Fair gambler's ruin problem intuition Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Probability of Gambler's Ruin with Unequal Gain/LossAdaptive gambler's ruin problemGambler's Ruin with no set target for winGambler's ruin problem - unsure about the number of roundsEffect of Gambler's Ruin Bet Size on DurationGambler's ruin: verifying Markov propertyComparison of duration of two gambler's ruin gamesGambler's Ruin - Probability of Losing in t StepsGambler's Ruin: Win 2 dollars, Lose 1 dollarGambler's ruin Markov chain

Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author

Can anything be seen from the center of the Boötes void? How dark would it be?

Redirect to div in page with #

Selecting user stories during sprint planning

Why do we bend a book to keep it straight?

AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network

Benefits of using sObject.clone versus creating a new record

Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?

Performance gap between bool std:vector and array

Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?

Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers?

Do any jurisdictions seriously consider reclassifying social media websites as publishers?

Apply Line Pattern Fill to LineStrings?

What is the Characteristic of a local ring?

NumericArray versus PackedArray in MMA12

How do I use the new nonlinear finite element in Mathematica 12 for this equation?

How to convince students of the implication truth values?

What do you call the main part of a joke?

What are the out-of-universe reasons for the references to Toby Maguire-era Spider-Man in Into the Spider-Verse?

Should I use a zero-interest credit card for a large one-time purchase?

Is there any word for a place full of confusion?

Take 2! Is this homebrew Lady of Pain warlock patron balanced?

Employee unreasonably upset with me?

Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?



Fair gambler's ruin problem intuition



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Probability of Gambler's Ruin with Unequal Gain/LossAdaptive gambler's ruin problemGambler's Ruin with no set target for winGambler's ruin problem - unsure about the number of roundsEffect of Gambler's Ruin Bet Size on DurationGambler's ruin: verifying Markov propertyComparison of duration of two gambler's ruin gamesGambler's Ruin - Probability of Losing in t StepsGambler's Ruin: Win 2 dollars, Lose 1 dollarGambler's ruin Markov chain










7












$begingroup$


In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_k-1 = p_k-1 - p_k-2 = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    7












    $begingroup$


    In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



    In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_k-1 = p_k-1 - p_k-2 = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



    Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



    Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      7












      7








      7


      1



      $begingroup$


      In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



      In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_k-1 = p_k-1 - p_k-2 = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



      Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



      Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      In a fair gambler's ruin problem, where the gambler starts with k dollars, wins $1 with probability 1/2 and loses $1 with probability 1/2, and stops when he/she reaches $n or $0.



      In the solution (from Dobrow's Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R), they let $p_k$ be defined as the probability of reaching $n with $k in one's inventory. Then they use the fact that $p_k - p_k-1 = p_k-1 - p_k-2 = ... = p_1 - p_0 = p_1$.



      Intuitively this means the probability of reaching $n with $k minus the probability of reaching $n with $k-1 is equivalent to the probability of reaching $n with only $1.



      Is there an intuitive reason why this is the case?







      probability stochastic-processes intuition






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 3 at 7:54









      BSplitter

      572216




      572216










      asked Apr 3 at 0:48









      platypus17platypus17

      667




      667




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



          $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



          Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



          Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



          $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



          based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



          $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



          Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



          $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



          Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_k-1$ term on the left to the RHS, eqrefeq4 becomes



          $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



          Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            8












            $begingroup$

            The probability of reaching $$n$ starting with $$k$ can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability $1/2$. If you win, you have $$(k+1)$, so the probability of reaching $$n$ from here is $p_k+1$. If instead, you lose the first toss, then its $$p_k-1$. Then use the Law of Total Probability $P(X)=sum_n P(X|Y_n)P(Y_n)$ where $Y_n$ is a partition of the sample space. In this case, $Y_1=textlose toss$, and $Y_2=textwin toss$. Then you get



            $$p_k=frac12(p_k-1+p_k+1)$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_k-1+p_k+1\p_k-p_k-1=p_k+1-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3172677%2ffair-gamblers-ruin-problem-intuition%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              5












              $begingroup$

              Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



              $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



              Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



              Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



              $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



              based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



              $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



              Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



              $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



              Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_k-1$ term on the left to the RHS, eqrefeq4 becomes



              $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



              Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                5












                $begingroup$

                Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



                $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



                Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



                Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



                $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



                based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



                Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



                $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



                Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_k-1$ term on the left to the RHS, eqrefeq4 becomes



                $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



                Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  5












                  5








                  5





                  $begingroup$

                  Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



                  $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



                  Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



                  Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



                  $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



                  based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                  $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



                  Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



                  $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



                  Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_k-1$ term on the left to the RHS, eqrefeq4 becomes



                  $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



                  Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Regarding an "intuitive" reason for this relation, note that winning or losing a dollar has an equal chance and is independent of how much your currently have. Thus, the change in probability of winning or losing when starting off with $$1$ more is independent of what your starting value is. Note that if $q_k = 1 - p_k$ is the probability of losing when starting with $$k$, then plugging $p_k = 1 - q_k$ in gives that



                  $$q_k-1 - q_k = q_k-2 - q_k - 1 = ldots = q_1 - q_2 = q_0 - q_1 tag1labeleq1$$



                  Note you can reverse all the elements by multiplying by $-1$ to give the exact same relationship as with $p_k$.



