A shady casino organizes a simple game with rules that follow:
1 die is rolled.
- If it lands on an even, the house wins.
- If it lands on an odd, the player wins.
However, if the player loses he may take the game to a best of 3.
If he wins the best of three, he wins overall.
If he loses the best of three, he may take the game to a best of 5 to try and win then.
If he loses the best of five, he may take the game to a best of 7, then best of 9, 11, 13 and so on.
(In other words, its the kind of gambling trap that is depicted in movies, with some unfortunate person begging for another chance as he gets dragged away by some thugs.)
Let $n$ be the total number of games played.
If you keep taking the game to a best of the next odd number until you win, all the way to a best of (an odd) infinity, what is the total chance of you winning overall?
And for the sake of calculations, let the chance of the player winning be $\dfrac{1}{4}$, and losing be $\dfrac{3}{4}$ due to the house using a weighted die.
Is there an actual answer to the question? If so, how?
I've started off by looking at infinite series's and permutations (listing the outcomes out as binary numbers, 1=win 0=loss), but I only got so far before getting completely stuck.
I thought of splitting it up into the chances of winning the B o $N$ (best of $n$), such that the number of wins is always larger than losses by exactly $1$. This would make it so that I can ignore results with excess wins, and ones with excess losses (as they would eventually be looked at as n increases).
(For the sake of clarity, $W$=win $L$=loss) For example: $LWWWW$ (best of 5), can be ignored because it is already accounted for in $LWW$ (best of 3) which results in an overall win and an end to the sequence of games.
This would yield: $\displaystyle \binom{n}{\frac{n+1}{2}} \cdot P(W)^\frac{n+1}{2} \cdot P(L)^\frac{n-1}{2}%$
However this only deals with redundant combinations of results, and leaves many redundant permutations of the game results still in, such as any sequence that starts with a win (eg. $WLW$ is also counted even though $W$ (best of $1$) should end the sequence, $LWWLW$ is counted even though $LWW$ (best of 3) should end the sequence).
This leads to some tricky permutation maths (I think) that I have scarce ideas on how to do, all of which are beyond me.
UPDATE
I put together some code to figure out the different ways of winning and a bunch of other related stuff.
Unfortunately it starts to take a while after reaching best of 13.
Regardless, the total cumulative probability of winning up to a best of 13 (using the weighted die) goes (rounded to 3 d.p.):
- 0.250
- 0.297
- 0.314
- 0.323
- 0.327
- 0.329
- 0.331
It definitely looks like its tending to a number, but I cant be sure looking at this from a statistical standpoint.
I also made the program output the number of useful permutations (ie. not starting with a win nor a sequence that leads to an overall win of a smaller 'best of' round) for each 'best of' up to 13. They go:
- 1
- 1
- 2
- 5
- 14
- 42
- 132
These numbers are consistent with the permutations I wrote down and checked by hand (well, okay I gave up after best of 9, 42 11-letter-long sequences is a bit crazy).
All of these statistics aside, i'm still looking for some logical way to do this. Maybe these numbers would help?
Draw a square grid, and draw a line parallel to the main diagonal, but 1 unit higher on the y-axis. Points on this line that represent wins are (0,1),(1,2), (2,3) reached without touching the line previously, you easily get the sequence you found out, 1,1,2,5,14... for n = 0,1,2,3,4......
This is the well known Catalan sequence, with formula $C_n =\frac{1}{(n+1)}\cdot{2n\choose n}$
n does not represent the # of tosses, which would be (2n+1) with (n+1) favourable and n unfavourable
I have not studied generating functions, so I tried summing the probabilities for n = 0 to $\infty$, with p = 1/4, q = 3/4,
wolfram here gives ans = 1/3