One of the biggest problems most investors have—heck, that most people have—is seeing the big picture. A key finding of behavioral finance is that we weight more recent, more personal experience much more heavily than we should, and it costs us.

I’m thinking of this as I head out to speak in Columbus, Ohio. I give talks around the country for Commonwealth advisors and their clients, and it is invariably a great experience. The advisors are wonderful, the clients are interested and interesting, and I always learn a great deal talking with people.

The story coming into the Yellen Fed was that Janet was a monetary dove, that she wasn’t up to the task of pulling back the stimulus, that she was going to keep pushing money into the system until things collapsed, that she was a loose woman who would lead the monetary system to perdition. All very 19th century—and, as it turns out, all wrong.

Part of my talk on investing at Commonwealth’s Chairman’s Retreat in Las Vegas was about looking for indicators that could help investors improve their odds. One of the best ways to do so, in my opinion, is to have some idea of when really bad times are coming, so that you can plan for them.

The received wisdom is that you can’t time the market—and that is absolutely correct—but you can get a better idea of what might lie ahead and modify your strategy accordingly. I used the poker hand example the other day, and the question with the stock market is whether there are similar indicators that suggest you should change your strategy. I would argue there are and that, in fact, they’re largely pretty simple.

I wrote last week about how investing is, or should be, significantly different from gambling. Despite those differences, though, there are many things we as investors can take away from the gambling perspective. One of the most valuable is the concept of edge, which is closely related to the notion of odds.

One of the distinctive features of the places we stay at Chairman’s conferences is that there’s invariably a focus on service. We just had a talk from the general manager of the Wynn property here that was probably one of the best I’ve ever heard on running a service business. Once again, I’m very grateful to be here for this wonderful experience.

I should probably comment on yesterday’s drop in the market, but I don’t really have much to say other than that volatility is normal, and after the recent run-up, some degree of decline is normal and expected.

One of the major topics of discussion about the stock market is whether we are in, or at least at the start of, a bubble. “Yes, look at the valuations!” cry some. “No, look at the valuations!” cry others. How could we tell?

The first thing we need is a definition of a bubble. The classic one is for values to increase well beyond what the fundamentals justify, but this runs into a problem with the terms “fundamentals” and “justify.” Wall Street (or any business, really) has a nasty habit of asserting, like Dr. Pangloss, that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and of inventing reasons why current prices, whatever they may be, are actually reasonable, if not cheap. So let’s sidestep that discussion.

Everyone loves a birthday. Jackson’s fifth birthday party last spring was at a candlepin bowling alley and pizza shop, and a wonderful time was had by all. This has nothing to do with the fact that we just reached the fifth anniversary of the start of the current bull market, but I like to remember it. Jackson, hopefully, will have an equally fun sixth birthday party (although Minecraft now seems to have replaced the Ninja Turtles), and the question is whether the current bull market will also make it to six.

At this point, there is no reason to believe that it won’t. The market trend continues strongly up, market expectations are strong, and retail investors are moving into the stock market. Recent pullbacks have ended quickly, with the market bouncing back to new highs.

We live in an instant-gratification society, especially if you are five years old. “But I need it now!” is a phrase I’m becoming increasingly familiar with as Jackson becomes ever more able to express himself. The substitution of “need” for “want” is a wrinkle that initially surprised me, but clearly it comes from parental questions about whether he really “needs” that new toy. The adventure continues.

I was thinking of this, now versus later and need versus want, in light of the recent employment data. I wrote yesterday about ”snowdown” versus slowdown, and today’s stats emphasize my points. Employment gains were up, despite a snowstorm in early February, and this time, the establishment survey did better than the household, narrowing that gap. The unemployment rate rose slightly because more people were looking for work, which is a good thing. The slowdown fears arose from an excessive focus on short-term data.

This has been a terrible winter—long and brutal, with lots of snow and gray days. I don’t do winter well, but I normally don’t break until around February, which means I only have to tough it out for a little longer. This year, I broke in December. It’s been a long January and February, and it looks like it may be a long March as well.

This is not to announce that I’m moving to Florida (although the subject has come up at home), but to provide some context for the slowdown we’ve seen in many of the economic statistics. Employment has been the worst hit, but retail sales, housing, and durable goods sales (cars) have also shown some damage. The question has been, as we looked at the data, whether this is an actual slowdown in the recovery, and potentially the prelude to a recession, or just a short-term dip caused by the weather.

Over the past couple of days, we’ve seen the market pop (on Friday), drop (on Monday), and pop again (yesterday). Admittedly, there was some news there—the Russian invasion of the Crimea over the weekend—but still, pop/drop/pop seems a bit strange.

I was talking with a reporter the other day who asked me a very reasonable question: “Is there a rational reason for all this activity?” He clearly didn’t think so, and while I certainly saw his point, I took the side of a rational market: given the Russian invasion, it clearly made sense to take risk off the table, and then (in theory) to move back in when it seemed the invasion was over. In the short term, you can make a reasonable case that the market response was rational.