1
$\begingroup$

I struggle with the understanding of stopping times. Could someone check whether what I wrote is correct and answer my question:

If $(X_n)$ is a martingale adapted to a filtration $(\mathcal{F}_n)$, then from the property $E[X_{n+1}\mid\mathcal{F}_n]=X_n$ and the law of total expectation we have for $s,t\in \mathbb{N}$ and $s

However if $T$ is a stopping time, then $E(X_T)=E(X_s)$ is not always true but the optional stopping theorem gives us the conditions when it is true. For example if $T<\infty \quad a.s.$

Now I came across this example:

Let $X_n$ with $\mathbb{P}[X_i = 1] = 1/2$ and $\mathbb{P}[X_i = -1] = 1/2$ and $X_i$ are i.i.d. Let $\tau=\inf\{n: X_n =1\}$, then $\mathbb{E}[X_{\tau}]=1$ but $E(X_0)=0$.

So this must mean $\tau$ is not finite, how do I see this? And how do I correctly compute $E[X_{\tau}]$? Intuitively it is clear, but I'm unable to show this.

1 Answers 1

3

First let me correct an apparent misconception:

The classic example when the optional stopping theorem does not apply is the "martingale betting strategy". This is described by the martingale $X_n=\sum_{k=0}^n Y_k$ where $Y_k$ are independent and equally likely to be $2^k$ and $-2^k$. In this case, with $\tau=\inf \{ k : Y_k>0 \}$, you have $X_\tau=1$ a.s., yet $E[X_0]=0$.

This example shows that $T<\infty$ a.s. is not enough to have an optional stopping theorem type result. One version of the optional stopping theorem requires $T

With that said, let me return to your actual question:

Your example is simply not a martingale. In fact, the only sequence of iid mean zero random variables which forms a martingale is a sequence of constant zero r.v.s (check it). However, a sum of iid mean zero random variables does form a martingale. In fact if you sum up your $X_i$ you will find that the optional stopping theorem applies (this is the standard "gambler's ruin" when the bet size is fixed).

  • 0
    Thanks a lot for your answer. A short question: The key difference between $T<\infty$ and $T$M$) and the other not, but both are still finite of course. Is that the point of the optional stopping theorem? – 2017-01-13
  • 1
    @Matriz To see that distinction, just think about flipping a fair coin until you get heads. Then the probability that it takes more than k flips is $2^{-k} $ which goes to zero but never vanishes. But no this alone is not really the point; this version of the optional stopping theorem is actually the least useful one. The more useful ones can handle unbounded stopping times but then they require bounds on the process itself.2017-01-13