Fair gambler's ruin problem intuitionProbability 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

What do you call someone who asks many questions?

Did 'Cinema Songs' exist during Hiranyakshipu's time?

Why was Sir Cadogan fired?

Why are UK visa biometrics appointments suspended at USCIS Application Support Centers?

Am I breaking OOP practice with this architecture?

Can someone clarify Hamming's notion of important problems in relation to modern academia?

Venezuelan girlfriend wants to travel the USA to be with me. What is the process?

What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?

Does int main() need a declaration on C++?

In the UK, is it possible to get a referendum by a court decision?

What is the opposite of "eschatology"?

Placement of More Information/Help Icon button for Radio Buttons

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

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

Where would I need my direct neural interface to be implanted?

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

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

What historical events would have to change in order to make 19th century "steampunk" technology possible?

Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable

Avoiding the "not like other girls" trope?

Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?

Unlock My Phone! February 2018



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













4












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    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









    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      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 4 hours ago









      platypus17platypus17

      516




      516




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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



          $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



          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



          $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



          based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



          $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



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



          $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



          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, eqrefeq4 becomes



          $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



          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 eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            6












            $begingroup$

            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









              4












              $begingroup$

              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



              $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



              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



              $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



              based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



              $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



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



              $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



              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, eqrefeq4 becomes



              $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



              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 eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                4












                $begingroup$

                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



                $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



                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



                $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



                based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



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



                $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



                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, eqrefeq4 becomes



                $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



                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 eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  4












                  4








                  4





                  $begingroup$

                  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



                  $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



                  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



                  $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



                  based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                  $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



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



                  $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



                  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, eqrefeq4 becomes



                  $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



                  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 eqrefeq2 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



                  $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



                  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



                  $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



                  based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                  $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



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



                  $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



                  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, eqrefeq4 becomes



                  $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



                  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 eqrefeq2 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 2 hours ago

























                  answered 3 hours ago









                  John OmielanJohn Omielan

                  4,5562215




                  4,5562215





















                      6












                      $begingroup$

                      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











                      $endgroup$

















                        6












                        $begingroup$

                        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











                        $endgroup$















                          6












                          6








                          6





                          $begingroup$

                          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 3 hours ago

























                          answered 4 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

                              Log på Navigationsmenu

                              Creating second map without labels using QGIS?How to lock map labels for inset map in Print Composer?How to Force the Showing of Labels of a Vector File in QGISQGIS Valmiera, Labels only show for part of polygonsRemoving duplicate point labels in QGISLabeling every feature using QGIS?Show labels for point features outside map canvasAbbreviate Road Labels in QGIS only when requiredExporting map from composer in QGIS - text labels have moved in output?How to make sure labels in qgis turn up in layout map?Writing label expression with ArcMap and If then Statement?

                              Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse