convinced that it's only 7.4 to 1.
Giz im not talking about PATTERN BREAKER. I have three main methods I use these days. The one I speak of isn't known to many on this forum yet. Its called 7 ON 1. It has odds of 242/1
Sounds expensive and its for people who have a decent sized BR. But its potential?? that's something else.
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 07:24:31 PM
You know, when you make comments like this that are
just totally wrong, you have the potential for hurting
people who play for real money and might believe you
know what you're talking about.
Variance plays NO favorites with anybody. It has nothing
to do with how much you bet or how long you play. You
can bet once every two days and variance will kill you
sometimes. Variance isn't an idea, it isn't a myth, it isn't
something you fool by being clever. Any real player that
says he isn't affected by variance is a liar, plain and simple.
Variance means your edge isn't high enough for you
to avoid inevitable losing streaks. The BJ counter who has
a 2% edge over the casino, and plays full time, can expect
a profit at years end. But in that year of playing, he can also
expect losing streaks that last for weeks, sometimes months.
He can lose half his bankroll. And he has the edge!
Now imagine some poor guy who has a system that depends
on progressions and doesn't even have the edge. He can expect
devastating negative variance that might wipe out his whole
BR. It doesn't matter if he sits and grind for hours, or plays hit
and run. Variance plays no favorites.
Saying you're not affected because you 'don't stay there long enough
to be hurt' is the talk of somebody who's never seen real casino play
in his life.
Spike we have to agree to dis-agree. You have far too much reverence and respect for random. I have enough. But if you have too much you will never beat this game. Your mind will be locked into the theories that say NO IT CANNOT BE BEATEN LONGTERM.
I have been playing this game for nearly 20 years. I have seen it all, if I say something works for me IT WORKS. End of story. You can make of it what you like. But don't try to tell me I don't know what im talking about. You have never given a working model to this forum for anyone to test and fail. Until you do, you are simply offering theories of no real substance.
Its your take on random and its behaviour. But its not set in rock. And it doesn't mean everyone else will fail if they don't hang on your every word. This fact you must absorb. The edge is created from H.A.R and MM. With a low buy in method like PATTERN BREAKER.
With another method that has a very powerful strikerate. The edge is already there. All you do is apply H.A,R to avoid travelling towards a loss. And your winning potential can be incredible. This talk of edge, house edge puts unecessary restraint and fear in peoples minds, Its overrated. If your method works, it works. No house edge or negative expectancy is going to change that.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 08:59:47 PM
This talk of edge, house edge puts unecessary restraint and fear in peoples minds, Its overrated. If your method works, it works. No house edge or negative expectancy is going to change that.
Yeah, the experts are dopes, what do they know. Just
wait till July and you'll show em, you'll show em all. You'll
turn the gambling world on its ear, that's what you'll do.
In July. Or August at the latest. Maybe mid September,
but the point is, the math heads will be calling you sir,
and the casinos will be your servants.
In July. Or maybe a little later......... :)) :)) :))
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 09:45:39 PM
Yeah, the experts are dopes, what do they know. Just
wait till July and you'll show em, you'll show em all. You'll
turn the gambling world on its ear, that's what you'll do.
In July. Or August at the latest. Maybe mid September,
but the point is, the math heads will be calling you sir,
and the casinos will be your servants.
In July. Or maybe a little later......... :)) :)) :))
Its ongoing. July is the point most people realize I am for real. The penny drops for all when PADDYPOWER close me down. When they realize if they don't, they will lose a fortune. Maybe, just maybe even a few of the more stubborn champions of math tells all about random school. Will realize at that point.
Its not ALL SET IN STONE. That's the reason I do this. And no other reason.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 09:52:17 PM
Its not ALL SET IN STONE.
Why, it could be a year before all those math degree
guys are set straight by you. Maybe even 2 years.
The Zone, that was just a bad deal, but you've got
the bull by the horns now. I can see it, Man of the
Year on the cover of Time magazine.
Don't you see that too, in your more lucid moments?
You still have lucid moments, don't you? But really,
how would you know. Forget I asked...
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 10:17:32 PM
Why, it could be a year before all those math degree
guys are set straight by you. Maybe even 2 years.
The Zone, that was just a bad deal, but you've got
the bull by the horns now. I can see it, Man of the
Year on the cover of Time magazine.
Don't you see that too, in your more lucid moments?
You still have lucid moments, don't you? But really,
how would you know. Forget I asked...
The ZONE is no bad deal. Bull by the horns? You must be an American. Im not after fame and glory. No one will ever know me. This isn't going to change anything outside of these forums. All its going to prove is IT CAN BE DONE.
I still won't be able mold any individual for success. They either have what it takes or they don't. That will never change.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 03:30:32 PM
Variance is less effective when you play H.A.R because you are not staying there long enough to be hurt. That's why a progression such as the one I use with PB will be more effective.
