Four Fair Coins: Expected Payoff and Pricing Two Magic Wands
Company: Jane Street
Role: Quantitative Trader
Category: Machine Learning
Difficulty: easy
Interview Round: Technical Screen
You play the following game: four fair coins are tossed at the same time. For every coin that lands heads, you are paid \$1.
The interviewer walks you through the game in three stages, adding a "magic wand" that lets you modify the coins after you see the initial toss.
### Constraints & Assumptions
- All four coins are fair and independent: each lands heads with probability $1/2$.
- The payoff is exactly \$1 per head showing at the end; there are no other costs or payoffs.
- In Parts 2 and 3 the wand is used **after** you observe the initial toss, you may use it an unlimited number of times, and each use is free.
- "A pair" means any two distinct coins of your choice, and you may choose a different pair on every use (fully adaptive play).
- You are risk-neutral, so the fair price of a wand is the increase in your expected payoff from owning it.
### Clarifying Questions to Ask
- Are the coins fair, and are the four tosses independent?
- Do I see the coins before deciding how to use the wand, and can I choose each pair adaptively based on the current state?
- For the "turn over" wand, do both chosen coins deterministically flip to their opposite faces (heads becomes tails and vice versa)?
- Is every use of the wand free, with no limit on the number of uses, and do I decide when to stop and collect the payoff?
- Should I price the wand for a risk-neutral player, i.e., fair price equals the gain in expected payoff?
### Part 1
What is your expected payoff from the game (no wand)?
```hint One line, no enumeration
Use linearity of expectation: the expected payoff is the sum of each coin's expected contribution. You never need to list all $2^4$ outcomes.
```
#### What This Part Should Cover
```premium-lock What This Part Should Cover
```
### Part 2
You are offered a magic wand. After seeing the toss, the wand lets you **turn over any pair of coins** (both chosen coins flip to their opposite faces). You may use it as many times as you like. What is a fair price for this wand?
```hint Look for an invariant
Turning over two coins changes the number of heads by $-2$, $0$, or $+2$, depending on what the two coins were showing. What property of the head count can no sequence of pair-flips ever change?
```
```hint Best reachable payoff
Split the $16$ equally likely initial outcomes into classes the wand cannot move between. For each class, find the largest head count you can reach, and weight by the probability of the class.
```
#### What This Part Should Cover
```premium-lock What This Part Should Cover
```
### Part 3
The wand's power changes: now each use lets you **pick any pair of coins and re-toss both of them**. Again you may use it an unlimited number of times, free of charge, and you decide when to stop. What is a fair price for this wand?
```hint What changed versus Part 2
Re-tossing is random, so the constraint you found in Part 2 no longer binds. Notice that re-tossing two coins that both show tails can never make you worse off. Which pair should you re-toss whenever at least two tails are showing?
```
```hint The only risky decision
The interesting state is exactly three heads: any re-toss must now include a head, so you can lose ground. Either set up the optimal-stopping value equations for the states "two heads" and "three heads," or look for a strategy that only ever stops in one particular state.
```
#### What This Part Should Cover
```premium-lock What This Part Should Cover
```
### What a Strong Answer Covers
```premium-lock What a Strong Answer Covers
```
### Follow-up Questions
- Generalize Part 2 and Part 3 to $n$ fair coins. How do the two wand prices behave as $n$ grows?
- Suppose each use of the Part 3 wand costs a fee $c > 0$. How does your strategy change, and for what values of $c$ is the wand worth buying at all?
- What if the wand in Part 3 could only be used at most $k$ times? Set up (don't fully solve) the dynamic program for its value.
- Redo Part 1 and Part 2 with biased coins that land heads with probability $p$. Which parts of your argument survive unchanged?
Overview: The question evaluates probabilistic reasoning, expected-value computation, and invariant-based state-space analysis as applied to adaptive operations on random variables and pricing contingent instruments.
Read the full Jane Street Quantitative Trader interview experience this question came from
Community answers
Answer by spamkeliyebanaya
part 1 : ev =2
part 2 :
i would buy the wand if i have 0/1/2 heads - in each case i can make 2 dollars- so max payable for the wand is 2 +1/8 - 1/8 for the double use case
part 3 : i would be willing to pay 2 since i can reach payoff of 4 no matter what state im in taking ex from 2->4