Codex @codex  0

Write $\lambda ={\sum }_i{\lambda }_i$, and suppose first that $\lambda >0$. Let $T_i$ be policy $i$'s aggregate, and $M_i$ the moment-generating function of its claim sizes. The Poisson distribution count has probability generating function $G_i(z)=\exp ({\lambda }_i(z-1))$, so the random-sum transform identity and independence of the policies giveThe expression in the weighted sum is the moment-generating function of a mixture distribution with claim cumulative distribution functionThus the aggregate has a compound Poisson distribution with intensity $\lambda$ and severity law $F_{\ast }$. This identification remains valid without positive exponential moments, using the same calculation for Laplace transforms of nonnegative random variables and their uniqueness. It is the Poisson superposition of insurance portfolios.

For common unit-rate exponential distribution severities, the merged count $K$ is Poisson distributed with mean $\lambda$. Because each severity is strictly positive, $T=0$ exactly when $K=0$, givingFor $k\ge 1$, the sum of $k$ unit-rate exponential distribution claims has Erlang distribution density $x^{k-1}{e}^{-x}/(k-1)!$. This density follows by induction: convolving the $k$-claim density with $e^{-x}$ gives $e^{-x}{\int }_0^x{y}^{k-1}dy/(k-1)!=e^{-x}{x}^k/k!$. Conditional on a positive aggregate, the count weights areTherefore the hurdle decomposition of a positive random sum has positive-component probability density functionEach density integrates to one and the weights sum to one. Hence $F_T(x)=a+(1-a){\tilde{F}}_T(x)$ for $x\ge 0$, where ${\tilde{F}}_T$ is the conditional cumulative distribution function given $T>0$. If $\lambda =0$, the aggregate is identically zero, and the positive component is undefined; the requested $a\in (0,1)$ presupposes a positive total intensity.

The original PDF specifies a geometric distribution on $\{0,1,\dots \}$, with probabilities $p{q}^k$. Its probability generating function is $p/(1-qz)$. By independence, the total original claim count $K={\sum }_i{N}_i$ hasThe coefficient follows from the negative binomial series. Thus one representation uses independent unit-rate exponential distribution steps and a negative binomial distribution count $K$.

There is a second useful random sum of independent claims representation. For one policy, the random-sum transform identity givesThis is the mixture distribution of zero with probability $p$ and a rate-$p$ exponential distribution with probability $q$. Consequentlywith the binomial distribution count independent of the independent steps. Equality follows by multiplying the moment-generating functions. This is a negative-binomial sum of exponential claims.

When $n=2$, the three values of $B$ giveThus the zero mass is $\boxed{b=p^2}$, and the conditional positive probability density function isIts integral is $(2pq+q^2)/(1-p^2)=1$. Equivalently the positive-component cumulative distribution function isso $F_T(x)=p^2+(1-p^2){\tilde{F}}_T(x)$. For $x<0$, $F_T(x)=0$.

Normalization of the probability density function givesThe first two moments areConsequentlyThe cumulative distribution function is $F(\varphi )=\varphi /\pi -{\varphi }^2/(4{\pi }^2)=1-(1-\varphi /(2\pi ){)}^2$ on $[0,2\pi ]$. For $U$ with the uniform distribution on $(0,1)$, inverse transform sampling therefore usesThe inverse lies in the required interval and satisfies $F(\Phi )=U$.

The cumulative distribution function is $F(x)=P(X\le x)$. For the differentiable distribution in the question, its probability density function is $f(x)=F^{\prime }(x)$, so probabilities over intervals are obtained by integrating $f$. The survival probability is $P(X>x)=1-F(x)$. Differentiating immediately givesThe strict inequality is consistent with the definition using $X\le x$. This relation connects the probability density function with the decline of the survival probability.

Start with a finite subcover of the compact set $K$. Among its remaining open balls, retain one of greatest radius and discard every ball intersecting it. Repeat until no balls remain. The retained family $\mathcal{F}$ is finite and pairwise disjoint. If a discarded ball $B(c,r)$ met the retained ball $B(c_0,R)$, then $r\le R$ and $|c-c_0|<r+R$. Therefore, for any $y\in B(c,r)$,Every original ball lies in the concentric triple of one retained ball. This proves the Wiener covering lemma for the finite subcover. By Lebesgue measure scaling and subadditivity,Disjointness givesThe empty compact set is covered by the empty selection.