Everybody talks about VARIANCE of the game. What they don't talk about is VARIANCE in our money managment, that's how you negate the effect of variance in the game. You learn the common win loss pattern of your given method. Then stake to take advantage of this. You don't mechanically stick to the same staking plan.
Especially if you are betting against small odds. With odds of 7/1 you don't bet on auto-pilot nada. That's not going to get you very far in the longterm. With odds of 242/1. You can bet MORE rigidly. Because H.A.R will take care of business and give you a definitive edge.
Landing dead on top of a losss at odds of 242/1 playing H.A.R is very hard to do. Landing dead on top of a loss at odds of 7/1 isn't. You bring in smart MM and on the spot decision making to garner the edge that secures a longterm overall profit.
Everything comes down to your BR and your given risk for a method. Many players want something without risking anything. It doesn't work like that. I have to laugh out loud when I read of players willing to let their bankrolls drawdown by three or four hundred units playing level stakes. Before they can expect recovery and hopeful profit.
Yet these same people will sneer at and criticize anyone using a martingale that might risk 80 or even 242 units. But is alot mote certain of winning. This thinking Makes absolutely no sense at all. Risk is RISK. You only need to find out through plenty of testing how justified that risk is.
All of the above is, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous, even more coming from someone that plays for 20 years.-Variance is less effective when you play H.A.R because you are not staying there long enough to be hurt. That's why a progression such as the one I use with PB will be more effective. Any verifiable data to backup this claim? Fluctuation can be beat with what? Please tell me and proof it, otherwise is more empty talk.
Everybody talks about VARIANCE of the game. What they don't talk about is VARIANCE in our money managment, that's how you negate the effect of variance in the game. You learn the common win loss pattern of your given method. Then stake to take advantage of this. You don't mechanically stick to the same staking plan. This is what you do with martingale? Can you be more explicit and specific on this? Learn the "common" win loss pattern? OMG
Seriously? Sometimes i think you make this posts to make fun of us. We were trying to discuss something here, please make a valid contribution, or just read. At least backup your statements. Express your point of view but have some acceptable information that may help you stand p for your opinion. No more empty claims please, no more waste of time and attention for the members.In case you did not notice yet, this low quality posts downgrade the overall forum. Any random member performing HAR on the forum posts can bump into some of this due to mere fluctuation or just because your rigging it.If you want to be respected as a player or to see your opinions respected, humble up, learn from others, discuss and evolve in an healthy manner. And again, please, when you post make sure you did your homework and so you can present arguments to support your opinions.Take Care.
Thanx Bally6543 for the very nice topic. :rose: In my opinion you can void house edge using a no zero roulette playing ec bets.Bally suggests some ways to fight fluctuation:Quote from: Bally6354 on December 14, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
We don't need to bet every spin.
We can have several methods of play which are interchangeable.
We can be properly funded for our sessions and set workable targets.
I think that the interested player might try and find bet selections with the lowest fluctuation possible. Computers are of great help performing thousands of tests in a few minutes. So we can have data to analyze, make observations and draw conclusions.Anymore suggestions?Maybe we can all contribute to a playing model based on this, if anyone is interested in sharing their findings.Cheers
Before I risk me behind, let me ask: Is variance the same as dispersion?
Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 16, 2012, 02:45:39 AM
Is variance the same as dispersion?
Variance is a
measure of statistical dispersion.
Standard deviation is another way to measure dispersion.
You can check informative articles here:
http://www.quickmba.com/stats/dispersion/ (http://www.quickmba.com/stats/dispersion/)
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Statistical_dispersion.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Statistical_dispersion.html)
They do have a different entry on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_dispersion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_dispersion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance)
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on December 16, 2012, 12:57:16 AM
Seriously?
Sometimes i think you make this posts to make fun of us. We were trying to discuss something here, please make a valid contribution,
Thanks for addressing this. There was so much bad and just
plain wrong info in that post that I couldn't deal with it.
Its like, how do address nonsensical ramblings other than
just ignoring them. Good reply post on your part.
This seems like a good time for me to shut up! :-X
Nice topic. :thumbsup:
Ralph makes a good point in that variance can also work for you, that's the rationale behind using positive progressions; make more on the winning runs than you lose on the losing runs, though personally I'm not a fan of this approach.
The simplest way to reduce the variance is to make more bets, because things tend to even out. The classical mathematical "solution" to negative expectation games is to stake your entire bankroll in a single bet (in the case of roulette, the bet should be on an EC). For some reason, mathematicians see the HA as the big bogeyman and ignore variance completely. ???
But if you do what they suggest, it's very easy for the variance to go 100% against you (you lose that one bet, and thus your entire bankroll), but the more bets you make, the higher the chance that fluctuations (variance) will not be so severe. It might seem an obvious point, but it seems to be overlooked by many because of their preoccupation with the house edge.
On the other hand (unfortunately there's always a trade-off) the problem with making more bets is that you're giving the HA more of a chance to bite, so it makes sense to choose a game with the smallest HA you can find. And if you're going to make more bets you need to be adequately funded and not use aggressive progressions, as Bally suggested in his first post.
The harder way is to find bet selections which result in lower fluctuations, which is more fun, and can definitely be done.
An empirical way of speculating on fluctuation.
Based on Point and figure charts (Bayes), Something that worked for Sam, Pattern Random Vs Breaker....
Observe an Even Chance bet. Wait till there is an imbalance and then bet for correction within the same limits.
Random.org (300 spins) 29/11/2012
[attachimg=1]
W W LLW LLW
With Sam's Money Management it seems to work. Of course, the better the bet selection, the better the performance.
Nice graph. It validates my premise that a global effect exists. You have a cluster of streak styled directions salted with flat styled back and forth. Sometimes they travel in your favor and sometimes they are against you.
Thanks guys for all the great replies. :thumbsup:
I always used to think that there must be some kind of 'HG' bet out there waiting to be discovered. I know different now. Variance can kill any system on any given day.
It's interesting reading between the lines from some of the more experienced members on here. My opinion is we are mostly saying the same thing.
It seems the trick is to be able to go with the flow and try and get the entry and exit points right. (not to be confused with HAR)
That flow can be very dynamic but I do agree with Gizmo in that there is usually a global trend happening. Although not seeing the wood for the trees can be a real problem. Developing a kind of detatched outlook is probably a good idea and one way of doing that is just to try and make intelligent bets (ie. timing).
I am convinced we can cut variance right down to the bone. Doing this certainly gives us much more of a fighting chance.
Bally, I find it so easy to see it all in real time. It's my charting system. I can see the trends. I don't keep a track for the effectiveness trends. The graph above is the actual effectiveness line. It's an interesting idea to attempt to keep a trend path for the effectiveness. That process might benefit me with better self control.
Quote from: Bally6354 on December 16, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Thanks guys for all the great replies. :thumbsup:
I always used to think that there must be some kind of 'HG' bet out there waiting to be discovered. I know different now. Variance can kill any system on any given day.
It's interesting reading between the lines from some of the more experienced members on here. My opinion is we are mostly saying the same thing.
It seems the trick is to be able to go with the flow and try and get the entry and exit points right. (not to be confused with HAR)
That flow can be very dynamic but I do agree with Gizmo in that there is usually a global trend happening. Although not seeing the wood for the trees can be a real problem. Developing a kind of detatched outlook is probably a good idea and one way of doing that is just to try and make intelligent bets (ie. timing).
I am convinced we can cut variance right down to the bone. Doing this certainly gives us much more of a fighting chance.
Present change is a constant, Statistical propensity is another one.
As it is obvious, no bet selection climbs or descends the graphic abruptly without hovering. There are only three movements: imbalance, correction and hovering.
Quote from: Bayes on December 16, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
The harder way is to find bet selections which result in lower fluctuations, which is more fun, and can definitely be done.
But its the only way to defeat variance. You want variance
to be flat, no ups and downs. Players get all excited over
winning streaks, but they also mean there will be losing
streaks. A flat variance means you control the game and
its not controlling you. People would be far better off putting
all their time into bet selection than trying to find new ways
to fool the game with progressions and money management.
If you have flat variance, the need for money management
doesn't exist.
That's a pretty amazing statement Spike. No wonder we are so different. I deliberately seek out explosive variance. It's the only reason I go to the casino. Of course there's going to be crashing downturns. You don't have to let them take you out. This is funny. I spend the whole time trying to survive flat variance. I do this so that I can get to wild swings. It's so dang easy for me. Every spin tells you what condition you are currently in. You can take every huge downturn and turn it 180°, all you need is anything that continues. This is an amazing moment in forum history . I had no idea Spike was deliberately seeking flat variance. My stuff must sound like Martian to him. In fact it would be very difficult for me to attempt to read a flat variance. I can't actually say. I do everything I can to avoid it.
Quote from: spike on December 16, 2012, 08:11:34 PM
But its the only way to defeat variance. You want variance
to be flat, no ups and downs. Players get all excited over
winning streaks, but they also mean there will be losing
streaks. A flat variance means you control the game and
its not controlling you. People would be far better off putting
all their time into bet selection than trying to find new ways
to fool the game with progressions and money management.
If you have flat variance, the need for money management
doesn't exist.
[attachimg=1]
JL's PB Double Loss Strikerate 594/8 (74/1)
Spike, if I remember correctly I once saw a method tested over 1 million spins that basically did not fluctuate at all. Stayed right above even, dropped down under a little then right back to a little above even etc A member on vls forum showed the graph, rjeaton1
I can't find the thread now, might never find it again. The conclusion for this method was that it could not be used to produce signification profit etc
Would this kind of test result be useful for you to work with and use your insights on?
And just to put things into perspective regarding variance and roulette.
I was having a quick read over on the W.O.O site.
A blackjack player betting a spread of 1-4 ($25-$100) with a 5k bankroll. He was basically wanting to know how he stood. (The guy is counting cards)
here was the reply.....
''Good news is you are playing at an advantage of +0.85%.
Bad news is your risk of ruin is 35.2%.''
It's a sobering thought when we are playing against 2.70% (and some of us 5.40%)
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 16, 2012, 09:44:00 PM
I deliberately seek out explosive variance. It's the only reason I go to the casino. Of course there's going to be crashing downturns.
Ya think? That's what you want to avoid, crashing downturns. You
want a nice steady peaceful variance so you can make your goal
and leave. Extreme highs and extreme lows are very costly in
money and in time.
Its like having a conveyer belt in a factory. Do you want it to run real
fast at times, and have lots of breakdowns, or do you want it to run
nice and steady so you know exactly what to expect every day.
The casino is no different. Variance is your enemy, so you want it as
flat as possible. No hills and valleys, just little tiny bumps you can
barely feel, like you're driving a 1958 Lincoln. You're there to make
your goal, not spend hours waiting for the variance to come back
around your way. That's for gamblers and amateurs..
Quote from: AMK on December 16, 2012, 10:48:04 PM
The conclusion for this method was that it could not be used to produce signification profit etc
That's because it probably used a progression. I only flat
bet, progressions are useless in the long run.
Yes must have had a progression.
Man, I guess the search starts for the most variance free flat bet approach I can find or come up with.
How much is a little bump in your book spike?
Spike, don't be ridiculous. You can't give me advice. And further, I don't want it. You are clueless to what I do and I am clueless to whatever it is that you are suggesting. I'm happy with what I do. I wouldn't change anything for the world. Go ahead, share what you want. I will find it fascinating. I never looked at randomness remotely in this way. At least I'm really interested. Nobody talks about stuff like this.
http://betselection.cc/methods'-results/empirical-speculation-on-fluctuation/msg4436/#msg4436 (http://betselection.cc/methods'-results/empirical-speculation-on-fluctuation/msg4436/#msg4436)
Bet selection is betting on or the other side of the Even Chance. ex: Bet Red or Bet Black.
It is purely based on fluctuation. But is a unintelligent bet, it is merely a two step martingale, to avoid two imbalances of 5 units to follow each other. Still, it grinds a profit so far.
:scared:
Quote from: spike on December 16, 2012, 11:20:54 PM
That's because it probably used a progression. I only flat
bet, progressions are useless in the long run.
The seasoned player would do it Flat Betting all the way, reducing bets(stop after LL). Attempting to Win or Break Even, so 2 out of 3 Games.
Suggested Five Banks of 10units as method Bankroll. = 50units
Here the graph for 106 games in daily sessions of 300 spins, since 21 November until 17 December (Random.org):
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 17, 2012, 01:54:50 AM
Spike, don't be ridiculous. You can't give me advice... I'm happy with what I do. I wouldn't change anything for the world.
LOL! I wasn't giving you advice, good god. I don't care
what you do, just don't say you learned it from me. Be happy
with what you do, winning isn't everything... :P
Spike, this is you giving me advice.
Quote from: spike on December 16, 2012, 11:17:28 PM
Ya think? That's what you want to avoid, crashing downturns. You
want a nice steady peaceful variance so you can make your goal
and leave. Extreme highs and extreme lows are very costly in
money and in time.
Its like having a conveyer belt in a factory. Do you want it to run real
fast at times, and have lots of breakdowns, or do you want it to run
nice and steady so you know exactly what to expect every day.
The casino is no different. Variance is your enemy, so you want it as
flat as possible. No hills and valleys, just little tiny bumps you can
barely feel, like you're driving a 1958 Lincoln. You're there to make
your goal, not spend hours waiting for the variance to come back
around your way. That's for gamblers and amateurs..
Spike, this is you telling you won't give me advice.
Quote from: spike on December 17, 2012, 02:54:54 AM
LOL! I wasn't giving you advice, good god. I don't care
what you do, just don't say you learned it from me. Be happy
with what you do, winning isn't everything... :P
Since you don't want to give me advice please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying that I do. I have no trouble at all avoiding crashing downturns. If I didn't know better I would say that you are having difficulty listening to other people. There could be many reasons for this. You could be a deliberate trouble maker, the likes of snowman. He did this all the time. He decided what things were and kept pelting everyone with his red herrings and his straw man arguments. I hope you are not going to turn out like snowman.
Just to see if you have a problem, I'll repeat it. I have no difficulty avoiding the crashing downturns caused by variance.