MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381195610 · doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20231202.12

Techniques for Computing the Probability of a Gambler’s Ruin with Applications to Playing Roulette

2023· article· en· W4381195610 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRouletteStochastic gameRuin theoryOddsMathematical economicsFirst-hitting-time modelMathematicsActuarial scienceEconomicsStatisticsRisk modelLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interest in gambling has greatly increased over the last few decades with the more common use of slot machines and online gambling, especially sports betting. A concern that has been publically raised is addiction and eventual gambler’s ruin (loss of all money). In this paper we provide a solution to the Gambler’s Ruin problem in regards to roulette. We compute the probability of a gamblers ruin with applications to the various betting opportunities playing roulette by determining the W+1 roots of the relevant polynomials and from there determine the probability of a gamblers ruin. We find situations where the payoff becomes higher, the probability of ruin becomes lower. Lower goals of gain are associated with a lower probability of ruin and larger bets and larger odds payoff also increase the probability of ruin.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it