The second assertion is a dangerous leap - an outlier event when the sample is small, may in fact, just be an outlier - ie, there isn't a prognosticator on the

The second assertion is a dangerous leap - an outlier event when the sample is small, may in fact, just be an outlier - ie, there isn't a prognosticator on the planet who called those two results. If anything, trying to "re fit" the model t o account for these outcomes as part of a Taleb-esque fat tails approach seems more dangerous to me.