MHB Expected Value of Gambling Strategy - Martin's Winnings

jamcc09
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This question comes from the "Introduction to Probability" book (Blitzstein & Hwang).

Martin has just heard about a gambling strategy: bet 1 dollar that a fair coin will land heads. If it does, stop. If it lands tails, then double the bet for the next toss, now betting 2 dollars on heads. If it does, stop. Otherwise, double the bet to 4 dollars for the next toss. This strategy is continued, i.e. doubling the bet each flip and stopping after winning a bet. Assume each individual bet is fair. The basic idea is that he will be 1 dollar ahead when he wins a bet.

Martin decides to try out the strategy, but he has only 31 dollars, so he could end up bankrupt. On average, how much money will Martin win?

My solution: (Martin can bet a maximum of 5 times because of having only 31 dollars)

The assumption that each individual bet is fair means that if Martin is on flip $n$, he is betting $2^{n-1}$ dollars. He has equal probability of winning or losing on any given bet, because of the fair coin, so the expected winnings on any bet is 0. If $X_n$ is the amount of money he wins on the $n^{th}$ flip then $E(X_n) = p*2^{n-1} - (1 - p)*2^{n-1}$ and since $p = 1/2$, $E(X_n) = 0$ and since $p = 1/2$, $E(X_n) = 0$. I would say, by linearity of expectation, that if $X$ is the amount of money he wins using this strategy, then $X = X_1 + X_2 + X_3 + X_4 + X_5$ and $E(X) = E(X_1) + E(X_2) + E(X_3) + E(X_4) + E(X_5) = 0$.

Another way that I solved it what to basically consider what is the probability that he goes bankrupt. Since the coin is fair, it is just the probability of getting 5 tails in a row, which is $1/32$. That means the probability of winning is $31/32$. In the case of bankruptcy he loses his 31 dollars, if he wins he gets 1 dollar. These are the only two possibilities, since he stops after winning a bet or losing all his money. So, the expected winnings are $E(X) = \frac{31}{32}*1 + \frac{1}{32}*-31 = 0$.

I actually came up with the first solution while writing the question and get the same as the last solution, so I feel a bit more confident about it now, but still would like to know if this is actually a correct way to reason about this. This is the first time I feel like the linearity property of the expected value could be an intuitive way to solve it (even though it wasn't my first path to a solution). Thanks to anyone who can confirm or provide insight into where I went wrong :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi jamcc09,

Welcome to MHB!

It's fitting that the player's name is Martin as his strategy is known as the Martingale strategy. I have to run right now but I would look at the example shown in this link on the specific case of a 50/50 game: Stack Exchange.
 
Ah ha, I see! I will try to consider the true meaning of the names a bit more next time ;) It seems from the wikipedia article that if each bet is fair the expected profit is 0 and is negative for $p < 0.5$. This seems to come from a similar argument to mine that the expected value of 1 application of this strategy is equal to 0. Is that correct?

Your suggested stack exchange article was a little confusing for me, because there was a lot of debate. However in the top of that article there is a link to another rather hilarious post that is a bit easier to understand and a bit more congruent to my problem, see this post. In short, someone's friend came up with this strategy for a casino in a "world of warcraft"-like video game (however, if the person won, he or she would start with a bet of 1 dollar again), declared it genius (famous last words?), let his/her strategy run over night and woke up bankrupt ;)

The first reply to the post shows why the strategy will almost always end up with a bankruptcy and although I don't completely understand everything in the mathematical part of the post yet, it does seem intuitively clear to be the case :) Thanks!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top