Premium Bond Winner ?

justwantedtosay

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

Do we know how the August prizes will be shared out yet? I'm guessing it must mean that there will be proportionally more smaller prizes and fewer blank months...?

Not sure why you'd expect proportionally more smaller prizes, but the split by value of the prize pot remains at 10/10/80% between high/medium/low prize bands (where low is £25/50/100).

Because, ignoring the change in rate, if the odds have improved there must be more prizes, which therefore must have a lower average value, which can only be done by increasing the number of smaller prizes.

While the 'lower value' prizes together still account for 10% of the fund they've increased the proportion of £25 prizes against those of £50 and £100 meaning the average value of a prize will drop from £74 to £73.33* - despite the rate rise - though you will stand a better chance of winning one and, hopefully, of having fewer winless months.

There are 9.2% more prizes overall, and 9.2% more lower value ones, but 13.2% more £25 prizes while only 7.5% more £50 and £100 prizes. The same amount of money, again ignoring the rate rise, is split between more winners.

There are 8.6% more £5,000 prizes and 8.2% more £500s in August compared to July. I guess the difference is down to there being no change in the number of £1m prizes meaning the number of £5k - £100k prizes has increased disproportionately.

I think it's strange that they continue to lower the chances of winning a medium value prize compared those of winning lower or higher value ones as most people, even those with a full holding, won't ever win a big prize - £5k or more - and aren't greatly impressed by winning a small one, but £1,000 would be a good win and actually not that remote a chance, at least if the number of medium prizes had gone up in line with the others - well, between £50 and £100,000 anyway.

Lord, I hope I have got my sums right!

* £60.12 to £59.39 for the lower value prizes you're actually going to win.

poppystar

Am I the only one that wishes they’d up the maximum allowed holding? I never see that mentioned in these posts but I’d be really grateful to keep another £10k outside the grips of the tax man!

Primrose

poppystar said:

Am I the only one that wishes they’d up the maximum allowed holding? I never see that mentioned in these posts but I’d be really grateful to keep another £10k outside the grips of the tax man!

I think it would be appreciated if they would even stretch the maximum holding just to allow prizes to be reinvested.

cymruchris

poppystar said:

Am I the only one that wishes they’d up the maximum allowed holding? I never see that mentioned in these posts but I’d be really grateful to keep another £10k outside the grips of the tax man!

In the interests of encouraging savers rather than spenders, it might be something they're considering, who knows?

it's been a few years since the last increase.

£20k to £30k - 2003

£30k to £40k - 2014

£40k to £50k - 2015

justwantedtosay

poppystar said:

Am I the only one that wishes they’d up the maximum allowed holding? I never see that mentioned in these posts but I’d be really grateful to keep another £10k outside the grips of the tax man!

One obvious drawback is that it means the millions of people with smaller holdings are even less likely to win anything, ever. If you've been able to use up your £20k ISA allowance every year you really shouldn't worry too much about the tax on the interest from another £10,000 which even if you're getting 6% on your savings is only £120 for a basic rate tax payer, and if you're in a higher band you can count yourself fortunate as many millions aren't.

eskbanker

justwantedtosay said:

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

Do we know how the August prizes will be shared out yet? I'm guessing it must mean that there will be proportionally more smaller prizes and fewer blank months...?

Not sure why you'd expect proportionally more smaller prizes, but the split by value of the prize pot remains at 10/10/80% between high/medium/low prize bands (where low is £25/50/100).

Because, ignoring the change in rate, if the odds have improved there must be more prizes, which therefore must have a lower average value, which can only be done by increasing the number of smaller prizes.

While the 'lower value' prizes together still account for 10% of the fund they've increased the proportion of £25 prizes against those of £50 and £100 meaning the average value of a prize will drop from £74 to £73.33 - despite the rate rise - though you will stand a better chance of winning one and, hopefully, of having fewer winless months.

There are 9.2% more prizes overall, and 9.2% more lower value ones, but 13.2% more £25 prizes while only 7.5% more £50 and £100 prizes. The same amount of money, again ignoring the rate rise, is split between more winners.

There are 8.6% more £5,000 prizes and 8.2% more £500s in August compared to July. I guess the difference is down to there being no change in the number of £1m prizes meaning the number of £5k - £100k prizes has increased disproportionately.

