It would seem that man is a gambling animal that JUST HAS TO HAVE HIS DOSE (fix ?) OF RISK, (like he has to have his dose of arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin...).
What is obvious to Debra and the millions who work in the gambling industry essentially escapes the academics who create theories and algorithms to explain financial markets. To wit, they start with the premise that investors want to minimize risk or, to put it more correctly, to maximize their risk-adjusted return. It sounds reasonable, but show me someone who claims human beings are reasonable and I will show you a fool. Or a chick barely out of its egg.
When it comes to markets, human beings are in perpetual pendulum motion, swinging from fear to greed and back again. If anyone thinks this can be expressed in algebraic form, go ahead and try. But I should point out that there are already dozens of technical cycle analyses, astrological correlations, chaos theories, chart patterns, etc. And as far as I know, the only way their creators made any money is by selling books and seminars.
Indeed, there are only two books on markets everyone should read (many times and with great care, because they can be very dangerous to your financial health if their wisdom is abused).
So, instead, how about using Debra's premise as the starting point to construct market-related academic theories? We could put it thus: investors aim to maximize their profit-adjusted risk appetite.
Now try to put that in mathematical notation to use it in portfolio theory...
Have a very nice Easter holiday.