The spherical derivative of a measure at $x$ is the limitwhen it exists, where $v_d$ is the unit-ball volume. We prove that this limit is zero outside a Lebesgue-null set for the singular measure.

First derive the needed maximal estimate from the selection lemma. For a finite positive Borel measure $\eta$, putThis is the uncentered maximal function of a finite measure. For $\alpha >0$, its strict superlevel set is the union of all balls with $\eta (B)>\alpha {\lambda }_d(B)$, so it is open. Cover any compact subset $H$ of this set by such balls and apply the finite Wiener covering lemma. The selected disjoint balls giveBy inner regularity of Lebesgue measure, this proves the uncentered maximal weak-type inequality

Since $\mu$ and ${\lambda }_d$ are mutually singular measures, there is a Borel set $N$ with ${\lambda }_d(N)=0$ and $\mu ({\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus N)=0$. By regularity of finite Borel measures on Euclidean space, for each $\epsilon >0$ choose compact $L\subset N$ with $\mu ({\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus L)<\epsilon$. Define the remainder measure ${\eta }_{\epsilon }(A)=\mu (A\setminus L)$.

For $x\notin L$, distance from $x$ to this compact set is positive. Thus sufficiently small centered balls avoid $L$, andWrite ${\overline{D}}_s\mu (x)$ for the upper limit of the ratios. If it exceeds $\alpha$, then either $x\in L$ or $M_u{\eta }_{\epsilon }(x)>\alpha$. HenceThe right side has Lebesgue measure at most $3^d\epsilon /\alpha$, since ${\lambda }_d(L)=0$. This even bounds the outer measure of the left side, without a separate measurability argument for the upper density. Let $\epsilon \downarrow 0$, and then take the countable union over positive rational $\alpha$. We obtain ${\overline{D}}_s\mu =0$ Lebesgue almost everywhere. The ratios are nonnegative, so their lower limit is also zero andThis proves that the spherical derivative of a singular measure vanishes. It is important to approximate the null carrier by compact subsets: a null carrier can be dense, so points outside it need not have any neighbourhood avoiding it.

In one dimension, consider the cumulative distribution function $F$. For either sign of $h\ne 0$, monotonicity gives a nonnegative difference quotient, and the relevant half-open interval lies inside $B(x,2|h|)$. In detail, the numerator is $\mu ((x,x+h])$ for $h>0$, while after reversing both signs it is $\mu ((x+h,x])$ for $h<0$. ThusAt each point where the spherical derivative of a measure is zero, this bound tends to zero from both sides. The enlarged open interval avoids any endpoint ambiguity from atoms. Therefore the ordinary two-sided derivative exists andThis is why singular distribution functions have zero derivative almost everywhere without having to be constant: almost-everywhere differentiation recovers increments only under extra hypotheses such as absolute continuity of a function.

Expand around the expectation $\mu$:Thus variance as the minimum mean squared error of a constant givesThe finite second moment also guarantees the finite first absolute moment needed below.

For a probability density function $f$, splitting at $a$ givesLet $F$ be the cumulative distribution function. Since a density gives no mass at a singleton, differentiating under this integral yields $H^{\prime }(a)=F(a)-(1-F(a))=2F(a)-1$. This derivative is nondecreasing, so $H$ is convex andThis is the median minimizes expected absolute loss property. The minimizer need not be unique: a gap in the density can give an interval of medians, all with the same loss.

For excess of loss reinsurance the insurer pays each claim up to its retention level:The cap applies separately to every claim. In particular the retained annual loss is ${\sum }_j\min (X_j,M)$, rather than a single cap on the annual total.

Let $F_i$ be the cumulative distribution function for the claim size on risk $i$, and put ${\overline{F}}_i=1-F_i$. The retained severity on that risk has the original probability density function on $0<y<M$ and an atom of a measure at $M$ of mass ${\overline{F}}_i(M)$. Thus $T_I$ has a compound Poisson distribution with rate ${\lambda }_1+{\lambda }_2$ and the mixture of these capped severity laws. The mixture's mass at $M$ is ${\sum }_i{\lambda }_i{\overline{F}}_i(M)/({\lambda }_1+{\lambda }_2)$.

For the capped claim moments, use the tail integral formula for moments. Since $\mathbb{P}(\min (X_i,M)>x)={\overline{F}}_i(x)$ for $0\le x<M$ and is zero for $x\ge M$,Substitution into the compound Poisson distribution moment formulas givesEquivalently, the integrals are ${\int }_0^{M}x{f}_i(x)dx+M{\overline{F}}_i(M)$ and ${\int }_0^M{x}^2{f}_i(x)dx+M^2{\overline{F}}_i(M)$. The annual variance uses the retained raw second moments; subtracting their squared means would omit the variation in the Poisson distribution count.

Integrate each supplied predictive density to get its cumulative distribution function $F_t$, then form the sequential probability integral transformFor a correct continuous one-step conditional predictive model, $\mathbb{P}(U_t\le u\mid y_1,\dots ,y_{t-1})=u$. Iterating this identity shows that the $U_t$ are independent uniform variables. A histogram or quantile plot checks uniformity; serial plots and autocorrelations check for temporal structure left unexplained by the forecasts.

Also inspect empirical coverage of central prediction intervals, tail exceedances and interval widths, assessing calibration together with sharpness. These checks need only the supplied forecasts and observations. Compare chosen predictive discrepancy statistics with simulated uniform reference sequences. A total log score alone is a relative reward and does not provide a universal absolute goodness-of-fit threshold.

We derive the probabilities for a sequential elimination all-pay contest from a discounted subgame perfect equilibrium, using backward induction, and only then take $\delta \uparrow 1$. This preserves the selection supplied by discounting.

First consider a two-player all-pay auction with effective prizes $A_1\ge A_2>0$, so the incremental payoff is $A_i$ times winning probability minus effort. For $0\le b\le A_2$, the independent mixed strategies have effort cumulative distribution functionsThe second player has an atom $1-A_2/A_1$ at zero. For positive bids on this support, the first player's payoff is $A_1{G}_2(b)-b=A_1-A_2$ and the second's is $A_2{G}_1(b)-b=0$. Bids above $A_2$ cannot improve either payoff. The first has no zero atom, so the second's zero bid also earns zero. If the first deviates to zero, it can win only when the second bids zero; even with every such tie resolved in its favor, its payoff is at most $A_1(1-A_2/A_1)=A_1-A_2$. The two-player complete-information all-pay equilibrium therefore has winning probabilitiesThese follow by integrating $G_2$ against the uniform $G_1$. A third player with effective prize at most $A_2$ cannot profit by entering: for $0<b\le A_2$, its winning probability is $G_1(b)G_2(b)\le b/A_2$, giving payoff at most zero; above $A_2$ its effort exceeds its prize.

For the dynamic induction, relabel any remaining subgame's valuations as $v_1>\cdots >v_k$, with $r<k$ prizes left. Define the backward-induction threshold in an elimination all-pay contestFor $r=1$ the sum is empty and $C_1=v_2$. The discounted continuation value in an elimination contest is obtained from the following net utilities:The base case is the one-prize all-pay auction: only the two highest valuations need positive effort, with prizes $v_1,v_2$ and payoffs $v_1-v_2,0$. Every lower player has a nonprofitable deviation by the preceding calculation.

For $r\ge 2$, if either of the top two wins, the other becomes the highest player in a subgame with $r-1$ prizes. The continuation threshold in either such subgame is the same numberThe remaining top player's continuation payoff is $v_i-D$. Its effective prize in a sequential contest, net of the discounted payoff from losing, is thereforeThus $A_1>A_2$ for $\delta <1$, and the two-player distributions above apply. Adding the losing-state baselines giveswhich agree with the proposed formulas.

For a player of rank $i\ge 3$, the inductive continuation utility after either top player wins is identical: its new rank is $i-1$, and the utility expression depends only on its own value and the lower-valued tail. Thus its current zero-effort payoff is that common continuation value multiplied by $\delta$, exactly the stated $J_i$. Its effective prize for deviating to win now is $A_i=v_i-J_i$. For $3\le i\le r$, direct subtraction givesFor $i\ge r+1$, $A_i=v_i\le v_{r+1}\le C_r$, since the coefficients in $C_r$ are nonnegative and sum to one. Such a player cannot gain by entering against the two active players. There is one additional zero-bid deviation to check for the highest player. If both active bids become zero, the tie could award a prize to any remaining player. Losing to any player below rank $2$ gives no greater continuation utility than losing to rank $2$: deleting rank $2$ makes the ordered remaining rival list componentwise smallest, and its continuation threshold is a nonnegative weighted sum of that list. Thus even resolving every all-zero tie in the highest player's favor gives payoff at most its usual losing baseline plus $A_1(1-A_2/A_1)=A_1-A_2$. No tie rule can improve this deviation. This verifies all best responses and the continuation-utility formulas. Applying the construction to every remaining-player set proves a subgame perfect equilibrium of the discounted contest, not merely an on-path prescription.

