Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:46:34.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic programming and gambling models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2016

Sheldon M. Ross
Sheldon M. Ross*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dynamic programming is used to solve some simple gambling models. In particular we consider the situation where an individual may bet any integral amount not greater than his fortune and he will win this amount with probability p or lose it with probability 1 — p. It is shown that if p ≧ ½ then the timid strategy (always bet one dollar) both maximizes the probability of ever reaching any preassigned fortune, and also stochastically maximizes the time until the bettor becomes broke. Also, if p ≦ ½ then the timid strategy while not stochastically maximizing the playing time does maximize the expected playing time. We also consider the same model but with the additional structure that the bettor need not gamble but may instead elect to work for some period of time. His goal is to minimize the expected time until his fortune reaches some preassigned goal. We show that if p ≦ ½ then (i) always working is optimal, and (ii) among those strategies that only allow working when the bettor is broke it is the bold strategy that is optimal

Keywords

POSITIVE DYNAMIC PROGRAMMINGNEGATIVE DYNAMIC PROGRAMMINGGAMBLING MODELRED-BLACK MODELWORK-GAMBLING MODELCOUNTEREXAMPLES
Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Applied Probability , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1974 , pp. 593 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 1974 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Blackwell, D. (1967) Positive dynamic programming. Proc. Fifth Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Prob. 1, 415–418. University of California Press.Google Scholar
[2] Blackwell, D. (1970) On stationary policies. J. R. Statist. Soc. A 133, 33–37.Google Scholar
[3] Breiman, L. (1961) Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. Proc. Fourth Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Prob. 1. University of California Press.Google Scholar
[4] Breiman, L. (1968) Probability. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google Scholar
[5] Derman, C. and Strauch, R. (1966) A note on memoryless rules for controlling sequential control processes. Ann. Math. Statist. 37, 276–279.Google Scholar
[6] Dubins, L. and Savage, L. (1965) How to Gamble if you Must. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
[7] Epstein, R. (1967) Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
[8] Freedman, D. (1967) Timid play is optimal. Ann. Math. Statist. 38, 1281–1284.Google Scholar
[9] Molenaar, W. and Van Der Velde, E. A. (1967) How to survive a fixed number of fair bets. Ann. Math. Statist. 38, 1278–1281.Google Scholar
[10] Ornstein, D. (1969) On the existence of stationary optimal strategies. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 20, 563–569.Google Scholar
[11] Ross, S. (1970) Applied Probability Models with Optimization Applications. Holden-Day, San Francisco.Google Scholar
[12] Strauch, R. (1966) Negative dynamic programming. Ann. Math. Statist. 37, 171–189.Google Scholar
[13] Thorp, E. (1969) Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. Rev. Inst. Internat. Statist. 37, No. 3.Google Scholar