Reviewing without over-reacting to noise

Monthly review is usually often enough. Weekly review of a process whose signal takes hundreds of bets to emerge invites changes based entirely on variance.

The temptation to adjust is strongest exactly when the evidence is weakest, because a bad run feels like information and a good one feels like confirmation. Spacing reviews out removes most of those moments from the calendar.

Some things do warrant immediate attention — a settlement error, a price that was misread, an account problem. Those are operational faults, not results, and they are worth acting on the same day.

And that is the trap. Frequent review feels diligent. It is the mechanism by which noise gets converted into changes, and each change resets whatever sample was accumulating.

What to do with it. Set a review date, look at nothing in between, and require a minimum number of bets before any conclusion.