1. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    22 Nov '06 17:42
    Originally posted by mtthw
    As I said, let B = 1. I took one specific case and showed the answer couldn't be 50%. Therefore it can't be 50% in all cases.
    PW is 0.5 not 0.1
  2. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    22 Nov '06 17:42
    Originally posted by PBE6
    This is a little bit complicated, because not all arrangements are valid (you can't have more than B-1 losses in a row before getting a few wins)
    You might be able to use a reflection principle to work out A(m). The number of paths from A to B that hit zero is equal to the number of paths from A to -B.
  3. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    22 Nov '06 17:431 edit
    Originally posted by uzless
    PW is 0.5 not 0.1
    Pw was unspecified in the question. If Pw is 0.5 then you will hit zero eventually (see the formula I posted for the result).
  4. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    22 Nov '06 17:56
    Originally posted by mtthw
    Pw was unspecified in the question. If Pw is 0.5 then you will hit zero eventually (see the formula I posted for the result).
    according to your website, you've posted the wrong formula for pw = 0.5
  5. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    22 Nov '06 18:00
    Originally posted by uzless
    according to your website, you've posted the wrong formula for pw = 0.5
    That's the formula for Pw > 0.5, although you'll notice it equals 1 for Pw = 0.5, so no worries.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree