pje16 wrote:The first 3 days of this year are a weekend and a bank holiday
That happens on average 3 years in every 7.
Scott.
Thanks to Wasron,jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly, for Donating to support the site
pje16 wrote:The first 3 days of this year are a weekend and a bank holiday
Bouleversee wrote:That's what it's now showing on mine as well, whereas when I looked earlier today it showed two prizes and no reference to the 2 days or whatever to wait which usually comes up if one tries too soon. Sorry about that. Hoping the real results will be an improvement!
yorkshirelad1 wrote:Having an idle moment, and just for the hell of it, I did a quick assessment by year of the Jan 2022 prize listing from lovemoney:
yorkshirelad1 wrote:so that would seem to suggest that a large number of the existing premium bond holdings are dated after 2014, or there are simply more of them, or more recent bonds seem to get a better chance of winnings. In fairness, it's a small sample (Jan 2022 winnings) and it was an idle moment of frivolity
yorkshirelad1 wrote:a large number of the existing premium bond holdings are dated after 2014, or there are simply more of them, or more recent bonds seem to get a better chance of winnings.
Lootman wrote:I won once in the late 1950s and once in the early to mid 1960s. 25 quid each time, which was a lot back then especially for a kid on (as I recall) 5p a week in pocket money.
pje16 wrote:Lootman wrote:I won once in the late 1950s and once in the early to mid 1960s. 25 quid each time, which was a lot back then especially for a kid on (as I recall) 5p a week in pocket money.
25 good old pounds vs a shilling
you must have been very popular
Lootman wrote:yorkshirelad1 wrote:a large number of the existing premium bond holdings are dated after 2014, or there are simply more of them, or more recent bonds seem to get a better chance of winnings.
A bit of each I would guess. It would not shock me if Ernie's randomness was not entirely random and skewed towards recent buyers.
XFool wrote:(everything is a Ponzi scheme for some folks)
XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:yorkshirelad1 wrote:a large number of the existing premium bond holdings are dated after 2014, or there are simply more of them, or more recent bonds seem to get a better chance of winnings.
A bit of each I would guess. It would not shock me if Ernie's randomness was not entirely random and skewed towards recent buyers.
Oh dear! Not this sort of nonsense yet again?
Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:A bit of each I would guess. It would not shock me if Ernie's randomness was not entirely random and skewed towards recent buyers.
Oh dear! Not this sort of nonsense yet again?
I did not say that it was rigged. Only that it would not shock me if it turned out that there were some tweaks to the randomness.
Since nobody can know the real truth I think people are allowed to make inferences based on logic, political outlook and their own experiences.
XFool wrote:yorkshirelad1 wrote:Having an idle moment, and just for the hell of it, I did a quick assessment by year of the Jan 2022 prize listing from lovemoney:
yorkshirelad1 wrote:XFool wrote:yorkshirelad1 wrote:Having an idle moment, and just for the hell of it, I did a quick assessment by year of the Jan 2022 prize listing from lovemoney:
I am unsure what is been shown in the table, "Jan 2022 prize listing" ? Year winning bond purchased?
Apologies: it was a summary of the results listed by lovemoney at https://www.lovemoney.com/news/13635/premium-bonds-winners-have-i-won. Number of prizes for listed year of purchase.
Some of these comments are hilarious! However, the lack of even the most basic understanding is really worrying.
XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Oh dear! Not this sort of nonsense yet again?
I did not say that it was rigged. Only that it would not shock me if it turned out that there were some tweaks to the randomness.
Since nobody can know the real truth I think people are allowed to make inferences based on logic, political outlook and their own experiences.
I can't follow the "logic" there, can you explain? As for "experience", much the same.
Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:I did not say that it was rigged. Only that it would not shock me if it turned out that there were some tweaks to the randomness.
Since nobody can know the real truth I think people are allowed to make inferences based on logic, political outlook and their own experiences.
I can't follow the "logic" there, can you explain? As for "experience", much the same.
The logic is that nobody knows the truth as everything around ERNIE is shrouded in secrecy, presumably so people cannot hack it.
Lootman wrote:Other than a handful of boffins in Bletchley, Bootle or Blackpool (do we even know where ERNIE is?) anway.
Lootman wrote:The experience was already cited.
XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:I can't follow the "logic" there, can you explain? As for "experience", much the same.
The logic is that nobody knows the truth as everything around ERNIE is shrouded in secrecy, presumably so people cannot hack it.
Uh? Very little around ERNIE is "shrouded in secrecy", though the equipment itself has to be kept physically secure.
Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:The logic is that nobody knows the truth as everything around ERNIE is shrouded in secrecy, presumably so people cannot hack it.
Uh? Very little around ERNIE is "shrouded in secrecy", though the equipment itself has to be kept physically secure.
Which tells us nothing about any tweaks to the randomness of the draw.
Unless of course you have some kind of inside knowledge.
But how can you prove it’s all random?
The test of proving that ERNIE’s outputs are robust has long been discussed by experts in the field of randomness.
However, from the outset, engineers working in conjunction with – but exclusive of – the ERNIE programme have proven that the numbers created by the machine are unpredictable and follow no set patterns.
The original system to test ERNIE’s randomness was called Pegasus, designed by Dame Stephanie Shirley, who went on to be one of Britain’s greatest computer engineers.
Since then, as with ERNIE’s evolution, testing randomness has developed and is now managed by the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD).
Each month after the Premium Bonds numbers have been generated, they are sent securely to GAD who run a number of tests to identify whether the outputs are truly random:
The frequency test – whether every possible character in each position of the Bond number appears as often as it should.
The serial test – looking at the number of times one digit follows another (for example the number of 3s coming directly after 7s).
The poker test – looking at the number of times that a group of characters generated consecutively contain four identical characters, three of a kind, two pairs, one pair and all different.
The correlation test – looking for correlation between characters in two different Bond positions over a series of Bond numbers.
ERNIE has never failed to be anything but random in every test carried out by GAD.
chas49 wrote:Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Uh? Very little around ERNIE is "shrouded in secrecy", though the equipment itself has to be kept physically secure.
Which tells us nothing about any tweaks to the randomness of the draw.
Unless of course you have some kind of inside knowledge.
From the NS&I link given by XFool:But how can you prove it’s all random?
The test of proving that ERNIE’s outputs are robust has long been discussed by experts in the field of randomness.
However, from the outset, engineers working in conjunction with – but exclusive of – the ERNIE programme have proven that the numbers created by the machine are unpredictable and follow no set patterns.
The original system to test ERNIE’s randomness was called Pegasus, designed by Dame Stephanie Shirley, who went on to be one of Britain’s greatest computer engineers.
Since then, as with ERNIE’s evolution, testing randomness has developed and is now managed by the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD).
Each month after the Premium Bonds numbers have been generated, they are sent securely to GAD who run a number of tests to identify whether the outputs are truly random:
The frequency test – whether every possible character in each position of the Bond number appears as often as it should.
The serial test – looking at the number of times one digit follows another (for example the number of 3s coming directly after 7s).
The poker test – looking at the number of times that a group of characters generated consecutively contain four identical characters, three of a kind, two pairs, one pair and all different.
The correlation test – looking for correlation between characters in two different Bond positions over a series of Bond numbers.
ERNIE has never failed to be anything but random in every test carried out by GAD.
Return to “Bank Accounts Savings & ISAs”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests