Chance of losing a biased “Random Walk” game

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












Consider a game where you start with 1 point.



Then you flip a fair coin infinitely many times.



For each heads, you gain 2 points.
For each tails, you lose 1 point.



What is the probability that your score never goes below 1?



edit: I am looking specifically for the answer with flipping infinitely many times, not the probability after $N$ flips as $N$ approaches infinity.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    On a cursory glance, I'd estimate its around 40%, but I'll give it a proper go later.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 23 at 1:18







  • 5




    As a mode of attack: Suppose you become "safe" if you reach $N$ points. Then, this problem just has finitely many states with simple transition functions. Now let $N$ tend to infinity.
    – lulu
    Aug 23 at 1:29






  • 3




    In reference to your edit: the thing you are looking for, and the thing you say you're not looking for, are the same thing.
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 1:44










  • @AaronMontgomery This is not always the case, correct? Removable discontinuity can occur at infinity in formulas that may be conceived to solve this problem.
    – Albert Renshaw
    Aug 23 at 5:43






  • 3




    @RushabhMehta Lost in the considerable discussion here: your guess was quite good!
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 15:31














up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












Consider a game where you start with 1 point.



Then you flip a fair coin infinitely many times.



For each heads, you gain 2 points.
For each tails, you lose 1 point.



What is the probability that your score never goes below 1?



edit: I am looking specifically for the answer with flipping infinitely many times, not the probability after $N$ flips as $N$ approaches infinity.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    On a cursory glance, I'd estimate its around 40%, but I'll give it a proper go later.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 23 at 1:18







  • 5




    As a mode of attack: Suppose you become "safe" if you reach $N$ points. Then, this problem just has finitely many states with simple transition functions. Now let $N$ tend to infinity.
    – lulu
    Aug 23 at 1:29






  • 3




    In reference to your edit: the thing you are looking for, and the thing you say you're not looking for, are the same thing.
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 1:44










  • @AaronMontgomery This is not always the case, correct? Removable discontinuity can occur at infinity in formulas that may be conceived to solve this problem.
    – Albert Renshaw
    Aug 23 at 5:43






  • 3




    @RushabhMehta Lost in the considerable discussion here: your guess was quite good!
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 15:31












up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3






3





Consider a game where you start with 1 point.



Then you flip a fair coin infinitely many times.



For each heads, you gain 2 points.
For each tails, you lose 1 point.



What is the probability that your score never goes below 1?



edit: I am looking specifically for the answer with flipping infinitely many times, not the probability after $N$ flips as $N$ approaches infinity.







share|cite|improve this question














Consider a game where you start with 1 point.



Then you flip a fair coin infinitely many times.



For each heads, you gain 2 points.
For each tails, you lose 1 point.



What is the probability that your score never goes below 1?



edit: I am looking specifically for the answer with flipping infinitely many times, not the probability after $N$ flips as $N$ approaches infinity.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 23 at 11:21









Especially Lime

19.3k22252




19.3k22252










asked Aug 23 at 1:11









RandomWalk

362




362







  • 2




    On a cursory glance, I'd estimate its around 40%, but I'll give it a proper go later.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 23 at 1:18







  • 5




    As a mode of attack: Suppose you become "safe" if you reach $N$ points. Then, this problem just has finitely many states with simple transition functions. Now let $N$ tend to infinity.
    – lulu
    Aug 23 at 1:29






  • 3




    In reference to your edit: the thing you are looking for, and the thing you say you're not looking for, are the same thing.
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 1:44










  • @AaronMontgomery This is not always the case, correct? Removable discontinuity can occur at infinity in formulas that may be conceived to solve this problem.
    – Albert Renshaw
    Aug 23 at 5:43






  • 3




    @RushabhMehta Lost in the considerable discussion here: your guess was quite good!
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 15:31












  • 2




    On a cursory glance, I'd estimate its around 40%, but I'll give it a proper go later.
    – Rushabh Mehta
    Aug 23 at 1:18







  • 5




    As a mode of attack: Suppose you become "safe" if you reach $N$ points. Then, this problem just has finitely many states with simple transition functions. Now let $N$ tend to infinity.
    – lulu
    Aug 23 at 1:29






  • 3




    In reference to your edit: the thing you are looking for, and the thing you say you're not looking for, are the same thing.
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 1:44










  • @AaronMontgomery This is not always the case, correct? Removable discontinuity can occur at infinity in formulas that may be conceived to solve this problem.
    – Albert Renshaw
    Aug 23 at 5:43






  • 3




    @RushabhMehta Lost in the considerable discussion here: your guess was quite good!
    – Aaron Montgomery
    Aug 23 at 15:31







2




2




On a cursory glance, I'd estimate its around 40%, but I'll give it a proper go later.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 23 at 1:18





On a cursory glance, I'd estimate its around 40%, but I'll give it a proper go later.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 23 at 1:18





5




5




As a mode of attack: Suppose you become "safe" if you reach $N$ points. Then, this problem just has finitely many states with simple transition functions. Now let $N$ tend to infinity.
– lulu
Aug 23 at 1:29




As a mode of attack: Suppose you become "safe" if you reach $N$ points. Then, this problem just has finitely many states with simple transition functions. Now let $N$ tend to infinity.
– lulu
Aug 23 at 1:29




3




3




In reference to your edit: the thing you are looking for, and the thing you say you're not looking for, are the same thing.
– Aaron Montgomery
Aug 23 at 1:44




In reference to your edit: the thing you are looking for, and the thing you say you're not looking for, are the same thing.
– Aaron Montgomery
Aug 23 at 1:44












@AaronMontgomery This is not always the case, correct? Removable discontinuity can occur at infinity in formulas that may be conceived to solve this problem.
– Albert Renshaw
Aug 23 at 5:43




@AaronMontgomery This is not always the case, correct? Removable discontinuity can occur at infinity in formulas that may be conceived to solve this problem.
– Albert Renshaw
Aug 23 at 5:43




3




3




@RushabhMehta Lost in the considerable discussion here: your guess was quite good!
– Aaron Montgomery
Aug 23 at 15:31




@RushabhMehta Lost in the considerable discussion here: your guess was quite good!
– Aaron Montgomery
Aug 23 at 15:31










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













One way to solve this is to let $p_n$ be the probability that, if you start with $n$ points, you eventually zero points. Observe that $p_1$ is also the probability that if you start with $n$ points, you ever have $n-1$ points.



Using this, one can see that $p_n=p_1p_n-1$, since the probability of getting from $n$ to zero equals the probability of eventually getting to $n-1$, then the probability of getting from there to $0$. In particular, we get that $p_n=p_1^n$ by using this argument.



Then, observe that $p_n=fracp_n+2+p_n-12$ by looking at what happens after the first step. Substituting in at $n=1$ gives $p_1=fracp_1^3+12$ gives that $p_1$ has to be either $1$ or $frac-1pmsqrt52$. Clearly $p_1$ cannot be $frac-1-sqrt52$ because that's negative. Thus $p_1$ is either $1$ or $frac-1+sqrt52$.



To see that $p_1$ is the lesser value, we can define $p_n,t$ to be the probability of reaching zero in at most $t$ steps. Note that $p_n,t+1=fracp_n-1,t+p_n+2,t2$ and $p_n,0=0$ for $n>0$. Induction on $t$ using this formula quickly shows that $p_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ for all $n$ and $t$. Then, $p_n=lim_trightarrowinftyp_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ which implies $p_1=frac-1+sqrt52$



Finally, the probability you're interested in is $1-p_1$, which equals $frac3-sqrt52$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • This is the best solution I think.
    – saulspatz
    Aug 23 at 16:47






  • 1




    This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
    – Ian
    Aug 23 at 19:16










  • Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
    – saulspatz
    Aug 24 at 3:10










  • @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 24 at 4:18











  • @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 24 at 13:18

















up vote
2
down vote













Instead of tossing coins one by one, we can consider tossing coins in rounds. At the start of round 1 you have $1$ point. In each round, you toss as many coins as you had points at the start of that round. Note that this means you can never reach $0$ points part-way through a round, because the length of the round is the quickest you can reach zero. So the original problem is equivalent to determining whether you have $0$ points at the end of any round.



Now if you have $k$ points at the start of a round, your total points at the end of the round will be $k+sum_i=1^kX_i$, where the $X_i$ are independent and take values $+2,-1$ with probability $1/2$ each. Equivalently, this is $sum_i=1^kY_i$, where $Y_i=X_i+1$ are independent taking values $3,0$ with probability $1/2$ each. So this is a Galton-Watson process with offspring distribution given by the $Y_i$. A standard result is that the extinction probability of such a process is the smallest positive root of $f(t)=t$, where $f(t)$ is the probability generating function of the offspring distribution.



Here $f(t)=(1+t^3)/2$, so the extinction probability is the smallest positive root of $t^3-2t+1=0$, which is $fracsqrt5-12$. Thus the probability that your score never reaches $0$ is $1-fracsqrt5-12=frac3-sqrt52$.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Consider the truncated problem, where you win once you get to at least $M$ points. This satisfies the recursion:



    $$p_n=fracp_n-1+p_n+22$$



    with the boundary conditions $p_0=0,p_M=p_M+1=1$. The general solution of this recursion is $c_1 r_1^n + c_2 r_2^n + c_3 r_3^n$ where $r_1,r_2,r_3$ are the roots of $x^3-2x+1=0$. One of these can be checked to be $1$; after finding that one, it is easy to compute the others as $frac-1 pm sqrt52$. The boundary conditions imply



    $$c_1+c_2+c_3=0 \
    c_1 + c_2 r_2^M + c_3 r_3^M = 1 \
    c_1 + c_2 r_2^M+1 + c_3 r_3^M+1 = 1.$$



    This system can be solved for finite $M$ and then you can send $M to infty$ at the end. This is a bit laborious. If you want a shortcut, we can use some minor heuristics to get there. Set $c_3=0$ (since the only alternative is to have $c_1$ and/or $c_2$ grow without bound). Also assume that $c_2$ grows slower than $r_2^-M$, so that the $c_2$ terms in the second and third equations drop out.



    Then the $M to infty$ equations read $c_3=0,c_1+c_2=0,c_1=1$, so $c_2=-1$. Thus with these heuristics, the general solution to your problem is $p_n=1-left ( fracsqrt5-12 right )^n$, and the desired result in particular is $p_1=frac3-sqrt52$.



    Strictly speaking, this is computing the probability that your score is never $0$ and goes to infinity. It is not totally obvious that the score has to go to infinity in order to play forever without losing. Indeed there are sequences of flips, such as $HTTHTTHTTdots$, which never hit zero and do not go to infinity.



    The reason that this works is that in any finite truncation of this type, the process terminates in finite time with probability $1$. (In other words, these "oscillatory" sequences collectively have probability zero). This can be viewed as a special case of a general result about irreducible Markov chains on a finite state space with an absorbing state: the absorption time is a.s. finite. Alternately, a shortcut for this particular problem is to note that no matter where you start, a run of at least $M/2$ successive heads will win you the game. So in an arbitrarily long (truncated) game in which you never lose you must eventually win. However you choose to see it, the only way to play forever without losing is to surpass all finite thresholds without losing, which is what was calculated above.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
      – Albert Renshaw
      Aug 23 at 5:47











    • @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
      – JessicaK
      Aug 23 at 8:18






    • 2




      @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
      – Aaron Montgomery
      Aug 23 at 8:26






    • 1




      I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 9:00






    • 1




      @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 15:43

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Here is a different approach. I calculated the probability of losing if you throw exactly $h$ heads, for $h=0,1,2,dots$



    A001764 enumerates (among other things) the "Number of lattice paths of $n$ East steps and $2n$ North steps from $(0,0)$ to $(n,2n)$ and lying weakly below the line $y=2x.$" If we consider an East step as heads and a North step as tails, this is just the number of losing sequences $a_n$ with exactly $n$ heads, considering that we will toss one more tails at the end.



