Fair gambler's ruin problem intuitionProbability of Gambler's Ruin with Unequal Gain/LossAdaptive gambler's...

How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?

Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?

What do you call someone who asks many questions?

ssTTsSTtRrriinInnnnNNNIiinngg

How to travel to Japan while expressing milk?

Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?

Send out email when Apex Queueable fails and test it

Placement of More Information/Help Icon button for Radio Buttons

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the '90's code?

Getting extremely large arrows with tikzcd

What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?

GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?

Can I hook these wires up to find the connection to a dead outlet?

Why was the shrink from 8″ made only to 5.25″ and not smaller (4″ or less)

How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?

How to compactly explain secondary and tertiary characters without resorting to stereotypes?

How can a day be of 24 hours?

What are the G forces leaving Earth orbit?

How to install cross-compiler on Ubuntu 18.04?

If a warlock makes a Dancing Sword their pact weapon, is there a way to prevent it from disappearing if it's farther away for more than a minute?

Do creatures with a listed speed of "0 ft., fly 30 ft. (hover)" ever touch the ground?

One verb to replace 'be a member of' a club

Does Dispel Magic work on Tiny Hut?



Fair gambler's ruin problem intuition


Probability of Gambler's Ruin with Unequal Gain/LossAdaptive gambler's ruin problemGambler's Ruin with no set target for winGambler's ruin problem - unsure about the number of roundsEffect of Gambler's Ruin Bet Size on DurationGambler's ruin: verifying Markov propertyComparison of duration of two gambler's ruin gamesGambler's Ruin - Probability of Losing in t StepsGambler's Ruin: Win 2 dollars, Lose 1 dollarGambler's ruin Markov chain













1












$begingroup$


In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_{k-1} = p_{k-1} - p_{k-2} = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?










share|cite









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



    In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_{k-1} = p_{k-1} - p_{k-2} = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



    Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



    Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?










    share|cite









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



      In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_{k-1} = p_{k-1} - p_{k-2} = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



      Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



      Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?










      share|cite









      $endgroup$




      In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



      In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_{k-1} = p_{k-1} - p_{k-2} = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



      Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



      Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?







      probability






      share|cite













      share|cite











      share|cite




      share|cite










      asked 3 hours ago









      platypus17platypus17

      366




      366






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



          $$q_{k-1} - q_k = q_{k-2} - q_{k - 1} = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag{1}label{eq1}$$



          Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



          Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



          $$p_i = frac{1}{2}p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}p_{i + 1} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



          based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqref{eq2} for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



          $$sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_i = frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i + 1} tag{3}label{eq3}$$



          Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



          $$p_1 + sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + p_{k-1} = frac{1}{2}p_0 + frac{1}{2}p_1 + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} + frac{1}{2}p_k tag{4}label{eq4}$$



          Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_{k-1}$ term on the left to the RHS, eqref{eq4} becomes



          $$frac{1}{2}p_1 - frac{1}{2}p_0 = frac{1}{2}p_k - frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} tag{5}label{eq5}$$



          Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqref{eq2} to get that $p_{i+1} - p_{i} = p_{i} - p_{i-1}$, like John Doe's answer states.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$





















            3












            $begingroup$

            The probability of reaching $n staring with $k can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability 1/2. Then $$p_k=frac12(p_{k-1}+p_{k+1})$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_{k-1}+p_{k+1}\p_k-p_{k-1}=p_{k+1}-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$














              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3172677%2ffair-gamblers-ruin-problem-intuition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



              $$q_{k-1} - q_k = q_{k-2} - q_{k - 1} = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag{1}label{eq1}$$



              Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



              Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



              $$p_i = frac{1}{2}p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}p_{i + 1} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



              based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqref{eq2} for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



              $$sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_i = frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i + 1} tag{3}label{eq3}$$



              Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



              $$p_1 + sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + p_{k-1} = frac{1}{2}p_0 + frac{1}{2}p_1 + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} + frac{1}{2}p_k tag{4}label{eq4}$$



              Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_{k-1}$ term on the left to the RHS, eqref{eq4} becomes



              $$frac{1}{2}p_1 - frac{1}{2}p_0 = frac{1}{2}p_k - frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} tag{5}label{eq5}$$



              Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqref{eq2} to get that $p_{i+1} - p_{i} = p_{i} - p_{i-1}$, like John Doe's answer states.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



                $$q_{k-1} - q_k = q_{k-2} - q_{k - 1} = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag{1}label{eq1}$$



                Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



                Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



                $$p_i = frac{1}{2}p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}p_{i + 1} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



                based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqref{eq2} for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                $$sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_i = frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i + 1} tag{3}label{eq3}$$



                Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



                $$p_1 + sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + p_{k-1} = frac{1}{2}p_0 + frac{1}{2}p_1 + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} + frac{1}{2}p_k tag{4}label{eq4}$$



                Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_{k-1}$ term on the left to the RHS, eqref{eq4} becomes



                $$frac{1}{2}p_1 - frac{1}{2}p_0 = frac{1}{2}p_k - frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} tag{5}label{eq5}$$



                Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqref{eq2} to get that $p_{i+1} - p_{i} = p_{i} - p_{i-1}$, like John Doe's answer states.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



                  $$q_{k-1} - q_k = q_{k-2} - q_{k - 1} = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag{1}label{eq1}$$



                  Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



                  Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



                  $$p_i = frac{1}{2}p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}p_{i + 1} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



                  based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqref{eq2} for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                  $$sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_i = frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i + 1} tag{3}label{eq3}$$



                  Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



                  $$p_1 + sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + p_{k-1} = frac{1}{2}p_0 + frac{1}{2}p_1 + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} + frac{1}{2}p_k tag{4}label{eq4}$$



                  Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_{k-1}$ term on the left to the RHS, eqref{eq4} becomes



                  $$frac{1}{2}p_1 - frac{1}{2}p_0 = frac{1}{2}p_k - frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} tag{5}label{eq5}$$



                  Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqref{eq2} to get that $p_{i+1} - p_{i} = p_{i} - p_{i-1}$, like John Doe's answer states.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



                  $$q_{k-1} - q_k = q_{k-2} - q_{k - 1} = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag{1}label{eq1}$$



                  Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



                  Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



                  $$p_i = frac{1}{2}p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}p_{i + 1} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



                  based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqref{eq2} for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                  $$sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_i = frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i - 1} + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=1}^{k-1} p_{i + 1} tag{3}label{eq3}$$



                  Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



                  $$p_1 + sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + p_{k-1} = frac{1}{2}p_0 + frac{1}{2}p_1 + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}sum_{i=2}^{k - 2} p_i + frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} + frac{1}{2}p_k tag{4}label{eq4}$$



                  Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_{k-1}$ term on the left to the RHS, eqref{eq4} becomes



                  $$frac{1}{2}p_1 - frac{1}{2}p_0 = frac{1}{2}p_k - frac{1}{2}p_{k-1} tag{5}label{eq5}$$



                  Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqref{eq2} to get that $p_{i+1} - p_{i} = p_{i} - p_{i-1}$, like John Doe's answer states.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 1 hour ago

























                  answered 2 hours ago









                  John OmielanJohn Omielan

                  4,5362215




                  4,5362215























                      3












                      $begingroup$

                      The probability of reaching $n staring with $k can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability 1/2. Then $$p_k=frac12(p_{k-1}+p_{k+1})$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_{k-1}+p_{k+1}\p_k-p_{k-1}=p_{k+1}-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$


















                        3












                        $begingroup$

                        The probability of reaching $n staring with $k can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability 1/2. Then $$p_k=frac12(p_{k-1}+p_{k+1})$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_{k-1}+p_{k+1}\p_k-p_{k-1}=p_{k+1}-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$
















                          3












                          3








                          3





                          $begingroup$

                          The probability of reaching $n staring with $k can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability 1/2. Then $$p_k=frac12(p_{k-1}+p_{k+1})$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_{k-1}+p_{k+1}\p_k-p_{k-1}=p_{k+1}-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$



                          The probability of reaching $n staring with $k can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability 1/2. Then $$p_k=frac12(p_{k-1}+p_{k+1})$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_{k-1}+p_{k+1}\p_k-p_{k-1}=p_{k+1}-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited 1 hour ago

























                          answered 2 hours ago









                          John DoeJohn Doe

                          11.5k11239




                          11.5k11239






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3172677%2ffair-gamblers-ruin-problem-intuition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              “%fieldName is a required field.”, in Magento2 REST API Call for GET Method Type The Next...

                              How to change City field to a dropdown in Checkout step Magento 2Magento 2 : How to change UI field(s)...

                              變成蝙蝠會怎樣? 參考資料 外部連結 导航菜单Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a...