I think it's strange that they continue to lower the chances of winning a medium value prize compared those of winning lower or higher value ones as most people, even those with a full holding, won't ever win a big prize - £5k or more - and aren't greatly impressed by winning a small one, but £1,000 would be a good win and actually not that remote a chance, at least if the number of medium prizes had gone up in line with the others - well, between £50 and £100,000 anyway.

Lord, I hope I have got my sums right!

The prize allocation page you referred to explains their methodology, which is driven by various hierarchical rules about subdividing the prize pot by value (which remains at the same 10/10/80% for their definition of high/medium/low) and then how they split them within each band, but, given the fixed number of £1m prizes, they clearly can't increase each of the other prize levels evenly by exactly the same percentage.

justwantedtosay

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

Do we know how the August prizes will be shared out yet? I'm guessing it must mean that there will be proportionally more smaller prizes and fewer blank months...?

Not sure why you'd expect proportionally more smaller prizes, but the split by value of the prize pot remains at 10/10/80% between high/medium/low prize bands (where low is £25/50/100).

The prize allocation page you referred to explains their methodology, which is driven by various hierarchical rules about subdividing the prize pot by value (which remains at the same 10/10/80% for their definition of high/medium/low) and then how they split them within each band, but, given the fixed number of £1m prizes, they clearly can't increase each of the other prize levels evenly by exactly the same percentage.

True, but I was only explaining why I thought the proportion of smaller prizes would have increased which you wrongly doubted.

And if you're arguing the toss about increasing each band by "exactly" the same amount, the chance of winning a mid range prize has gone up about 8-fold since early 2022 but that of winning a big prize is up 12-fold.

eskbanker

justwantedtosay said:

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

Do we know how the August prizes will be shared out yet? I'm guessing it must mean that there will be proportionally more smaller prizes and fewer blank months...?

Not sure why you'd expect proportionally more smaller prizes, but the split by value of the prize pot remains at 10/10/80% between high/medium/low prize bands (where low is £25/50/100).

The prize allocation page you referred to explains their methodology, which is driven by various hierarchical rules about subdividing the prize pot by value (which remains at the same 10/10/80% for their definition of high/medium/low) and then how they split them within each band, but, given the fixed number of £1m prizes, they clearly can't increase each of the other prize levels evenly by exactly the same percentage.

True, but I was only explaining why I thought the proportion of smaller prizes would have increased which you wrongly doubted.

Nothing wrong with my post, which related to the proportion of smaller prizes by value remaining constant!

onthebench

onthebench said:

My wife and I each had the full amount in PBs and have gradually been withdrawing to pay for a house renovation. Took the last £6000 out of my wife’s account this month but waited until after the draw date. 

Glad we did as I checked the app this afternoon. 

Two prizes. 

Prize 1 of 2: £25. 

Prize 2 of 2: £5,000. 

Just an update to this February win - a month or so ago by wife got a letter from NS&I telling her that her £25 prize had been increased to £50, as another drawn bond had been found to be invalid so hers had been bumped up the list. So actually a £5,050 total for that month.

We haven't won anything since then, unsurprisingly, as I have only slowly been rebuilding the PB pot by £500 a month or so having reduced it to zero. Up to £1800 in the draw for July but won't hold my breath just yet!

justwantedtosay

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

eskbanker said:

justwantedtosay said:

Do we know how the August prizes will be shared out yet? I'm guessing it must mean that there will be proportionally more smaller prizes and fewer blank months...?

Not sure why you'd expect proportionally more smaller prizes, but the split by value of the prize pot remains at 10/10/80% between high/medium/low prize bands (where low is £25/50/100).

The prize allocation page you referred to explains their methodology, which is driven by various hierarchical rules about subdividing the prize pot by value (which remains at the same 10/10/80% for their definition of high/medium/low) and then how they split them within each band, but, given the fixed number of £1m prizes, they clearly can't increase each of the other prize levels evenly by exactly the same percentage.

True, but I was only explaining why I thought the proportion of smaller prizes would have increased which you wrongly doubted.

Nothing wrong with my post, which related to the proportion of smaller prizes by value remaining constant!

Oh come on, you were responding to my post about numbers of prizes. You wrote, "more smaller prizes" - no mention of value just quantity.
Why not admit you got something wrong like I did when you pointed out my mistake?