    According to A001764, $$a_n=3nchoose nover 2n+1$$ and the probability of losing is $$
    sum_n=0^inftya_n2^-3n-1 $$



    A July 17, 2108 comment on A001764 by Michael Somos says that $$A(1/8) = -1+sqrt5$$ where $A(z)$ is the generating function of the $a_n$. It's easy to see that $A(1/8)$ is the probability of losing, so that the probability of winning is $$3-sqrt5over2$$



    Alternatively, Wolfram Alpha gives this value if one substitutes the explicit formula for $a_n$ into the sum.



    I've been trying to find a simple derivation for the formula for $a_n$ based on Milo Brandt's elegant solution. If the probability of heads is $p,$ then the same argument as Milo gave shows that the probability of losing is $$-frac12+fracsqrt4p-3p^22ptag1$$ The series is $$(1-p)sum_n=0^inftya_ny^n, text where y = p(1-p)^2$$



    So far, I haven't been able to manipulate $(1)$ into a an expression in $y$ that will allow me to compute the $a_n.$



    NOTE



    I have removed the explanation of why I was dissatisfied with my original solution, which leave some of the comments without context. My original solution was much like Ian's but my argument wasn't complete. This points is discussed in the comments to Ian's solution, both by Ian and by Aaron Montgomery.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
      – Aaron Montgomery
      Aug 23 at 15:26










    • @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 15:35










    • Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
      – Aaron Montgomery
      Aug 23 at 15:43






    • 1




      @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 15:48










    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    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%2f2891594%2fchance-of-losing-a-biased-random-walk-game%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    One way to solve this is to let $p_n$ be the probability that, if you start with $n$ points, you eventually zero points. Observe that $p_1$ is also the probability that if you start with $n$ points, you ever have $n-1$ points.



    Using this, one can see that $p_n=p_1p_n-1$, since the probability of getting from $n$ to zero equals the probability of eventually getting to $n-1$, then the probability of getting from there to $0$. In particular, we get that $p_n=p_1^n$ by using this argument.



    Then, observe that $p_n=fracp_n+2+p_n-12$ by looking at what happens after the first step. Substituting in at $n=1$ gives $p_1=fracp_1^3+12$ gives that $p_1$ has to be either $1$ or $frac-1pmsqrt52$. Clearly $p_1$ cannot be $frac-1-sqrt52$ because that's negative. Thus $p_1$ is either $1$ or $frac-1+sqrt52$.



    To see that $p_1$ is the lesser value, we can define $p_n,t$ to be the probability of reaching zero in at most $t$ steps. Note that $p_n,t+1=fracp_n-1,t+p_n+2,t2$ and $p_n,0=0$ for $n>0$. Induction on $t$ using this formula quickly shows that $p_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ for all $n$ and $t$. Then, $p_n=lim_trightarrowinftyp_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ which implies $p_1=frac-1+sqrt52$



    Finally, the probability you're interested in is $1-p_1$, which equals $frac3-sqrt52$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • This is the best solution I think.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 16:47






    • 1




      This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
      – Ian
      Aug 23 at 19:16










    • Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
      – saulspatz
      Aug 24 at 3:10










    • @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 4:18











    • @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 13:18














    up vote
    4
    down vote













    One way to solve this is to let $p_n$ be the probability that, if you start with $n$ points, you eventually zero points. Observe that $p_1$ is also the probability that if you start with $n$ points, you ever have $n-1$ points.



    Using this, one can see that $p_n=p_1p_n-1$, since the probability of getting from $n$ to zero equals the probability of eventually getting to $n-1$, then the probability of getting from there to $0$. In particular, we get that $p_n=p_1^n$ by using this argument.



    Then, observe that $p_n=fracp_n+2+p_n-12$ by looking at what happens after the first step. Substituting in at $n=1$ gives $p_1=fracp_1^3+12$ gives that $p_1$ has to be either $1$ or $frac-1pmsqrt52$. Clearly $p_1$ cannot be $frac-1-sqrt52$ because that's negative. Thus $p_1$ is either $1$ or $frac-1+sqrt52$.



    To see that $p_1$ is the lesser value, we can define $p_n,t$ to be the probability of reaching zero in at most $t$ steps. Note that $p_n,t+1=fracp_n-1,t+p_n+2,t2$ and $p_n,0=0$ for $n>0$. Induction on $t$ using this formula quickly shows that $p_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ for all $n$ and $t$. Then, $p_n=lim_trightarrowinftyp_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ which implies $p_1=frac-1+sqrt52$



    Finally, the probability you're interested in is $1-p_1$, which equals $frac3-sqrt52$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • This is the best solution I think.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 16:47






    • 1




      This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
      – Ian
      Aug 23 at 19:16










    • Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
      – saulspatz
      Aug 24 at 3:10










    • @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 4:18











    • @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 13:18












    up vote
    4
    down vote










    up vote
    4
    down vote









    One way to solve this is to let $p_n$ be the probability that, if you start with $n$ points, you eventually zero points. Observe that $p_1$ is also the probability that if you start with $n$ points, you ever have $n-1$ points.



    Using this, one can see that $p_n=p_1p_n-1$, since the probability of getting from $n$ to zero equals the probability of eventually getting to $n-1$, then the probability of getting from there to $0$. In particular, we get that $p_n=p_1^n$ by using this argument.



    Then, observe that $p_n=fracp_n+2+p_n-12$ by looking at what happens after the first step. Substituting in at $n=1$ gives $p_1=fracp_1^3+12$ gives that $p_1$ has to be either $1$ or $frac-1pmsqrt52$. Clearly $p_1$ cannot be $frac-1-sqrt52$ because that's negative. Thus $p_1$ is either $1$ or $frac-1+sqrt52$.



