Yes. But with the Taleb-Peters twist: when the potential outcome is Really Bad (Black Swan): life is not ergodic, so do not trust the odds. Instead of maximizing expected value, you should maximize prob of survival. If you die or are ruined at round one, there is no round two. That leads to asymmetric risk taking: you are relatively reckless with small-and-likely losses vs. large-and-unlikely gains, and very reckless with small-and-likely losses vs. large-and-unlikely gains when the probability distribution is fat-tailed. Taleb himself, as an investor, played it: he would short blue chips a bit and lose, and short a bit and lose, and short a bit and lose. But not go bankrupt, these were small losses. Then one day 2008 hits… and he makes it big.
But you are never exposing yourself to Really Bad Outcomes, no matter how low the probability. He has a mathematical argument based on power law prob distributions having infinite variance. Peters’s is more intuitive, and I cover it here.
Taleb himself observed that religions have some antifragility encoded into their dogma: ritual fasting, for example.