Premium Bond Winner ?

pbcpdeveloper

mandarin6 said:

Has anyone else picked up how lucky bond number 551QT is?  This month it was drawn out for 25k, 10k, 5k, 100 x18, 50x21 and 25x12.  I decided to check Octobers draw ( the first time it was eligible ) and it got drawn out for 1k, 500, 100x22, 50x11 and 25x7.  They say Ernie is random however whatever system is converting certainly isnt IMO. 

From the last 2 draws the 551QT range was drawn 96 times which ranks it 2,833 rd, the winner is 550BA, drawn 134 times.

551QT prizes for that period total £47,575,  highest is 446PQ with £1,004,450.

(I sound like the bloke who used to read out the lottery balls).

sonny55

Its beginning to look like bond checker day 🤑🤑

TheMilkmansDad

pbcpdeveloper said:

With the exception of the current year you are pretty similar to me, infact if I had won the same amount as you this year we would be within £25 of each other overall.

which app is this please?

eskbanker

TheMilkmansDad said:

pbcpdeveloper said:

With the exception of the current year you are pretty similar to me, infact if I had won the same amount as you this year we would be within £25 of each other overall.

which app is this please?

Looks like this one, whose initials are perhaps not a coincidence from that poster!

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.steveh.pbcp&hl=en_GB&gl=US

PeskyBlunder

Looks like Premium Bonds Checker Plus written by the poster himself.

Sg28

eskbanker said:

Sg28 said:

Playing the lottery at all in any circumstance is mathematically nonsensical. The total percentage of money paid in that is returned to winning players is around 50%. Meaning that for every £2 ticket bought you can expect, over the long run to win back £1. Discount the virtual impossibility of the jackpot and its even lower. 

At least with premium bonds the total paid in (interest) is returned. So the return is 100%.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your post (and I certainly don't understand the reference to "total paid in (interest)"), simplistically portraying comparative 'returns' of 50% and 100% is also mathematically nonsensical!  The lottery payouts are practically instantaneous, but the full capital on PBs is only paid back after holding them for that period, during which it will have been reduced in real terms value by inflation, so that timing forms an important part of any meaningful comparison, as do the prizes won, which should partially offset that inflation effect.  The relative odds of winning prizes also need to be taken into account, as the odds of a single lottery ticket winning a prize are far better than a single premium bond winning one in any given draw.

Don't get me wrong though, PBs undoubtedly make more sense (for most) than playing the lottery, but it's not meaningful to try to arbitrarily separate out a notion of 50% versus 100% 'returns'!

The % figures are the theoretical expected value (EV)

Its also expressed as "return to player" or (RTP) 

So in Premium bonds the total rtp is 100% as everyones theoretical interest (money gambled, or paid in as I put it) is paid into the pot and 100% of the pot is split between bond holders. 

With slot machines the rtp is generally something around 90-97%.  You are going to lose money over the long run. (Its negative expected value)

Lotterys and bingo type games are the worst at around 50%.

If one were to be inclined to gamble then knowing the RTP (EV) is beneficial. 

eskbanker

Sg28 said:

eskbanker said:

Sg28 said:

Playing the lottery at all in any circumstance is mathematically nonsensical. The total percentage of money paid in that is returned to winning players is around 50%. Meaning that for every £2 ticket bought you can expect, over the long run to win back £1. Discount the virtual impossibility of the jackpot and its even lower. 

At least with premium bonds the total paid in (interest) is returned. So the return is 100%.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your post (and I certainly don't understand the reference to "total paid in (interest)"), simplistically portraying comparative 'returns' of 50% and 100% is also mathematically nonsensical!  The lottery payouts are practically instantaneous, but the full capital on PBs is only paid back after holding them for that period, during which it will have been reduced in real terms value by inflation, so that timing forms an important part of any meaningful comparison, as do the prizes won, which should partially offset that inflation effect.  The relative odds of winning prizes also need to be taken into account, as the odds of a single lottery ticket winning a prize are far better than a single premium bond winning one in any given draw.

Don't get me wrong though, PBs undoubtedly make more sense (for most) than playing the lottery, but it's not meaningful to try to arbitrarily separate out a notion of 50% versus 100% 'returns'!

The % figures are the theoretical expected value (EV)

Its also expressed as "return to player" or (RTP) 

So in Premium bonds the total rtp is 100% as everyones theoretical interest (money gambled, or paid in as I put it) is paid into the pot and 100% of the pot is split between bond holders. 

With slot machines the rtp is generally something around 90-97%.  You are going to lose money over the long run. (Its negative expected value)

Lotterys and bingo type games are the worst at around 50%.

If one were to be inclined to gamble then knowing the RTP (EV) is beneficial. 

Ah right, thanks, it's clearer to me now what you were meaning, although it still doesn't seem a particularly useful metric to apply to premium bonds, even if it helps gamblers compare games - the term 'return' as applied to PBs would normally be used in the context of that achieved annually from savings and investments in order to evaluate against them, but the PB proposition is sufficiently different from all of these to make meaningful comparison difficult.

Gers

One lucky person has won £10k from a £2.00 bond bought in 1956.  There's always hope! 

taylornj

Looks like £150 won this month with £50k holding. 3 x £50 wins.

Johnjdc

0 on full holding, for a change (not that much of a change...)