Ask The Wizard #333
Imagine a scenario where there are limitless light bulbs, all of which are currently off. The intervals for turning each bulb on are governed by an exponential distribution, averaging one day. When a bulb is eventually lit, its lifespan also adheres to an exponential distribution with an average of one day.
How long, on average, will it take for the very first light bulb to fail?
*: Random events that conform to an exponential distribution exhibit a memory-less characteristic, meaning that prior occurrences do not influence the current situation. This signifies that no single event becomes overdue, and the likelihood of any event happening remains constant.
Typically, we can anticipate that the first light bulb will be switched on within one day.
Subsequent to this, it’s expected to take roughly half a day for the next major occurrence to happen – either a new bulb being lit or the first one burning out. This adds half a day to our initial waiting period. Hence, our total waiting time now stands at 1 + 0.5 = 1.5 days.
There’s a 50% likelihood that the next event involves another bulb being turned on. If that happens, we anticipate a 1/3 day wait before the next notable occurrence, whether that’s one of the first two bulbs burning out or the activation of a new bulb. Therefore, we include the product of 1/2 (the chance of reaching this point) and 1/3, yielding 1/6, which raises the waiting time to 1.5 + 1/6 = 5/3 = approximately 1.66667 days.
The chance of the third significant event being the illumination of a third bulb is (1/2)*(1/3), giving us a 1/6 probability. In this instance, the wait for the next major event is a quarter of a day, accounting for either one of the first three bulbs going out or a new bulb lighting up. Consequently, we add 1/6 (the probability we calculated) multiplied by 1/4, resulting in 1/24, which adjusts our waiting time to 5/3 + 1/24 = 41/24 = about 1.7083 days.
Following this mathematical pattern, the solution can be expressed as the sum of (1/1!) + (1/2!) + (1/3!) + (1/4!) + (1/5!) + ...
It's widely recognized that the mathematical constant e can be represented as (1/0!) + (1/1!) + (1/2!) + (1/3!) + (1/4!) + (1/5!) + ...
The key difference here is that our solution does not include the 1/0! component. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that the answer is e - 1/0! = e - 1, which is approximately 1.7182818...
This particular question has sparked much discussion in my forum at Wizard of Vegas .
On average, how many games of Hearts* must an individual play to experience all 52 cards in their hand?
*: Hearts is played with a standard deck of 52 cards, with each player receiving 13 cards per hand.
Utilizing a Markov chain in Excel aided me in solving this conundrum. The table below illustrates the probability of revealing all 52 cards within a range of 4 to 100 hands. The leftmost column signifies the number of hands played, the middle column indicates the likelihood of seeing the 52nd card precisely within that count of hands, and the rightmost column reflects the chances of having displayed all 52 cards in that number of hands or fewer. For instance, the probability of requiring exactly 20 hands is 4.64%, while the likelihood of accomplishing this in 20 hands or less is 84.63%.
Hearts Question
Hands | Probability Exact Number |
Probability by this Number |
---|---|---|
4 | 0.0000000000 | 0.0000000000 |
5 | 0.0000000002 | 0.0000000002 |
6 | 0.0000007599 | 0.0000007601 |
7 | 0.0000746722 | 0.0000754323 |
8 | 0.0012814367 | 0.0013568690 |
9 | 0.0078648712 | 0.0092217402 |
10 | 0.0250926475 | 0.0343143878 |
11 | 0.0519205664 | 0.0862349541 |
12 | 0.0800617820 | 0.1662967361 |
13 | 0.1007166199 | 0.2670133561 |
14 | 0.1098088628 | 0.3768222189 |
15 | 0.1081357062 | 0.4849579251 |
16 | 0.0989810156 | 0.5839389408 |
17 | 0.0859323992 | 0.6698713400 |
18 | 0.0717845305 | 0.7416558705 |
19 | 0.0582992717 | 0.7999551422 |
20 | 0.0463771514 | 0.8463322937 |
21 | 0.0363346393 | 0.8826669329 |
22 | 0.0281478762 | 0.9108148092 |
23 | 0.0216247308 | 0.9324395399 |
