Skip to main content

Fermat Pascal Dice Game Fairness

Imagine you play a dice rolling game with a friend. If you roll a '6' in 8 rolls, you win the entire stake, otherwise you lose. Suppose you have rolled 3 times and haven't won yet. Your friend now suggests to skip the 4th roll, but he will compensate you fairly for it. You will still get to roll your 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th roll. For the compensation of skipping the 4th roll, he will take out a fair amount from the stake and give it to you, keeping the rest of the stake at play. What would be considered a fair compensation?

Discussion
I talked to a genius and she gave me the following argument "I think of it as two options, to skip or not to skip. I will only skip if the option gives me an expectation that is higher than, or at least the same as, if I don't skip."

Expectation if I don't skip: 
E1= 1/6 * S + 5/6 * (1 - (5/6)^4) * S
where S is the stake

Expectation if I skip:
E2 = c + (1 - (5/6)^4) * (S - c)
where c is the compensation

We want E1 <= E2. We'll get c >= 1/6 * S.

This means we will be willing to skip if we are compensated by at least 1/6 of the stake.

If we argue similarly from the other person's perspective, we are only willing to give out options that can improve our own expectation or at least keep it the same, and we will conclude that the compensation should be equal to 1/6 S.

Then what is fairness? This genius girl tells me that fairness should be, if we present a few options to a person, and if both of us are smart enough, the person would still be willing to pick any one of the options, and we are still willing to offer any one of the options.

We even have a side discussion on expectation and values: That the value of something may not be the same for different people, in real life, each of us have a function V() that maps a value to another value, and the expectation is actually of E(V(X)), not E(X). That is why given a bet of E(X) = 0 where have a fair chance of losing 1 million or winning 1 million, some people might take it and some may not, because V(1 million) and V(-1 million) could be different for different people. As Warren Buffett said one time time earning more money has no value to him after certain amount, then V(100 million) is just about the same as V(1 billion), and that would skew the expectation. The genius girl even gives an example of why there are many old people who love to gamble, where V(winning 50 dollars) is much higher than 50, while V(losing 10 dollars) is almost 0, which makes their expectation to be very positive even when they lose money on average. What a genius.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

641 | 2^32 + 1

Problem: Show that \( 641 | 2^{32} + 1 \). Solution: (From Problem Solving Strategies, Arthur Engel) \( 641 = 625 + 16 = 5^4 + 2^4 \). So \( 641 | 2^{32} + 2^{28} \cdot 5^4 \). Also, \( 641 = 640 + 1 = 2^7 \cdot 5 + 1\). So \( 641 | (2^7 \cdot 5)^4 - 1 = 2^{28}\cdot 5^4 - 1 \). Hence \( 641 | 2^{32} + 2^{28} \cdot 5^4 -(2^{28}\cdot 5^4 - 1) \). QED
Post a Comment
Read more

Derive e

Prove that \( \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n} \right)^n \) converges. Solution Let \( G(n) =  \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n} \right)^n \). Binomial expansion, \( G(n) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n} \frac{ \binom{n}{k} }{n^k} \). By simple inequality argument, \( \frac{ \binom{n}{k} }{n^k} < \frac{1}{k!} \). So if we let \( F(n) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n} \frac{1}{k!} \), we have \( G(n) < F(n) \). By simple inequality argument, \( F(n) < 1 + \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2^{k-1}} < 3 \). So G and F are bounded above. By AM-GM, \( \frac{G(n-1)}{G(n)} = \left( \frac{ n^2 }{ n^2 - 1} \right)^{(n-1)} \frac{ n}{n+1} < \left(  \frac{ \frac{ n^2 }{ n^2 - 1} (n-1) + \frac{ n}{n+1} }{n} \right)^n = 1 \). So \( G(n-1) < G(n) \). Since G is monotonic increasing and bounded above, G converges. Similarly F converges. Let's also prove that G and F converges to the same limit. By studying individual terms in \( F(n) - G(n) \) and making simple inequality arguments, we can show that for each \( \epsilon > 0 \) w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Random walk by the cliff

You are one step away from falling down a cliff. In each step, you have 1/3 chance of moving towards the cliff, 2/3 chance of moving away from the cliff. What is the probability you fall down the cliff? Solution It is 1/2, and there are 3 ways to approach this. Let's say we are at position 0, and the cliff is at position -1. We go +1 with probability p, and go -1 with probability 1-p. Approach 1. Catalan number: All paths that end with falling down the cliff can be broken down to two parts: 0 -> ... -> 0 and 0 -> -1. The path 0 -> ... -> 0 is Catalan; if we fix the path length to 2n, then the number of paths would be C_n. What we want to compute is the total probability = (1-p) sum { C_n (p(1-p))^n }. We can use the generating function for Catalan to arrive at: if p <= 1/2, probability = 1; if p > 1/2, probability = 1/p - 1. Approach 2. Let P(i) be the probability of reaching -1 from position i.  P(0) = 1-p + pP(1) Also, P(1) can be derived as follows: can we r...
Post a Comment
Read more