Skip to main content

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Post a Comment

The Good, the Bad and the Weird: Duels, Truels and Utility Functions

In the excellent (and highly recommended) book "Fifty Challenging Problems in Probability with Solution", Frederick Mosteller poses "The Three-Cornered Duel":
A, B and C are to fight a three-cornered pistol duel. All know that A's chance of hitting his target is 0.3, C's is 0.5, and B never misses. They are to fire at their choice of target in succession in the order A, B, C, cyclically (but a hit man loses further turns and is no longer shot at) until only one man is left unit. What should A's strategy be?
This is problem 20 in Mosteller's book, and it also appears (with an almost identical solution) in Larsen & Marx "An Introduction to Probability and Its Applications".

Mosteller's solution:
A is naturally not feeling cheery about this enterprise. Having the first shot he sees that, if he hits C, B will then surely hit him, and so he is not going to shoot at C. If he shoots at B and misses him, then B clearly shoots the more dangerous C first, and A gets one shot at B with probability 0.3 of succeeding. If he misses this time, the less said the better. On the other hand, suppose A hits B.  Then C and A shoot alternately until one hits. A's chance of winning is \( (.5)(.3) + (.5)^2(.7)(.3) + (.5)^3(.7)^2(.3) + \ldots\) . Each term corresponds to a sequence of misses by both C and A ending with a final hit by A. Summing the geometric series we get ... \(3/13 < 3/10\). Thus hitting B and finishing off with C has less probability of winning for A than just missing the first shot. So A fires his first shot into the ground and then tries to hit B with his next shot. C is out of luck.
Is this right? What if B were to follow A's example and fire into the ground? What if all three were to keep firing into the ground? That this type of an outcome isn't unreasonable for certain sets of shot accuracy probabilities can be illustrated by considering the case where A's accuracy is 0.98, B's accuracy is 1.0 and C's accuracy is 0.99. Mosteller's argument is equally applicable in this case, but if B shoots C after A deliberately misses he'll be shot by A with probability 0.98. Is that reasonable?

Under the assumption that deliberately missing is allowed, there are \(2^3-1=7\) possible outcomes - each participant can be shot or not shot, and there must be at least one participant not shot. The lack of clarity for what the ideal strategies are for A, B and C in the general case arises from the utility of 2- or 3-way ties to each of the participants being undefined.

In the next article I'll analyze 2-way duels where deliberate missing is allowed by using such fully-defined utility functions. These results will be used in a third article on 3-way duels (truels); in particular, I'll re-examine Mosteller's solution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simplified Multinomial Kelly

Here's a simplified version for optimal Kelly bets when you have multiple outcomes (e.g. horse races). The Smoczynski & Tomkins algorithm, which is explained here (or in the original paper): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_horses Let's say there's a wager that, for every $1 you bet, will return a profit of $b if you win. Let the probability of winning be \(p\), and losing be \(q=1-p\). The original Kelly criterion says to wager only if \(b\cdot p-q > 0\) (the expected value is positive), and in this case to wager a fraction \( \frac{b\cdot p-q}{b} \) of your bankroll. But in a horse race, how do you decide which set of outcomes are favorable to bet on? It's tricky, because these wagers are mutually exclusive i.e. you can win at most one. It turns out there's a simple and intuitive method to find which bets are favorable: 1) Look at \( b\cdot p-q\) for every horse. 2) Pick any horse for which \( b\cdot p-q > 0\) and mar...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Bayes' Solution to Monty Hall

For any problem involving conditional probabilities one of your greatest allies is Bayes' Theorem . Bayes' Theorem says that for two events A and B, the probability of A given B is related to the probability of B given A in a specific way. Standard notation: probability of A given B is written \( \Pr(A \mid B) \) probability of B is written \( \Pr(B) \) Bayes' Theorem: Using the notation above, Bayes' Theorem can be written:  \[ \Pr(A \mid B) = \frac{\Pr(B \mid A)\times \Pr(A)}{\Pr(B)} \] Let's apply Bayes' Theorem to the Monty Hall problem . If you recall, we're told that behind three doors there are two goats and one car, all randomly placed. We initially choose a door, and then Monty, who knows what's behind the doors, always shows us a goat behind one of the remaining doors. He can always do this as there are two goats; if we chose the car initially, Monty picks one of the two doors with a goat behind it at random. Assume we pick Door 1 an...
20 comments
Read more

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Let a die be labeled with increasing positive integers \(a_1,\ldots , a_n\), and let the probability of getting \(a_i\) be \(p_i>0\). We start at 0 and roll the die, adding whatever number we get to the current total. If \({\rm Pr}(N)\) is the probability that at some point we achieve the sum \(N\), then \(\lim_{N \to \infty} {\rm Pr}(N)\) exists and equals \(1/\rm{E}(X)\) iff \((a_1, \ldots, a_n) = 1\). The direction \(\implies\) is obvious. Now, if the limit exists it must equal \(1/{\rm E}(X)\) by Chebyshev's inequality, so we only need to show that the limit exists assuming that \((a_1, \ldots, a_n) = 1\). We have the recursive relationship \[{\rm Pr}(N) = p_1 {\rm Pr}(N-a_1) + \ldots + p_n {\rm Pr}(N-a_n);\] the characteristic polynomial is therefore \[f(x) = x^{a_n} - \left(p_1 x^{(a_n-a_1)} + \ldots + p_n\right).\] This clearly has the root \(x=1\). Next note \[ f'(1) = a_n - \sum_{i=1}^{n} p_i a_n + \sum_{i=1}^{n} p_i a_i = \rm{E}(X) > 0 ,\] hence this root is als...
Post a Comment
Read more