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

Can compressed videos be decoded back to their uncompresed original format?

How obscure is the use of 令 in 令和?

Finding the reason behind the value of the integral.

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

Using "tail" to follow a file without displaying the most recent lines

Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?

Why was Sir Cadogan fired?

Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions

How to Prove P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) using Natural Deduction

What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?

Am I breaking OOP practice with this architecture?

Getting extremely large arrows with tikzcd

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

Knowledge-based authentication using Domain-driven Design in C#

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

My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to log in to her iPad. Do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?

How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?

Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable

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

How to stretch the corners of this image so that it looks like a perfect rectangle?

How do I exit BASH while loop using modulus operator?

How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope

Car headlights in a world without electricity

Why do I get negative height?



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 2 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



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



          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











          $endgroup$




















            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



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



              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











              $endgroup$

















                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



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



                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











                $endgroup$















                  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



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



                  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 48 mins 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

                              Can not update quote_id field of “quote_item” table magento 2Magento 2.1 - We can't remove the item. (Shopping Cart doesnt allow us to remove items before becomes empty)Add value for custom quote item attribute using REST apiREST API endpoint v1/carts/cartId/items always returns error messageCorrect way to save entries to databaseHow to remove all associated quote objects of a customer completelyMagento 2 - Save value from custom input field to quote_itemGet quote_item data using quote id and product id filter in Magento 2How to set additional data to quote_item table from controller in Magento 2?What is the purpose of additional_data column in quote_item table in magento2Set Custom Price to Quote item magento2 from controller

                              Magento 2 disable Secret Key on URL's from terminal The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMagento 2 Shortcut/GUI tool to perform commandline tasks for windowsIn menu add configuration linkMagento oAuth : Generating access token and access secretMagento 2 security key issue in Third-Party API redirect URIPublic actions in admin controllersHow to Disable Cache in Custom WidgetURL Key not changing in Magento 2Product URL Key gets deleted when importing custom options - Magento 2Problem with reindex terminalMagento 2 - bin/magento Commands not working in Cpanel Terminal

                              Aasi (pallopeli) Navigointivalikko