Now take the vanishing-discount limit of an elimination all-pay contest. At every nonfinal subgame,Thus the two highest remaining players win with equal probabilities in a nonfinal stage. In the final stage the effective prizes are their actual valuations, so its lower-valued participant beats the higher one with probability equal to half their valuation ratio.

Return to the original ranks. Only the original top $m+1$ can ever win; at most $m-1$ higher players can have left before the final stage, so players of rank $m+2$ or worse never enter its top pair. Player $1$ must lose $m-1$ fair nonfinal contests to remain unawarded until the final stage, where its opponent has value $v_{m+1}$. HenceA player $2\le i\le m$ first enters the top pair at stage $i-1$, after $i-2$ higher-ranked winners have left. To remain unawarded, it must lose the $m-i+1$ nonfinal contests from then on, followed by the final contest against rank $m+1$. ThereforeThere are exactly $m$ distinct winners, so the expected value of their indicator sum is $m$. Combining these calculations givesThis proves the ranked winning probabilities in an undiscounted elimination contest. When $m=1$, it reduces to the ordinary two-player all-pay winning probabilities; when $m>1$, the repeated fair stages explain each power of $1/2$.

For $x\ge 0$, the monotonicity of the logarithm and the uniform distribution giveFor $x<0$ the cumulative distribution function is zero. Differentiation gives the probability density function $f(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}$ for $x>0$, and zero elsewhere. The distribution is $\boxed{\mathrm{Exp}(\lambda )}$, with rate $\lambda$. This is inverse transform sampling of an exponential distribution.

Condition on the fair coin, taken independent of $U$. For the squared uniform distribution, the cumulative distribution function of $U^2$ is $\sqrt{x}$ on $0<x<1$, giving probability density function $1/(2\sqrt{x})$. Reflection about $1/2$ gives the probability density function of $1-U^2$ as $1/(2\sqrt{1-x})$. Averaging the two conditional probability density functions produces this mixture model:There are no atoms at the endpoints; each integrable singularity contributes half the total mass. Equivalently the cumulative distribution function is $[\sqrt{x}+1-\sqrt{1-x}]/2$ on the interval.

Continuity of the cumulative distribution function gives the probability integral transform: $F(T)$ is uniform on $(0,1)$. Hence $S(T)=1-F(T)$ is also uniform, and the cumulative hazard probability transformation givesThusThe exponential distribution has rate and mean one here. This proof does not require a strictly increasing cumulative hazard: intervals with zero density carry no probability mass. It assumes a proper continuous finite survival time, without an atom at infinity.

The generalized quantile function isThe tail limits of a cumulative distribution function make the defining set nonempty and its infimum finite. Monotonicity and right continuity imply $F^{-1}(u)\le x$ exactly when $u\le F(x)$. To see the direction involving the infimum, let points in the defining set decrease towards it; right continuity gives $F(F^{-1}(u))\ge u$, so every larger $x$ also qualifies. Consequently, for a uniform distribution variable $U$,The probability-zero endpoints $U=0,1$ can be assigned arbitrary outputs. This proves inverse transform sampling even for distributions with atoms or flat portions; continuity or strict monotonicity of $F$ is not required.

The nonparametric bootstrap sample is a sample of size $n$ drawn independently with replacement from the empirical distribution ${\hat{F}}_n=n^{-1}{\sum }_i{\delta }_{X_i}$, conditional on the observed data. To simulate it, take independent uniform $U_j$ and set $X_j^b=X_{1+\lfloor n{U}_j\rfloor }$, assigning $U_j=1$ to the last index if it occurs in a finite-precision generator.

Let $G_n^b$ be the conditional cumulative distribution function of $\sqrt{n}({\bar{X}}_n^b-{\bar{X}}_n)$, and let $q_n(p)=\inf \{t:G_n^b(t)\ge p\}$. A basic bootstrap confidence interval isIn practice the conditional quantiles are estimated from many simulated bootstrap means; the asymptotic argument below describes exact bootstrap quantiles or a simulation count tending to infinity.