    To see that $p_1$ is the lesser value, we can define $p_n,t$ to be the probability of reaching zero in at most $t$ steps. Note that $p_n,t+1=fracp_n-1,t+p_n+2,t2$ and $p_n,0=0$ for $n>0$. Induction on $t$ using this formula quickly shows that $p_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ for all $n$ and $t$. Then, $p_n=lim_trightarrowinftyp_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ which implies $p_1=frac-1+sqrt52$



    Finally, the probability you're interested in is $1-p_1$, which equals $frac3-sqrt52$.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    One way to solve this is to let $p_n$ be the probability that, if you start with $n$ points, you eventually zero points. Observe that $p_1$ is also the probability that if you start with $n$ points, you ever have $n-1$ points.



    Using this, one can see that $p_n=p_1p_n-1$, since the probability of getting from $n$ to zero equals the probability of eventually getting to $n-1$, then the probability of getting from there to $0$. In particular, we get that $p_n=p_1^n$ by using this argument.



    Then, observe that $p_n=fracp_n+2+p_n-12$ by looking at what happens after the first step. Substituting in at $n=1$ gives $p_1=fracp_1^3+12$ gives that $p_1$ has to be either $1$ or $frac-1pmsqrt52$. Clearly $p_1$ cannot be $frac-1-sqrt52$ because that's negative. Thus $p_1$ is either $1$ or $frac-1+sqrt52$.



    To see that $p_1$ is the lesser value, we can define $p_n,t$ to be the probability of reaching zero in at most $t$ steps. Note that $p_n,t+1=fracp_n-1,t+p_n+2,t2$ and $p_n,0=0$ for $n>0$. Induction on $t$ using this formula quickly shows that $p_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ for all $n$ and $t$. Then, $p_n=lim_trightarrowinftyp_n,tleq left(frac-1+sqrt52right)^n$ which implies $p_1=frac-1+sqrt52$



    Finally, the probability you're interested in is $1-p_1$, which equals $frac3-sqrt52$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Aug 24 at 13:18

























    answered Aug 23 at 15:35









    Milo Brandt

    38.6k474133




    38.6k474133











    • This is the best solution I think.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 16:47






    • 1




      This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
      – Ian
      Aug 23 at 19:16










    • Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
      – saulspatz
      Aug 24 at 3:10










    • @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 4:18











    • @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 13:18
















    • This is the best solution I think.
      – saulspatz
      Aug 23 at 16:47






    • 1




      This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
      – Ian
      Aug 23 at 19:16










    • Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
      – saulspatz
      Aug 24 at 3:10










    • @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 4:18











    • @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
      – Milo Brandt
      Aug 24 at 13:18















    This is the best solution I think.
    – saulspatz
    Aug 23 at 16:47




    This is the best solution I think.
    – saulspatz
    Aug 23 at 16:47




    1




    1




    This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
    – Ian
    Aug 23 at 19:16




    This solution is simpler than mine for this simple problem, but from experience I have found that arguments like mine are applicable in a broader variety of contexts. So it's worth examining both.
    – Ian
    Aug 23 at 19:16












    Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
    – saulspatz
    Aug 24 at 3:10




    Actually, it now strikes me that there's a mistake in this argument. $p_1$ is the probability of losing so we can't dismiss the possibility that $p_1=1$ out of hand. Isn't that right?
    – saulspatz
    Aug 24 at 3:10












    @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 24 at 4:18





    @saulspatz Ah, you're right... I'll see if I can figure out an easy patch for that. (A nasty way to rule that out, in the same spirit as this answer, would be to let $f_n=sum_i P(textreach zero first after i steps)cdot x^i$, observe that $f_n=f_1f_n-1$ and $f_1=xcdot fracf_1^3+12$, see that, as before, there are three solutions. You can use implicit differentiation at $x=1$ to find that $(1+f_1(1)^3)-2f_1'(1)+3f_1(1)^2f_1'(1)=0$ which, in particular, would imply that if $f_1(1)=p_1=1$, then $f_1'(1)=0$. This implies that the expected time until reaching $0$ was $0$ - contradiction)
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 24 at 4:18













    @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 24 at 13:18




    @saulspatz I fixed the answer (with a better solution to the problem)
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 24 at 13:18










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Instead of tossing coins one by one, we can consider tossing coins in rounds. At the start of round 1 you have $1$ point. In each round, you toss as many coins as you had points at the start of that round. Note that this means you can never reach $0$ points part-way through a round, because the length of the round is the quickest you can reach zero. So the original problem is equivalent to determining whether you have $0$ points at the end of any round.



    Now if you have $k$ points at the start of a round, your total points at the end of the round will be $k+sum_i=1^kX_i$, where the $X_i$ are independent and take values $+2,-1$ with probability $1/2$ each. Equivalently, this is $sum_i=1^kY_i$, where $Y_i=X_i+1$ are independent taking values $3,0$ with probability $1/2$ each. So this is a Galton-Watson process with offspring distribution given by the $Y_i$. A standard result is that the extinction probability of such a process is the smallest positive root of $f(t)=t$, where $f(t)$ is the probability generating function of the offspring distribution.



    Here $f(t)=(1+t^3)/2$, so the extinction probability is the smallest positive root of $t^3-2t+1=0$, which is $fracsqrt5-12$. Thus the probability that your score never reaches $0$ is $1-fracsqrt5-12=frac3-sqrt52$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Instead of tossing coins one by one, we can consider tossing coins in rounds. At the start of round 1 you have $1$ point. In each round, you toss as many coins as you had points at the start of that round. Note that this means you can never reach $0$ points part-way through a round, because the length of the round is the quickest you can reach zero. So the original problem is equivalent to determining whether you have $0$ points at the end of any round.



