Lottery - improve your odds?

Milarky

whambamboo wrote:

Can this thread please be moved off the savings & investments board, as it is neither a savings account nor an investment.

No, let's not! Let's continue the conversation a bit longer - and not have the same old posters chipping in continously!! If this thread were as 'random' as a lottery then a large proportion of comments would be by new or occasional posters... On the other hand in real life some people buy large numbers of entries in the Lottery even though they only need one ticket to win. I'm of the 'buy once' school of motoring (eh betting!) and I liked Will.Power's willpower and sense of fun... keep an old ticket for up to 6 months before checking it, and get on with life.

"Bring em on!" (The fresh comments I mean!) :beer:

whambamboo

Gorgeous_George wrote:

Hi

Having seen that Premium Bonds can live on the Savings and Investments Board, I decided to share my cunning lottery plan with you all.

Except that PBs *are* a form of savings, as you can get your money back.

Keeping money under your mattress, or in a savings jar, is a form of saving.

Buying non-refundable lottery tickets is not a saving, as you cannot get your stake back. Can you see the difference?

Gorgeous_George

whambamboo wrote:

Except that PBs *are* a form of savings, as you can get your money back.

Keeping money under your mattress, or in a savings jar, is a form of saving.

Buying non-refundable lottery tickets is not a saving, as you cannot get your stake back. Can you see the difference?

Dear Mr Head,

It was so nice to bump into you.


Best regards


Brick Wall

Paul_Herring

whambamboo wrote:

Except that PBs *are* a form of savings, as you can get your money back.

They aren't saving, they're gambling. You don't get the stake back. (The interest that you could have earned on the money.)

Keeping money under your mattress, or in a savings jar, is a form of saving.

Of the three, this is the least favourable option. You neither earn interest, nor gamble on the interest that could be earned on it.

Buying non-refundable lottery tickets is not a saving, as you cannot get your stake back. Can you see the difference?

Stick £30,000 in a monthly paying savings account, and buy tickets with the interest generated. You still have your £30,000 to pull out as/when you want. How is this mechanism distinctly different from PBs?

whambamboo

Paul_Herring wrote:

They aren't saving, they're gambling. You don't get the stake back. (The interest that you could have earned on the money.)

But the interest never existed. How can you not get back something you never had? It's like saying if I put pound coins in a savings jar, then I am not getting my stake back when I open the jar up and take them out again.

There is no difference.

Stick £30,000 in a monthly paying savings account, and buy tickets with the interest generated. You still have your £30,000 to pull out as/when you want. How is this mechanism distinctly different from PBs?

That's different: you are actively spending money (it doesn't matter whether it came from a savings account or general expenditure, it is all money and all has the same value) on a 50% payout game.

This has much to do with savings as investing £30,000 in a bank account and using the interest to buy pornographic magazines, and claiming that a thread about porno magazines is relevant on this forum: with premium bonds the government is providing a savings vehicle - somewhere to keep your money safe - and is also entering you into a gambling game as a result.

The lottery is entirely disconnected from any savings vehicle, and so, as I said, is as relevant here as using your interest to buy porno mags.

It is very simple - Premium Bonds include a savings vehicle, somewhere to save money. The lottery does not.

It is no different from signing up to a student bank account that pays 0% interest but gives you a free student rail pass every year if you keep £100 in it - that is relevant discussion here, because it is a savings scheme. A new thread on how student rail cards (absent any link to bank accounts, etc.) can save you money is not.

Just as student rail cards do not belong here, neither do strategies on how to maximise your payout on a very poor paying game.

Paul_Herring

whambamboo wrote:

Paul_Herring wrote:

They aren't saving, they're gambling. You don't get the stake back. (The interest that you could have earned on the money.)

But the interest never existed.

Yes it did - the government just keeps it. Where do you think the prize money for PBs comes from?

It is very simple - Premium Bonds include a savings vehicle, somewhere to save money.

How its it saving? The value of the money 'saved' decreases each year due to inflation. "Winnings," remember, are not guaranteed. If anything it's a perverse form of investing. Or gambling.

gazzak007

:beer: We have just changed our syndicate strategy apparently it reduces the odds of winning by 250,000 to 1
8 people in syndicate 1st person picks out 6 numbers , 2nd picks out 6 numbers with the first 6 numbers missing , 3rd picks out 6 with the 12 numbers missing and so forth
Well we have tried everything else thats why im drinking lager tonight not champagne

whambamboo

Paul_Herring wrote:

How its it saving? The value of the money 'saved' decreases each year due to inflation. "Winnings," remember, are not guaranteed. If anything it's a perverse form of investing. Or gambling.

So you're saying that a savings account paying no interest is in fact not a savings account at all?

It quite clearly is saving, by any sensible definition. The absence of interest does not change that.

The lottery quite plainly is not.

Milarky

Back to the topic in hand please - Lottery tickets!

Only 14 million combinations - so the Jackpot should be guaranteed to be paid out once significantly more than this amount is staked. That it is often not paid suggests that Camalot do not allocate LD numbers to 'fill the gaps'..

Syndicates could try to buy all the available numbers in each draw to get the guaranteed 'global' return (of 50% of stake) but that would be 'rubbish' I can see WBB saying. But a realistic tactic for a syndicate to take is surely only stake (say) 80 percent of their weekly cash in each draw until there is a rollover and then stake (say) not less than 120% - knowing that average 4+ number prizes are proportionately greater. This would help them 'tick over' better for their members....

Gorgeous_George

Milarky wrote:

... until there is a rollover and then stake (say) not less than 120% - knowing that average 4+ number prizes are proportionately greater. This would help them 'tick over' better for their members....

The 4+ number prizes may have been larger in the draws that did not reveal a 6-number winner. They may not.

In the rollover, it is only the jackpot that is higher - except if it rolls over 3 times and still does not result in a jackpot winner ,at which point the jackpot is shared amongst the other 4+ winners.



GG