                  Regarding how to get the relationship, this answer originally started with that, as the answer by John Doe states, the difference relation for reaching $n starting with $i is given by



                  $$p_i = frac12p_i - 1 + frac12p_i + 1 tag2labeleq2$$



                  based on the probabilities of either winning or losing the first time. Summing eqrefeq2 for $i$ from $1$ to $k - 1$ gives



                  $$sum_i=1^k-1 p_i = frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i - 1 + frac12sum_i=1^k-1 p_i + 1 tag3labeleq3$$



                  Having the summations only include the common terms on both sides gives



                  $$p_1 + sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + p_k-1 = frac12p_0 + frac12p_1 + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12sum_i=2^k - 2 p_i + frac12p_k-1 + frac12p_k tag4labeleq4$$



                  Since the summation parts on both sides up to the same thing, they can be removed. Thus, after moving the $p_0$ and $p_1$ terms to the LHS and the $p_k-1$ term on the left to the RHS, eqrefeq4 becomes



                  $$frac12p_1 - frac12p_0 = frac12p_k - frac12p_k-1 tag5labeleq5$$



                  Multiplying both sides by $2$, then varying $k$ down, gives the relations you stated are used in the solution. However, it's generally simpler & easier to just manipulate eqrefeq2 to get that $p_i+1 - p_i = p_i - p_i-1$, like John Doe's answer states.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 3 at 2:54

























                  answered Apr 3 at 1:25









                  John OmielanJohn Omielan

                  5,1992218




                  5,1992218





















                      8












                      $begingroup$

                      The probability of reaching $$n$ starting with $$k$ can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability $1/2$. If you win, you have $$(k+1)$, so the probability of reaching $$n$ from here is $p_k+1$. If instead, you lose the first toss, then its $$p_k-1$. Then use the Law of Total Probability $P(X)=sum_n P(X|Y_n)P(Y_n)$ where $Y_n$ is a partition of the sample space. In this case, $Y_1=textlose toss$, and $Y_2=textwin toss$. Then you get



                      $$p_k=frac12(p_k-1+p_k+1)$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_k-1+p_k+1\p_k-p_k-1=p_k+1-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$

















                        8












                        $begingroup$

                        The probability of reaching $$n$ starting with $$k$ can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability $1/2$. If you win, you have $$(k+1)$, so the probability of reaching $$n$ from here is $p_k+1$. If instead, you lose the first toss, then its $$p_k-1$. Then use the Law of Total Probability $P(X)=sum_n P(X|Y_n)P(Y_n)$ where $Y_n$ is a partition of the sample space. In this case, $Y_1=textlose toss$, and $Y_2=textwin toss$. Then you get



                        $$p_k=frac12(p_k-1+p_k+1)$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_k-1+p_k+1\p_k-p_k-1=p_k+1-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$















                          8












                          8








                          8





                          $begingroup$

                          The probability of reaching $$n$ starting with $$k$ can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability $1/2$. If you win, you have $$(k+1)$, so the probability of reaching $$n$ from here is $p_k+1$. If instead, you lose the first toss, then its $$p_k-1$. Then use the Law of Total Probability $P(X)=sum_n P(X|Y_n)P(Y_n)$ where $Y_n$ is a partition of the sample space. In this case, $Y_1=textlose toss$, and $Y_2=textwin toss$. Then you get



                          $$p_k=frac12(p_k-1+p_k+1)$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_k-1+p_k+1\p_k-p_k-1=p_k+1-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$



                          The probability of reaching $$n$ starting with $$k$ can be split up by what possible first steps you can take - you either lose the first toss or win, each with probability $1/2$. If you win, you have $$(k+1)$, so the probability of reaching $$n$ from here is $p_k+1$. If instead, you lose the first toss, then its $$p_k-1$. Then use the Law of Total Probability $P(X)=sum_n P(X|Y_n)P(Y_n)$ where $Y_n$ is a partition of the sample space. In this case, $Y_1=textlose toss$, and $Y_2=textwin toss$. Then you get



                          $$p_k=frac12(p_k-1+p_k+1)$$ Rearranging this gives $$2p_k=p_k-1+p_k+1\p_k-p_k-1=p_k+1-p_k$$ as required, and iterating it multiple times gets to $p_1-p_0$, and of course, $p_0=0$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Apr 3 at 12:21

























                          answered Apr 3 at 1:00









                          John DoeJohn Doe

                          12.1k11339




                          12.1k11339



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3172677%2ffair-gamblers-ruin-problem-intuition%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

                              Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

                              Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?