24 | 0.0165110023 | 0.9489505422 |
25 | 0.0125489118 | 0.9614994539 |
26 | 0.0095051901 | 0.9710046441 |
27 | 0.0071815343 | 0.9781861784 |
28 | 0.0054157295 | 0.9836019079 |
29 | 0.0040783935 | 0.9876803013 |
30 | 0.0030680973 | 0.9907483986 |
31 | 0.0023062828 | 0.9930546814 |
32 | 0.0017326282 | 0.9947873096 |
33 | 0.0013011028 | 0.9960884124 |
34 | 0.0009767397 | 0.9970651521 |
35 | 0.0007330651 | 0.9977982171 |
36 | 0.0005500841 | 0.9983483012 |
37 | 0.0004127226 | 0.9987610238 |
38 | 0.0003096311 | 0.9990706549 |
39 | 0.0002322731 | 0.9993029280 |
40 | 0.0001742327 | 0.9994771607 |
41 | 0.0001306901 | 0.9996078508 |
42 | 0.0000980263 | 0.9997058771 |
43 | 0.0000735246 | 0.9997794017 |
44 | 0.0000551461 | 0.9998345478 |
45 | 0.0000413611 | 0.9998759089 |
46 | 0.0000310217 | 0.9999069306 |
47 | 0.0000232667 | 0.9999301974 |
48 | 0.0000174503 | 0.9999476477 |
49 | 0.0000130879 | 0.9999607356 |
50 | 0.0000098160 | 0.9999705516 |
51 | 0.0000073620 | 0.9999779136 |
52 | 0.0000055216 | 0.9999834352 |
53 | 0.0000041412 | 0.9999875764 |
54 | 0.0000031059 | 0.9999906823 |
55 | 0.0000023294 | 0.9999930117 |
56 | 0.0000017471 | 0.9999947588 |
57 | 0.0000013103 | 0.9999960691 |
58 | 0.0000009827 | 0.9999970518 |
59 | 0.0000007370 | 0.9999977889 |
60 | 0.0000005528 | 0.9999983416 |
61 | 0.0000004146 | 0.9999987562 |
62 | 0.0000003109 | 0.9999990672 |
63 | 0.0000002332 | 0.9999993004 |
64 | 0.0000001749 | 0.9999994753 |
65 | 0.0000001312 | 0.9999996065 |
66 | 0.0000000984 | 0.9999997048 |
67 | 0.0000000738 | 0.9999997786 |
68 | 0.0000000553 | 0.9999998340 |
69 | 0.0000000415 | 0.9999998755 |
70 | 0.0000000311 | 0.9999999066 |
71 | 0.0000000233 | 0.9999999300 |
72 | 0.0000000175 | 0.9999999475 |
73 | 0.0000000131 | 0.9999999606 |
74 | 0.0000000098 | 0.9999999705 |
75 | 0.0000000074 | 0.9999999778 |
76 | 0.0000000055 | 0.9999999834 |
77 | 0.0000000042 | 0.9999999875 |
78 | 0.0000000031 | 0.9999999907 |
79 | 0.0000000023 | 0.9999999930 |
80 | 0.0000000018 | 0.9999999947 |
81 | 0.0000000013 | 0.9999999961 |
82 | 0.0000000010 | 0.9999999970 |
83 | 0.0000000007 | 0.9999999978 |
84 | 0.0000000006 | 0.9999999983 |
85 | 0.0000000004 | 0.9999999988 |
86 | 0.0000000003 | 0.9999999991 |
87 | 0.0000000002 | 0.9999999993 |
88 | 0.0000000002 | 0.9999999995 |
89 | 0.0000000001 | 0.9999999996 |
90 | 0.0000000001 | 0.9999999997 |
91 | 0.0000000001 | 0.9999999998 |
92 | 0.0000000001 | 0.9999999998 |
93 | 0.0000000000 | 0.9999999999 |
94 | 0.0000000000 | 0.9999999999 |
95 | 0.0000000000 | 0.9999999999 |
96 | 0.0000000000 | 0.9999999999 |
97 | 0.0000000000 | 1.0000000000 |
98 | 0.0000000000 | 1.0000000000 |
99 | 0.0000000000 | 1.0000000000 |
100 | 0.0000000000 | 1.0000000000 |
A vintage electronic blackjack game situated in the Cal Nev Ari casino operates under these particular regulations:
- Wins, except blackjack, pays 3 for 2 (or 1 to 2)
- Blackjacks pay 6 for 1 (or 5 to 1)
- Single deck
- Dealer stands on soft 17
- One may double down on any initial pair of cards dealt.
- Splitting allowed
- Do double after split
- No re-splitting
- No surrender
Fascinating. I presume that if the player doubles their bet and wins, they would only receive a payout of 1 to 2 based on the total wager.
To begin, here is the fundamental strategy associated with these specific rules:
- For hard hands: Avoid doubling down. Otherwise, adopt a standard basic strategy but stand on 12 versus 3 and 16 versus 10.
- For soft hands: Refrain from doubling. Hit on soft 17 or less, and on soft 18 against a 9; otherwise, maintain your hand.
- When it comes to pairs: Only split 8's against a dealer's 6 through 8. Always hit when holding two aces. In other situations, follow the strategy for hard totals.
In accordance with these guidelines and strategies, I calculate a house advantage of 7.88%.
If players were required to secure a point twice before rolling a total of seven to win a pass line bet in craps, how much would that escalate the house edge?
That undesirable rule would significantly raise the house edge from 1.41% to an alarming 33.26%.