      Now if you have $k$ points at the start of a round, your total points at the end of the round will be $k+sum_i=1^kX_i$, where the $X_i$ are independent and take values $+2,-1$ with probability $1/2$ each. Equivalently, this is $sum_i=1^kY_i$, where $Y_i=X_i+1$ are independent taking values $3,0$ with probability $1/2$ each. So this is a Galton-Watson process with offspring distribution given by the $Y_i$. A standard result is that the extinction probability of such a process is the smallest positive root of $f(t)=t$, where $f(t)$ is the probability generating function of the offspring distribution.



      Here $f(t)=(1+t^3)/2$, so the extinction probability is the smallest positive root of $t^3-2t+1=0$, which is $fracsqrt5-12$. Thus the probability that your score never reaches $0$ is $1-fracsqrt5-12=frac3-sqrt52$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        Instead of tossing coins one by one, we can consider tossing coins in rounds. At the start of round 1 you have $1$ point. In each round, you toss as many coins as you had points at the start of that round. Note that this means you can never reach $0$ points part-way through a round, because the length of the round is the quickest you can reach zero. So the original problem is equivalent to determining whether you have $0$ points at the end of any round.



        Now if you have $k$ points at the start of a round, your total points at the end of the round will be $k+sum_i=1^kX_i$, where the $X_i$ are independent and take values $+2,-1$ with probability $1/2$ each. Equivalently, this is $sum_i=1^kY_i$, where $Y_i=X_i+1$ are independent taking values $3,0$ with probability $1/2$ each. So this is a Galton-Watson process with offspring distribution given by the $Y_i$. A standard result is that the extinction probability of such a process is the smallest positive root of $f(t)=t$, where $f(t)$ is the probability generating function of the offspring distribution.



        Here $f(t)=(1+t^3)/2$, so the extinction probability is the smallest positive root of $t^3-2t+1=0$, which is $fracsqrt5-12$. Thus the probability that your score never reaches $0$ is $1-fracsqrt5-12=frac3-sqrt52$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Instead of tossing coins one by one, we can consider tossing coins in rounds. At the start of round 1 you have $1$ point. In each round, you toss as many coins as you had points at the start of that round. Note that this means you can never reach $0$ points part-way through a round, because the length of the round is the quickest you can reach zero. So the original problem is equivalent to determining whether you have $0$ points at the end of any round.



        Now if you have $k$ points at the start of a round, your total points at the end of the round will be $k+sum_i=1^kX_i$, where the $X_i$ are independent and take values $+2,-1$ with probability $1/2$ each. Equivalently, this is $sum_i=1^kY_i$, where $Y_i=X_i+1$ are independent taking values $3,0$ with probability $1/2$ each. So this is a Galton-Watson process with offspring distribution given by the $Y_i$. A standard result is that the extinction probability of such a process is the smallest positive root of $f(t)=t$, where $f(t)$ is the probability generating function of the offspring distribution.



        Here $f(t)=(1+t^3)/2$, so the extinction probability is the smallest positive root of $t^3-2t+1=0$, which is $fracsqrt5-12$. Thus the probability that your score never reaches $0$ is $1-fracsqrt5-12=frac3-sqrt52$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 23 at 12:54

























        answered Aug 23 at 11:19









        Especially Lime

        19.3k22252




        19.3k22252




















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Consider the truncated problem, where you win once you get to at least $M$ points. This satisfies the recursion:



            $$p_n=fracp_n-1+p_n+22$$



            with the boundary conditions $p_0=0,p_M=p_M+1=1$. The general solution of this recursion is $c_1 r_1^n + c_2 r_2^n + c_3 r_3^n$ where $r_1,r_2,r_3$ are the roots of $x^3-2x+1=0$. One of these can be checked to be $1$; after finding that one, it is easy to compute the others as $frac-1 pm sqrt52$. The boundary conditions imply



            $$c_1+c_2+c_3=0 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M + c_3 r_3^M = 1 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M+1 + c_3 r_3^M+1 = 1.$$



            This system can be solved for finite $M$ and then you can send $M to infty$ at the end. This is a bit laborious. If you want a shortcut, we can use some minor heuristics to get there. Set $c_3=0$ (since the only alternative is to have $c_1$ and/or $c_2$ grow without bound). Also assume that $c_2$ grows slower than $r_2^-M$, so that the $c_2$ terms in the second and third equations drop out.



            Then the $M to infty$ equations read $c_3=0,c_1+c_2=0,c_1=1$, so $c_2=-1$. Thus with these heuristics, the general solution to your problem is $p_n=1-left ( fracsqrt5-12 right )^n$, and the desired result in particular is $p_1=frac3-sqrt52$.



            Strictly speaking, this is computing the probability that your score is never $0$ and goes to infinity. It is not totally obvious that the score has to go to infinity in order to play forever without losing. Indeed there are sequences of flips, such as $HTTHTTHTTdots$, which never hit zero and do not go to infinity.



            The reason that this works is that in any finite truncation of this type, the process terminates in finite time with probability $1$. (In other words, these "oscillatory" sequences collectively have probability zero). This can be viewed as a special case of a general result about irreducible Markov chains on a finite state space with an absorbing state: the absorption time is a.s. finite. Alternately, a shortcut for this particular problem is to note that no matter where you start, a run of at least $M/2$ successive heads will win you the game. So in an arbitrarily long (truncated) game in which you never lose you must eventually win. However you choose to see it, the only way to play forever without losing is to surpass all finite thresholds without losing, which is what was calculated above.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
              – Albert Renshaw
              Aug 23 at 5:47











            • @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
              – JessicaK
              Aug 23 at 8:18






            • 2




              @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 8:26






            • 1




              I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 9:00






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:43














            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Consider the truncated problem, where you win once you get to at least $M$ points. This satisfies the recursion:



            $$p_n=fracp_n-1+p_n+22$$



            with the boundary conditions $p_0=0,p_M=p_M+1=1$. The general solution of this recursion is $c_1 r_1^n + c_2 r_2^n + c_3 r_3^n$ where $r_1,r_2,r_3$ are the roots of $x^3-2x+1=0$. One of these can be checked to be $1$; after finding that one, it is easy to compute the others as $frac-1 pm sqrt52$. The boundary conditions imply



            $$c_1+c_2+c_3=0 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M + c_3 r_3^M = 1 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M+1 + c_3 r_3^M+1 = 1.$$



            This system can be solved for finite $M$ and then you can send $M to infty$ at the end. This is a bit laborious. If you want a shortcut, we can use some minor heuristics to get there. Set $c_3=0$ (since the only alternative is to have $c_1$ and/or $c_2$ grow without bound). Also assume that $c_2$ grows slower than $r_2^-M$, so that the $c_2$ terms in the second and third equations drop out.