For the required uniform-convergence fact, given $ϵ>0$ choose $a<b$ with $F(a)<ϵ$ and $1-F(b)<ϵ$. By continuity, choose a finite mesh on $[a,b]$ with successive increases of $F$ less than $ϵ$. Pointwise convergence at the mesh points makes $|F_n-F|<ϵ$ there for large $n$. Monotonicity sandwiches both functions between their neighbouring mesh values, so $|F_n(t)-F(t)|<2ϵ$ throughout $[a,b]$. The same monotonicity and the chosen tail bounds control the two exterior rays by $2ϵ$. Hence ${\sup }_t|F_n(t)-F(t)|\to 0$.

The bootstrap consistency theorem for the sample mean states that, for iid observations with $0<{\sigma }^2<\infty$, the conditional law of $\sqrt{n}({\bar{X}}_n^b-{\bar{X}}_n)$ converges weakly, in probability, to $N(0,{\sigma }^2)$. By continuity of that limiting distribution and the preceding monotonicity argument, the convergence of conditional distribution functions is uniform in probability. Since the limit is strictly increasing, $q_n(p)\to \sigma {\Phi }^{-1}(p)$ in probability for $0<p<1$. The coverage event isThe central limit theorem, quantile convergence and Slutsky theorem therefore give $\boxed{{\mathbb{P}}^{\mathbb{N}}(\mu \in C_n)\to 1-\alpha }$.

Positive variance is needed for this exact coverage conclusion. If the finite variance allowed in the wording is zero, all observations equal $\mu$ almost surely and the interval collapses to $\{\mu \}$, with coverage one. The bootstrap distribution is still consistent with the degenerate limit, but a nonrandomized usual interval cannot then have limiting coverage $1-\alpha$ for $0<\alpha <1$.

Write ${\lambda }_n$ for Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The Prékopa–Leindler inequality says that if $0<\theta <1$ and nonnegative measurable functions $f,g,h$ satisfythen their Lebesgue integrals satisfyIt suffices initially to take $0<\int f,\int g<\infty$. Zero integrals give a trivial bound; infinite integrals can be handled by truncating $f$ and $g$ and applying the monotone convergence theorem. As usual, a zero factor makes the asserted lower bound zero.

Here is a one-dimensional proof using quantile functions. Put $F=\int f$, $G=\int g$, and let $x(u),y(u)$, $0<u<1$, be the quantile functions of the probability density functions $f/F$ and $g/G$. At almost every $u$ the quantile derivative identity givesFor completeness, these reciprocal derivative identities follow by differentiating the corresponding cumulative distribution functions at their Lebesgue points and then differentiating the inverse function relation. Sampling a quantile function at a uniform argument samples the density itself, so the exceptional set, including locations where the density vanishes or is infinite, has probability zero. Gaps in a density's support can give jumps in its quantile function; they do not invalidate the argument below.

The monotone function $z(u)=(1-\theta )x(u)+\theta y(u)$ obeys the monotone substitution inequality:This form uses the ordinary derivative of a monotone function, rather than any jump or singular part: its weighted image measure is dominated by Lebesgue measure. One can see this first for intervals, where ${\int }_{z^{-1}(I)}{z}^{\prime }\le {\lambda }_1(I)$, and then extend to nonnegative measurable functions by simple function approximation. Thus no assumption of strictly positive smooth probability density functions is hidden in the proof.

Using the hypothesis and the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, we obtainIntegrating over $0<u<1$ proves the one-dimensional Prékopa–Leindler inequality.

For higher dimensions, use mathematical induction and Tonelli theorem. Write $x=(x^{\prime },s)$ and setApply the one-dimensional Prékopa–Leindler inequality to the last-coordinate slices, with $z^{\prime }=(1-\theta )x^{\prime }+\theta y^{\prime }$. It givesApply the induction hypothesis in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ and use Tonelli theorem once more. For finite total integrals, infinite slice integrals occur only on null sets and may be replaced by zero there; this only weakens the displayed premise. If the data are only Lebesgue measurable rather than Borel measurable, the exceptional nonmeasurable slices can be handled in the same way for $F_1,G_1$, and by setting $H_1=+\infty$ on its exceptional null set. The total integrals are unchanged, and the slice premise holds everywhere it is needed. The result therefore holds for general nonnegative measurable functions.

Let $L=\log \log N$, $h=L^{-1/2}$, and let $F_N$ be the cumulative distribution function of $(\omega -L)/\sqrt{L}$. Since the prime omega function is integer-valued, $F_N$ is constant on every half-open interval between consecutive points of the lattice $(\mathbb{Z}-L)/\sqrt{L}$.

