Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Independant studies have been done, and they have shown that the younger a bond the more chance you have of winning.
Even that article mentions a big payout on new bond happening again.
Yes, but one of the possible issues is that there are more newer bonds. This surely must bias the odds towards newer bonds due to the greater number - but that doesn't actually mean a younger bond has a better chance - only that there is a better chance of a winning bond being younger which is not the same thing.
Of course it is possible that there is a skewing, but I don't think so.
To be fair to threaded there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the assertion. However what you don't hear of is those who flog up, re invest and then don't do any better - which is almost certainly most of them.
NS and I obviously refute it and do point out that depending upo timing you will miss either one or two draws.
Ernie is not a computer and does not have "software". The numbers are generated by a quantum effect, either radioactive decay or quantum noise from a semiconductor junction.
You can't get more random than that.
The number generator may well be perfectly random. The problem actually lays further down the line when those numbers are converted to the bond numbers.
Like I say, it really is head slappingly obvious if I was to tell you what is going wrong, but I won't. I offered to tell the NS long long time ago, but I want paying first.
I've had £5 worth of premium bonds since the 60's. Never won a thing. My son had £100 worth bought for him by his grandmother - less than a year after getting them he won £50!
Well actually its less than the statistics, as to get the full precentage you need to be in it for 28000 years to get the million quid. Probably over millions of years the prize distribution would even out.
You see most people win the £100 prizes frequently but these only represent 87% of the prizes, the top prizes are won by a handful.
Personally I'd stick your money in GAZPROM I've won nearly £500 in the space of a few weeks, from a 5 grand investment.
Last edited by BlasterBates; 17 August 2006, 11:19.
I seriously don't believe this. Mrs Emperor Dalek has just called me up to tell me she's just won £50 on her premium bonds, her first win in the 35 years she's had them.
She obviously read the divorce post and has decided to act quickly to mitigate.
I seriously don't believe this. Mrs Emperor Dalek has just called me up to tell me she's just won £50 on her premium bonds, her first win in the 35 years she's had them.
Some critics allege that electronic components used by Ernie cannot produce completely random numbers since software can only mimic predictability, and therefore patterns will eventually emerge.
That's bulltulip.
Ernie is not a computer and does not have "software". The numbers are generated by a quantum effect, either radioactive decay or quantum noise from a semiconductor junction.
To be fair to threaded there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the assertion. However what you don't hear of is those who flog up, re invest and then don't do any better - which is almost certainly most of them.
NS and I obviously refute it and do point out that depending upo timing you will miss either one or two draws.
Saying that, my wife has £30K in premium bonds and has won nothing for about 12 months.
So a real world return of 0.00%
Cash them in and buy some new ones, she'll start winning again.
I would tell you why this works but I would prefer National Savings to give me a big wad of money first for consultancy services.
Leave a comment: