Can the No Win Random Walk Conjecture Be Proven Using Martingales?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the No Win Random Walk Conjecture and its potential proof using martingales and the optional stopping theorem. Participants explore the implications of these concepts on expected profits in random walk strategies, examining both theoretical and practical aspects of the conjecture.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • A random walk is defined by a recurrence relation, with profit calculated based on entry and exit times.
  • Some participants propose that the expected value of profit from any strategy is zero, based on the optional stopping theorem.
  • Others argue that if specific conditions are met, such as choosing stopping times that do not have finite expectation, the expected profit could be non-zero.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about calculating the probability of reaching certain profit thresholds before incurring losses.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of understanding martingales in relation to the conjecture and its historical context in gambling strategies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While some assert that the optional stopping theorem implies a zero expected profit, others challenge this by introducing conditions under which the expected profit could differ. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications for all possible strategies.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of martingales and the optional stopping theorem, as well as the need for further exploration of various strategies beyond the examples provided.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying probability theory, stochastic processes, and the mathematical foundations of random walks, particularly in the context of financial strategies and gambling.

junglebeast
Messages
514
Reaction score
2
A random walk can be defined by the following recurrence relation,

[tex] X_{t+1} = X_t + \Delta X[/tex]

where [tex]\Delta X \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)[/tex].

At any time [tex]t1 \geq 0[/tex] a strategist may enter, and at any time [tex]t2 > t1[/tex] a strategist may exit. The resulting profit p is given by:

[tex] p(t1,t2) = X_{t2} - X_{t1}.[/tex]

Because each recursive step is IID, a sequence of n steps may equivalently be written as

[tex] X_{t+n} = X_t + Y[/tex]

where [tex]Y \sim \mathcal{N}(0, n \sigma^2)[/tex].

Thus, the expected value for profit if you buy at any [tex]t1[/tex] and sell at [tex]t2+n[/tex] (for any n) is zero,

[tex] E(p(t1, t2)) = E(Y + X_t - X_t) = E(Y) = 0[/tex]

A strategy is a method for choosing t1 and t2 without future knowledge. For example, a strategy could be:

t1 = 0
if [tex]t > 0[/tex] and: [tex]X_t > X_{t1} + 50[/tex] or [tex]X_t < X_{t1} - 100[/tex] then [tex]t2 = t[/tex]

I do not know how to calculate the expected value of that strategy but I think it is zero.

Conjecture:

There is no strategy for entering and exiting that has a non-zero expected value for profit.

Now this seems like an intuitively obvious statement -- but can it be proven mathematically?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
junglebeast said:
I do not know how to calculate the expected value of that strategy but I think it is zero.

That's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_stopping_theorem" .
junglebeast said:
Now this seems like an intuitively obvious statement -- but can it be proven mathematically?

Yes, by the optional stopping theorem it is true whenever [itex]E[t_2]<\infty[/itex] and t1, t2 are stopping times. However, if t1 = 0 and t2 is the first time at which X(t2)-X(t1)=n (any integer n>0) then you have E[X(t2)-X(t1)]=n>0. In this case, t2 does not have finite expectation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gel,

I was not aware of the concept of a "martingale" or the "optional stopping theorem," which clearly pertain to a very similar class of problems, so thank you for bringing this to my attention.

After looking it up, the optional stopping theory says that the expected value of a martingale (eg, of a random walk) at some stopping time is equal to its last recorded value. Note that I already discovered this when I showed that [tex]E( X_{t+n} ) = X_t[/tex].

Clearly, if the current time is t and one chooses any future time's t1 > t and t2 > t1, then

[tex] E( X_{t2} - X_{t1} ) = E(X_{t2}) - E(X_{t1}) = t1 - t1 = 0[/tex]

However, this does not alone answer the question...the expected value of profit for the strategy I provided is equal to:

[tex] E(...) = 50*P - 100*(1-P)[/tex]

where P is the probability that the random walk reaches t1+50 BEFORE it reaches t1-100. How do you calculate P?

Also, that is just one strategy...and more is needed to extend this to all possible strategies
 
I'm not sure what the issue is. The optional stopping theorem does answer your question. Maybe you missed the definition of stopping time? They are random times which can be chosen 'without future knowledge', as you mentioned in your first post.

It follows from the theorem that the expected profit of your strategy is zero, and this fact can be used to calculate P. [itex]50 p - 100 (1-p)=0[/itex] and, therefore, p = 2/3.
 
Also, martingales are an important concept to understand if you want to consider such questions. The term 'martingale' originally referred to gambling strategies, and the mathematical term was introduced to study and prove that such such strategies cannot produce a positive profit on average. It has since developed into an important part of probability theory and the foundation of much of the field of stochastic processes.

The book I initially read when learning this topic was https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521406056/?tag=pfamazon01-20, which is a fairly easy introduction to the subject and only considers discrete-time processes (continuous-time is much more complicated, but also interesting). Would probably help to have an understanding of measure theory first though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K