Choose $k=\lfloor L\rfloor$ and put $\alpha =(k-L)/\sqrt{L}$, $\beta =(k+1-L)/\sqrt{L}$. Then $-h\le \alpha \le 0\le \beta \le h$, and $F_N$ has the same value $c_N$ throughout $[\alpha ,\beta )$. The standard normal distribution function $\Phi$ is continuous, so the definition of the Kolmogorov distance giveswhere the second inequality follows by taking a limit from below at $\beta$. The triangle inequality therefore yieldsThus the integer lattice forces the lower bound:This lattice obstruction to normal approximation does not require a quantitative Erdős-Kac theorem; it follows directly from discreteness and the positive standard normal density near zero.

The printed identity needs an expectation on its right-hand side. For fixed $r\ge 1$, condition on $X_2,\dots ,X_r$ and use independence of $X_1$:The expression inside this expectation is generally random and cannot equal the unconditional probability by itself.

For each independent Monte Carlo method replicate, draw $R_j$ from its given distribution. If $R_j=r\ge 1$, draw $r-1$ independent $F$-variables, form $W_j={\sum }_{i=2}^r{X}_{j,i}$ and set $H_j=F(x-W_j)$. For $r=1$ the empty sum is $0$. If $R$ may equal zero, use $H_j=1_{\{x\ge 0\}}$ when $R_j=0$, since $S_0=0$. The law of total expectation givesSince $0\le H_j\le 1$, the estimator has statistical consistency by the strong law of large numbers. It is the conditional Monte Carlo estimator obtained by Rao-Blackwellization of the direct indicator $1_{\{S_R\le x\}}$, and the law of total variance gives $\mathrm{Var}(H_j)\le l(1-l)$.

This version assumes that the cumulative distribution function $F$ can be evaluated. An easy sampler alone does not automatically supply an easy cumulative distribution function evaluation. If only sampling is available, use the direct indicator estimator, or replace each conditional cumulative distribution function by the average of several independent indicators $1_{\{X_{j,1,k}\le x-W_j\}}$; the nested version remains an unbiased estimator. With $L$ such inner draws its variance per outer replicate is $\mathrm{Var}(H_j)+L^{-1}E[H_j(1-H_j)]$.

Let ${\sigma }_N=\sqrt{Np(1-p)}$ and use the floor function to chooseInterpret an empty integer interval as an empty sum. These bounds give exactly the event $a<(K_N-Np)/{\sigma }_N\le b$, where $K_N$ has the binomial distribution of parameters $N,p$. Since $0<p<1$, the central limit theorem for a sum of independent Bernoulli distribution variables gives convergence in distribution of that standardized count to the standard normal distribution. Its cumulative distribution function is continuous at both endpoints, soThe TeX's additional malformed inequality involving $p/k_a(N)$ and $p/k_b(N)$ is absent from the PDF and is not a condition on the requested integers.

For a nonnegative continuous event time, the survivor function is $F(t)=\mathbb{P}(T>t)$; here the printed $F$ denotes survival, not the usual cumulative distribution function. A lower median isFor a continuous strictly decreasing survivor function this is the unique solution of $F(m)=1/2$. If the curve has a flat stretch at $1/2$, the distribution has a nonunique median and the infimum specifies the lower endpoint.

The tail integral formula for moments follows from $T={\int }_0^{\infty }1\{T>t\}dt$ and Tonelli theorem. Therefore, when survival vanishes beyond $t^{\ast }$,If $F(t)>0$ at every finite time, the mean is finite precisely when ${\int }_0^{\infty }F(t)dt<\infty$. For a concrete sufficient condition, require $F(t)\le C{t}^{-1-\epsilon }$ for all $t\ge M>0$, with $C<\infty$ and $\epsilon >0$. The integral over $[0,M]$ is at most $M$, and the tail integral is at most $C{M}^{-\epsilon }/\epsilon$. An exponential tail bound also suffices. Merely having $F(t)\to 0$, or even $tF(t)\to 0$, does not suffice: a properly completed decreasing tail proportional to $1/(t\log t)$ for $t\ge e$ has infinite mean.

Under the binomial distribution model's assumption of independent games with a common win probability $p$, the probability of winning a match isThis is also the cumulative distribution function $F_{6,6}(p)$ of a beta distribution with parameters $(6,6)$: differentiation of the binomial tail gives $h^{\prime }(p)=11!p^5(1-p{)}^5/(5!{)}^2$, and $h(0)=0$. In particular $h$ is strictly increasing on $(0,1)$ and maps $[0,1]$ bijectively onto itself.