2
$\begingroup$

imagine a betting game where we observe $N$ independent coin flips $x_1,...,x_n$ (where each $x_i \in {H,T}$) from the same coin, whose true weight is $\theta$. the task is to predict how many Heads we will get in the next $M$ flips of the same coin. the closer you are to the true number of heads, the higher your payoff will be. as example, the reward may be $r/(abs(Guess_H - True_H) + 1)$ where $Guess_H$ is your guess for number of Heads on next $M$ flips, $True_H$ is actual number of Heads in the next $M$ flips, and $r$ is some value $r > 1$.

what is the optimal strategy? how do you show formally which of the two following strategies is better?

strategy 1: estimate coin weight $\theta$ from $N$ first flips. if $\theta > 0.5$, predict all Heads for next $M$ flips ($M$ Heads), if $\theta < 0.5$, predict all Tails for next $M$ flips (0 Heads).

strategy 2: estimate coin weight $\theta$ from $N$ first flips. predict $\theta*M$ many heads for next $M$ flips.

which strategy is better? can this be shown formally? attempt:

expected reward for strategy 1:

assume $\theta = 0.75, M = 10$

$E(reward|strategy 1) = Binomial(10; 10, 0.75)*r$

expected reward for strategy 2:

$E(reward|strategy 2) = Binomial(0.75 * 10; 10, 0.75)*r$

this shows that for this case, strategy 2 is better, since:

$Binomial(0.75 * 10; 10, 0.75) > Binomial(10; 10, 0.75)$

how can this be shown analytically and in general, not assuming particular values for $M$ and the true $\theta$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What are your thoughts? If the probability of heads is $0.75$, what would you expect? $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Nov 30 '14 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ @RossMillikan: clarified q and added answer for 0.75 $\endgroup$ – mvd Nov 30 '14 at 2:44
0
$\begingroup$

If $N$ and $M$ are large, you expect the first part to be a good measure of $\theta$, then you expect a fraction $\theta$ of the tosses to be heads, so your prediction should be $\theta M$, strategy 2. If they are large enough that the normal approximation is good, you can use that. All heads will then be several standard deviations away. If $N,M$ are smaller, you have a lot of algebra ahead of you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ if strategy 2 is better does this not contradict the case that probability matching is flawed as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_matching - can you relate it to class conditional example, where if a class appears 60% of time then you maximize gains by predicting that class 100% of the time (not 60%)? see also: heim.ifi.uio.no/~inf3300/bilder/dudahart_chap2.pdf $\endgroup$ – mvd Nov 30 '14 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ There are two different predictions here. Your question asks about predicting the total number of heads over a long run. The link to Wikipedia is about making an individual prediction for each toss. In that case you always want to predict the more likely face. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Nov 30 '14 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ intuitively i see the difference, but can you explain formally in probability terms how the two predictions are different? hard to see formally why that distinction makes a big difference in which strategy maximizes reward $\endgroup$ – mvd Nov 30 '14 at 15:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.