Bayesian Coin Selection and Sequential Betting
You have two coins. Coin 1 has $P(H) = 2/3$ and Coin 2 has $P(H) = 1/3$. One coin is chosen uniformly at random and flipped 3 times, producing 3 heads.
(a) What is the probability that the next flip (with the same coin) is heads?
(b) Counterparty A offers you a bet: if the next flip is heads, you win $\$2$; if tails, you lose $\$2$. Should you take it? If offered repeatedly (always using the same coin), should you keep taking it?
(c) Counterparty B offers a different bet: if heads, you lose $\$2$; if tails, you win $\$3$. Should you take it?
(d) If you can take bet B at most once and bet A up to 100 times, what is your optimal strategy?
Hints
- Start with Bayes' theorem: the likelihood ratio of 3 heads under Coin 1 vs Coin 2 is $(2/3)^3 / (1/3)^3 = 8$.
- For each bet, compute the expected payoff using $P(H) = 17/27$. A bet is worth taking if and only if its expected value is positive.
- For part (d), check whether bet B provides any hedging or information benefit that affects the value of bet A. If not, evaluate each bet independently.
Worked Solution
How to Think About It: You observed 3 heads in a row from a coin that is either $2/3$-biased or $1/3$-biased. Three heads is $8\times$ more likely under Coin 1 than Coin 2, so the posterior heavily favors Coin 1. Once you have the posterior, every bet question is just an expected value calculation. The subtle point in part (d) is whether the negative-EV bet B can be worth taking as a hedge or information play -- but since bet B's outcome does not change the coin or affect future bet A payoffs, it cannot.
Quick Estimate: Posterior odds for Coin 1: $(2/3)^3 / (1/3)^3 = 8$. So $P(\text{Coin 1} \mid HHH) = 8/9 \approx 0.889$. Next-flip heads probability: roughly $0.889 \times 0.667 + 0.111 \times 0.333 \approx 0.593 + 0.037 = 0.630$. This is above $0.5$, so a symmetric bet on heads has positive EV.
Approach: Bayes' theorem for the posterior, then law of total probability for part (a), and direct EV calculations for the bets.
Formal Solution:
(a) Posterior and next-flip probability:
Prior: $P(C_1) = P(C_2) = 1/2$.
$$P(C_1 \mid HHH) = \frac{(2/3)^3 \cdot (1/2)}{(2/3)^3 \cdot (1/2) + (1/3)^3 \cdot (1/2)} = \frac{8/27}{8/27 + 1/27} = \frac{8}{9}$$
$$P(\text{next } H) = \frac{8}{9} \cdot \frac{2}{3} + \frac{1}{9} \cdot \frac{1}{3} = \frac{16}{27} + \frac{1}{27} = \frac{17}{27} \approx 0.630$$
(b) Bet A: win $\$2$ if heads, lose $\$2$ if tails.
$$EV_A = \frac{17}{27} \cdot 2 + \frac{10}{27} \cdot (-2) = \frac{34 - 20}{27} = \frac{14}{27} \approx \$0.519$$
Positive EV -- take the bet.
If offered repeatedly with the same coin, the edge persists. In fact, it gets stronger: each additional flip updates the posterior further. If you keep seeing heads, you become even more confident it is Coin 1, and $P(H)$ increases. If you see a tail, the posterior shifts toward Coin 2, but $P(H)$ stays above $1/2$ unless you see many tails (because the posterior already strongly favors Coin 1). The expected value of each subsequent bet A remains positive, so take it every time.
(c) Bet B: lose $\$2$ if heads, win $\$3$ if tails.
$$EV_B = \frac{17}{27} \cdot (-2) + \frac{10}{27} \cdot 3 = \frac{-34 + 30}{27} = \frac{-4}{27} \approx -\$0.148$$
Negative EV -- do not take bet B.
(d) Optimal strategy with both bets available (B at most once, A up to 100 times):
Bet A has positive EV ($\$0.519$ per play). Bet B has negative EV ($-\$0.148$). Since the bets are on separate flips (or at least independent conditional on the coin), taking bet B does not provide any information or hedging benefit that affects bet A's value. They are additive.
Optimal strategy: take bet A all 100 times, skip bet B.
Expected profit: $100 \times \frac{14}{27} \approx \$51.85$.
Answer: (a) $P(\text{next } H) = 17/27 \approx 0.630$. (b) Take bet A -- EV is $+14/27 \approx \$0.52$ per play; take it repeatedly. (c) Do not take bet B -- EV is $-4/27 \approx -\$0.15$. (d) Take all 100 bet A's, skip bet B. Expected profit $\approx \$51.85$.
Intuition
This problem tests whether you can cleanly separate Bayesian updating from decision-making. The posterior calculation is step one -- after that, every bet is just a weighted coin flip at the posterior probability. The trap in part (d) is overthinking: since the bets do not interact (taking bet B does not change the coin or give you information about it), you evaluate them independently and take the positive-EV ones.
The deeper lesson is about the strength of Bayesian evidence. Three heads does not sound like much data, but when the two hypotheses predict very different frequencies (2/3 vs 1/3), the likelihood ratio is $8:1$ -- strong evidence. In market making, this is why even a few trades can dramatically shift your posterior about informed flow if the signal-to-noise ratio is high. The number of observations matters less than the likelihood ratio per observation.