            Then the $M to infty$ equations read $c_3=0,c_1+c_2=0,c_1=1$, so $c_2=-1$. Thus with these heuristics, the general solution to your problem is $p_n=1-left ( fracsqrt5-12 right )^n$, and the desired result in particular is $p_1=frac3-sqrt52$.



            Strictly speaking, this is computing the probability that your score is never $0$ and goes to infinity. It is not totally obvious that the score has to go to infinity in order to play forever without losing. Indeed there are sequences of flips, such as $HTTHTTHTTdots$, which never hit zero and do not go to infinity.



            The reason that this works is that in any finite truncation of this type, the process terminates in finite time with probability $1$. (In other words, these "oscillatory" sequences collectively have probability zero). This can be viewed as a special case of a general result about irreducible Markov chains on a finite state space with an absorbing state: the absorption time is a.s. finite. Alternately, a shortcut for this particular problem is to note that no matter where you start, a run of at least $M/2$ successive heads will win you the game. So in an arbitrarily long (truncated) game in which you never lose you must eventually win. However you choose to see it, the only way to play forever without losing is to surpass all finite thresholds without losing, which is what was calculated above.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
              – Albert Renshaw
              Aug 23 at 5:47











            • @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
              – JessicaK
              Aug 23 at 8:18






            • 2




              @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 8:26






            • 1




              I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 9:00






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:43












            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Consider the truncated problem, where you win once you get to at least $M$ points. This satisfies the recursion:



            $$p_n=fracp_n-1+p_n+22$$



            with the boundary conditions $p_0=0,p_M=p_M+1=1$. The general solution of this recursion is $c_1 r_1^n + c_2 r_2^n + c_3 r_3^n$ where $r_1,r_2,r_3$ are the roots of $x^3-2x+1=0$. One of these can be checked to be $1$; after finding that one, it is easy to compute the others as $frac-1 pm sqrt52$. The boundary conditions imply



            $$c_1+c_2+c_3=0 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M + c_3 r_3^M = 1 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M+1 + c_3 r_3^M+1 = 1.$$



            This system can be solved for finite $M$ and then you can send $M to infty$ at the end. This is a bit laborious. If you want a shortcut, we can use some minor heuristics to get there. Set $c_3=0$ (since the only alternative is to have $c_1$ and/or $c_2$ grow without bound). Also assume that $c_2$ grows slower than $r_2^-M$, so that the $c_2$ terms in the second and third equations drop out.



            Then the $M to infty$ equations read $c_3=0,c_1+c_2=0,c_1=1$, so $c_2=-1$. Thus with these heuristics, the general solution to your problem is $p_n=1-left ( fracsqrt5-12 right )^n$, and the desired result in particular is $p_1=frac3-sqrt52$.



            Strictly speaking, this is computing the probability that your score is never $0$ and goes to infinity. It is not totally obvious that the score has to go to infinity in order to play forever without losing. Indeed there are sequences of flips, such as $HTTHTTHTTdots$, which never hit zero and do not go to infinity.



            The reason that this works is that in any finite truncation of this type, the process terminates in finite time with probability $1$. (In other words, these "oscillatory" sequences collectively have probability zero). This can be viewed as a special case of a general result about irreducible Markov chains on a finite state space with an absorbing state: the absorption time is a.s. finite. Alternately, a shortcut for this particular problem is to note that no matter where you start, a run of at least $M/2$ successive heads will win you the game. So in an arbitrarily long (truncated) game in which you never lose you must eventually win. However you choose to see it, the only way to play forever without losing is to surpass all finite thresholds without losing, which is what was calculated above.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Consider the truncated problem, where you win once you get to at least $M$ points. This satisfies the recursion:



            $$p_n=fracp_n-1+p_n+22$$



            with the boundary conditions $p_0=0,p_M=p_M+1=1$. The general solution of this recursion is $c_1 r_1^n + c_2 r_2^n + c_3 r_3^n$ where $r_1,r_2,r_3$ are the roots of $x^3-2x+1=0$. One of these can be checked to be $1$; after finding that one, it is easy to compute the others as $frac-1 pm sqrt52$. The boundary conditions imply



            $$c_1+c_2+c_3=0 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M + c_3 r_3^M = 1 \
            c_1 + c_2 r_2^M+1 + c_3 r_3^M+1 = 1.$$



            This system can be solved for finite $M$ and then you can send $M to infty$ at the end. This is a bit laborious. If you want a shortcut, we can use some minor heuristics to get there. Set $c_3=0$ (since the only alternative is to have $c_1$ and/or $c_2$ grow without bound). Also assume that $c_2$ grows slower than $r_2^-M$, so that the $c_2$ terms in the second and third equations drop out.



            Then the $M to infty$ equations read $c_3=0,c_1+c_2=0,c_1=1$, so $c_2=-1$. Thus with these heuristics, the general solution to your problem is $p_n=1-left ( fracsqrt5-12 right )^n$, and the desired result in particular is $p_1=frac3-sqrt52$.



            Strictly speaking, this is computing the probability that your score is never $0$ and goes to infinity. It is not totally obvious that the score has to go to infinity in order to play forever without losing. Indeed there are sequences of flips, such as $HTTHTTHTTdots$, which never hit zero and do not go to infinity.



            The reason that this works is that in any finite truncation of this type, the process terminates in finite time with probability $1$. (In other words, these "oscillatory" sequences collectively have probability zero). This can be viewed as a special case of a general result about irreducible Markov chains on a finite state space with an absorbing state: the absorption time is a.s. finite. Alternately, a shortcut for this particular problem is to note that no matter where you start, a run of at least $M/2$ successive heads will win you the game. So in an arbitrarily long (truncated) game in which you never lose you must eventually win. However you choose to see it, the only way to play forever without losing is to surpass all finite thresholds without losing, which is what was calculated above.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 24 at 18:09

























            answered Aug 23 at 3:36









            Ian

            65.5k24682




            65.5k24682











            • Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
              – Albert Renshaw
              Aug 23 at 5:47











            • @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
              – JessicaK
              Aug 23 at 8:18






            • 2




              @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 8:26






            • 1




              I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 9:00






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:43
















            • Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
              – Albert Renshaw
              Aug 23 at 5:47











            • @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
              – JessicaK
              Aug 23 at 8:18






            • 2




              @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 8:26






            • 1




              I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 9:00






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:43















            Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
            – Albert Renshaw
            Aug 23 at 5:47





            Surely, given a true uncountably infinite number of flips, the score not only goes below 1 at some point, but actually touches every possible score, infinitely many times each? It's essentially "Gambler's ruin" problem
            – Albert Renshaw
            Aug 23 at 5:47













            @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
            – JessicaK
            Aug 23 at 8:18




            @AlbertRenshaw There are problems such as the three-dimensional random walk where you do not necessarily reach every point as the steps tend to infinity. It is not obvious that you will touch every point.
            – JessicaK
            Aug 23 at 8:18




            2




            2




            @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
            – Aaron Montgomery
            Aug 23 at 8:26




            @AlbertRenshaw Uncountably infinite? The coins are necessarily in a sequence, hence countably infinite.
            – Aaron Montgomery
            Aug 23 at 8:26




            1




            1




            I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 9:00




            I can see this as the limit as $Mtoinfty$ of the probability that you haven't lost after $M$ flips. I don't see why it's the limit of getting arbitrarily large scores though. I admit that this appears to give the right answer, but I'm uncomfortable with the argument.
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 9:00




            1




            1




            @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 15:43




            @AaronMontgomery That seems convincing. Thank you.
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 15:43










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Here is a different approach. I calculated the probability of losing if you throw exactly $h$ heads, for $h=0,1,2,dots$



            A001764 enumerates (among other things) the "Number of lattice paths of $n$ East steps and $2n$ North steps from $(0,0)$ to $(n,2n)$ and lying weakly below the line $y=2x.$" If we consider an East step as heads and a North step as tails, this is just the number of losing sequences $a_n$ with exactly $n$ heads, considering that we will toss one more tails at the end.



            According to A001764, $$a_n=3nchoose nover 2n+1$$ and the probability of losing is $$
            sum_n=0^inftya_n2^-3n-1 $$



            A July 17, 2108 comment on A001764 by Michael Somos says that $$A(1/8) = -1+sqrt5$$ where $A(z)$ is the generating function of the $a_n$. It's easy to see that $A(1/8)$ is the probability of losing, so that the probability of winning is $$3-sqrt5over2$$



            Alternatively, Wolfram Alpha gives this value if one substitutes the explicit formula for $a_n$ into the sum.



            I've been trying to find a simple derivation for the formula for $a_n$ based on Milo Brandt's elegant solution. If the probability of heads is $p,$ then the same argument as Milo gave shows that the probability of losing is $$-frac12+fracsqrt4p-3p^22ptag1$$ The series is $$(1-p)sum_n=0^inftya_ny^n, text where y = p(1-p)^2$$



            So far, I haven't been able to manipulate $(1)$ into a an expression in $y$ that will allow me to compute the $a_n.$



            NOTE



            I have removed the explanation of why I was dissatisfied with my original solution, which leave some of the comments without context. My original solution was much like Ian's but my argument wasn't complete. This points is discussed in the comments to Ian's solution, both by Ian and by Aaron Montgomery.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:26










            • @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:35










            • Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:43






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:48














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Here is a different approach. I calculated the probability of losing if you throw exactly $h$ heads, for $h=0,1,2,dots$



            A001764 enumerates (among other things) the "Number of lattice paths of $n$ East steps and $2n$ North steps from $(0,0)$ to $(n,2n)$ and lying weakly below the line $y=2x.$" If we consider an East step as heads and a North step as tails, this is just the number of losing sequences $a_n$ with exactly $n$ heads, considering that we will toss one more tails at the end.



            According to A001764, $$a_n=3nchoose nover 2n+1$$ and the probability of losing is $$
            sum_n=0^inftya_n2^-3n-1 $$



            A July 17, 2108 comment on A001764 by Michael Somos says that $$A(1/8) = -1+sqrt5$$ where $A(z)$ is the generating function of the $a_n$. It's easy to see that $A(1/8)$ is the probability of losing, so that the probability of winning is $$3-sqrt5over2$$



            Alternatively, Wolfram Alpha gives this value if one substitutes the explicit formula for $a_n$ into the sum.



            I've been trying to find a simple derivation for the formula for $a_n$ based on Milo Brandt's elegant solution. If the probability of heads is $p,$ then the same argument as Milo gave shows that the probability of losing is $$-frac12+fracsqrt4p-3p^22ptag1$$ The series is $$(1-p)sum_n=0^inftya_ny^n, text where y = p(1-p)^2$$



            So far, I haven't been able to manipulate $(1)$ into a an expression in $y$ that will allow me to compute the $a_n.$



            NOTE



            I have removed the explanation of why I was dissatisfied with my original solution, which leave some of the comments without context. My original solution was much like Ian's but my argument wasn't complete. This points is discussed in the comments to Ian's solution, both by Ian and by Aaron Montgomery.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:26










            • @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:35










            • Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:43






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:48












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Here is a different approach. I calculated the probability of losing if you throw exactly $h$ heads, for $h=0,1,2,dots$



            A001764 enumerates (among other things) the "Number of lattice paths of $n$ East steps and $2n$ North steps from $(0,0)$ to $(n,2n)$ and lying weakly below the line $y=2x.$" If we consider an East step as heads and a North step as tails, this is just the number of losing sequences $a_n$ with exactly $n$ heads, considering that we will toss one more tails at the end.



            According to A001764, $$a_n=3nchoose nover 2n+1$$ and the probability of losing is $$
            sum_n=0^inftya_n2^-3n-1 $$



            A July 17, 2108 comment on A001764 by Michael Somos says that $$A(1/8) = -1+sqrt5$$ where $A(z)$ is the generating function of the $a_n$. It's easy to see that $A(1/8)$ is the probability of losing, so that the probability of winning is $$3-sqrt5over2$$



            Alternatively, Wolfram Alpha gives this value if one substitutes the explicit formula for $a_n$ into the sum.



            I've been trying to find a simple derivation for the formula for $a_n$ based on Milo Brandt's elegant solution. If the probability of heads is $p,$ then the same argument as Milo gave shows that the probability of losing is $$-frac12+fracsqrt4p-3p^22ptag1$$ The series is $$(1-p)sum_n=0^inftya_ny^n, text where y = p(1-p)^2$$



            So far, I haven't been able to manipulate $(1)$ into a an expression in $y$ that will allow me to compute the $a_n.$



            NOTE



            I have removed the explanation of why I was dissatisfied with my original solution, which leave some of the comments without context. My original solution was much like Ian's but my argument wasn't complete. This points is discussed in the comments to Ian's solution, both by Ian and by Aaron Montgomery.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Here is a different approach. I calculated the probability of losing if you throw exactly $h$ heads, for $h=0,1,2,dots$



            A001764 enumerates (among other things) the "Number of lattice paths of $n$ East steps and $2n$ North steps from $(0,0)$ to $(n,2n)$ and lying weakly below the line $y=2x.$" If we consider an East step as heads and a North step as tails, this is just the number of losing sequences $a_n$ with exactly $n$ heads, considering that we will toss one more tails at the end.



            According to A001764, $$a_n=3nchoose nover 2n+1$$ and the probability of losing is $$
            sum_n=0^inftya_n2^-3n-1 $$



            A July 17, 2108 comment on A001764 by Michael Somos says that $$A(1/8) = -1+sqrt5$$ where $A(z)$ is the generating function of the $a_n$. It's easy to see that $A(1/8)$ is the probability of losing, so that the probability of winning is $$3-sqrt5over2$$



            Alternatively, Wolfram Alpha gives this value if one substitutes the explicit formula for $a_n$ into the sum.



            I've been trying to find a simple derivation for the formula for $a_n$ based on Milo Brandt's elegant solution. If the probability of heads is $p,$ then the same argument as Milo gave shows that the probability of losing is $$-frac12+fracsqrt4p-3p^22ptag1$$ The series is $$(1-p)sum_n=0^inftya_ny^n, text where y = p(1-p)^2$$



            So far, I haven't been able to manipulate $(1)$ into a an expression in $y$ that will allow me to compute the $a_n.$



            NOTE



            I have removed the explanation of why I was dissatisfied with my original solution, which leave some of the comments without context. My original solution was much like Ian's but my argument wasn't complete. This points is discussed in the comments to Ian's solution, both by Ian and by Aaron Montgomery.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 23 at 18:07

























            answered Aug 23 at 2:40









            saulspatz

            11.1k21324




            11.1k21324











            • What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:26










            • @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:35










            • Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:43






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:48
















            • What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:26










            • @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:35










            • Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
              – Aaron Montgomery
              Aug 23 at 15:43






            • 1




              @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
              – saulspatz
              Aug 23 at 15:48















            What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
            – Aaron Montgomery
            Aug 23 at 15:26




            What is $a$ in your answer? Is it the starting position of the walk? If so, then yes, it is true that the win probability should go to $1$ as $a to infty$.
            – Aaron Montgomery
            Aug 23 at 15:26












            @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 15:35




            @AaronMontgomery No it was just an undetermined coefficient. I set up a linear recurrence, solved the characteristic equation, and wrote down the general solution with undetermined coefficients $a,b,c.$ Then I argued that $b=0, c=-a$. My $a,b,c$ were just the $c_1,c_2,c_3$ or Ian's solution. I said $a=1$ simply because it seem to me that as your score increased without bound, your probability of winning must go to $1,$ but I later decided that this was just "proof by assertion."
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 15:35












            Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
            – Aaron Montgomery
            Aug 23 at 15:43




            Ah, got it. Yeah, the convincing argument thing you're hoping for is pretty hard, I think. It comes down to the classic kinds of issues: why is $mathbb Z^2$ recurrent and $mathbb Z^3$ transient, for example? I can produce a proof of that on the spot but I'm not sure that I have intuition for it. It is true that every transient MC has distant states: that is, if you pick an $x$, I can find a $y$ such that starting the chain at $y$ makes it arbitrarily unlikely for it to visit $x$. This chain is transient because it has a rightward drift. But how satisfactory is that explanation, really?
            – Aaron Montgomery
            Aug 23 at 15:43




            1




            1




            @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 15:48




            @AaronMontgomery I agree that the argument in terms of Markov chains is convincing. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, once I get the solution in terms of the generating function completed, I have to say I'll find it more satisfying, because it's more concrete in some ill-defined sense.
            – saulspatz
            Aug 23 at 15:48

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891594%2fchance-of-losing-a-biased-random-walk-game%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            1st Magritte Awards