How Can Gaussian Random Walks Inform Betting Strategies?

RomRom
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Dear Community,

I am faced with a challenge. I can't quite grasp the implications of this.
I schould've listened better in statistics lectures! :blushing:
I would really appreciate your help. :)

I have a not normal stochastic process P on which I can bet.
Obviously, I don't know the distribution of P. It is somehow what I want to find in order to profit from the betting strategy.

I can either bet on the fact that P will increase in the future or that P will fall. (It works a bit like the stock-market, I like the analogy. I.e. I can either buy P or sell P. The value of P fluctuates over time).

What I did is take P through a "step function", so that I can map P to a random walk.
At each step, P can either go up or by the step size or go down by the step size. The step size is a fixed percentage of P's current value.
In other words, I had P represented in the value/time plane and I now have it in the value/step plane.

Now it turns out that P is gaussian in the value/step plane!
At every step, the probability of P going up/down is 0.5.

I think I can't fully grasp the implications of this.
Has anyone any idea how it can help betting on P?
What would be a positive expectancy betting strategy?

Thanks,

Julia
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know much about betting, but the probability of up/down = 0.5 could suggest any symmetric distribution (e.g. uniform), not just Gaussian.
 
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.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top