WOO logo

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.

Ace2

The answer is e - 1 = approx. 1.7182818..

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.

anonymous

The typical number of hands required to see every card in the deck amounts to roughly 16.41217418.

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

Rosebud

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?

Gary

That undesirable rule would significantly raise the house edge from 1.41% to an alarming 33.26%.