Reasons For The Four Results
Let "Bankroll" be the amount of money a gambler has at his disposal at any moment, and let N be any positive integer. Suppose that he raises his stake to when he wins, but does not reduce his stake when he loses. This general pattern is not uncommon among real gamblers, and casinos encourage it by "chipping up" winners (giving them higher denomination chips). Under this betting scheme, it will take at most N losing bets in a row to bankrupt him. If his probability of winning each bet is less than 1 (if it is 1, then he is no gambler), he will eventually lose N bets in a row, however big N is. It is not necessary that he follow the precise rule, just that he increase his bet fast enough as he wins. This is true even if the expected value of each bet is positive.
The gambler playing a fair game (with 0.5 probability of winning) will eventually either go broke or double his wealth. These events are equally likely, or the game would not be fair (ignoring the fact that his bankroll might jump over one event or the other, this is a minor complication to the argument). So he has a 0.5 chance of going broke before doubling his money. Once he doubles his money, he again has a 0.5 chance of doubling his money before going broke. Overall, there is a 0.25 chance that he will go broke after doubling his money once, but before doubling it twice. Continuing this way, his chance of going broke is 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 + . . . which approaches 1.
Huygens' result is illustrated in the next section.
The eventual fate of a player at a negative expected value game cannot be better than the player at a fair game, so he will go broke as well.
Read more about this topic: Gambler's Ruin
Famous quotes containing the words reasons for the, reasons for, reasons and/or results:
“It’s an old trick now, God knows, but it works every time. At the very moment women start to expand their place in the world, scientific studies deliver compelling reasons for them to stay home.”
—Mary Kay Blakely (20th century)
“Could truth perhaps be a woman who has reasons for not permitting her reasons to be seen? Could her name perhaps be—to speak Greek—Baubo?... Oh, those Greeks! They understood how to live: to do that it is necessary to stop bravely at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore the appearance, to believe in forms, in tones, in words, in the whole Olympus of appearance! Those Greeks were superficial—out of profundity!”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“Whenever we approve, we can find a hundred good reasons to justify our approbation. Whenever we dislike, we can find a thousand to justify our dislike.”
—Samuel Richardson (1689–1761)
“There is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other. It becomes evident that such violations are not accidental events, they are not results of insufficient knowledge or of inattention which might have been avoided. On the contrary, we see that they are necessary for progress.”
—Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994)