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

Why didn't Boeing produce its own regional jet?

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

Send out email when Apex Queueable fails and test it

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

What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?

What is a Samsaran Word™?

What exactly is ineptocracy?

How do conventional missiles fly?

Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?

How obscure is the use of 令 in 令和?

Was the old ablative pronoun "med" or "mēd"?

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

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

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

Why were 5.25" floppy drives cheaper than 8"?

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

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

What is the fastest integer factorization to break RSA?

How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?

Why do I get negative height?

What is the opposite of "eschatology"?

What Exploit Are These User Agents Trying to Use?

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

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



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



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



          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 57 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

                              名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                              Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                              Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar