|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 3, 2020 19:32:07 GMT
You can write whatever fancy mathematical theorems you like, but the fact remains that the Premium Bonds system is excruciatingly designed to be random.
As I have previously explained on this very thread, the random system knows absolutely nothing about the Bonds. It does not know how many there are, it does not know what their identities are.
The random system generates identities at random. The identities are sent to the Bonds database. The Bonds database checks if the provided random identity exists. Yes ? Prize allocated. No ? Take next random ID.
Rinse and repeat until all prizes are allocated.
The size of the block makes zero difference on people's chances of winning. The size of the block just increases people's skin in the game, hence increasing the probability of them hitting a prize.
Its like buying one lottery ticket vs buying 1000 lottery tickets. The fact you use incremental numbers vs random numbers on the 1000 lottery tickets does not matter. What matters is you've got 1000 lottery tickets, giving you greater skin in the game.
You're completely correct @wallstreet, but it seems you may have missed the point as nothing you've said affects the correctness or accuracy of bernythedolt's calculations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 3, 2020 19:56:18 GMT
You're completely correct @wallstreet , but it seems you may have missed the point as nothing you've said affects the correctness or accuracy of bernythedolt 's calculations.
Maybe not the calculations per-se, but certainly the wording of bernythedolt 's post.
Berny's post was all worded around the concept of block size.
To give anyone the idea they should be flogging their smaller blocks to buy a bigger one (or vice versa) is complete codswallop.
That's the point.  I really don't think he implied that in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 3, 2020 20:38:09 GMT
Maybe not the calculations per-se, but certainly the wording of bernythedolt 's post.
Berny's post was all worded around the concept of block size.
To give anyone the idea they should be flogging their smaller blocks to buy a bigger one (or vice versa) is complete codswallop.
That's the point. I really don't think he implied that in any way. Thank you Ace, I couldn't have put it better myself. I think somebody has missed the point entirely  .
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 3, 2020 21:04:00 GMT
You're completely correct @wallstreet , but it seems you may have missed the point as nothing you've said affects the correctness or accuracy of bernythedolt 's calculations.
Maybe not the calculations per-se, but certainly the wording of bernythedolt 's post.
Berny's post was all worded around the concept of block size.
To give anyone the idea they should be flogging their smaller blocks to buy a bigger one (or vice versa) is complete codswallop.
That's the point. What's the current vernacular here? Oh yes, utter "bull excrement".  I was answering (hopefully perhaps even mathematically educating) those who maybe felt that THEIR block sizes might actually matter and have some influence on their win probability. You and I know they don't. In Jonno's particular case, his smaller block has won him more prizes than his larger block recently...why on Earth would I be encouraging him to recycle it? The size of his blocks has zero influence. I happen to agree 100% with everything you've written in your posts above, and that anyone trading in an old block in exchange for a new block (for instance) is wasting their time. Premium Bonds are a purely random process, and as you say, they take every care to ensure it stays that way. Have another read of everything I've posted above and hopefully you'll see that was my fundamental stance. Supposed "unexpected" and "remarkable" outcomes relating to "this block has outperformed that larger block", and so on, are entirely explainable in a process that is random. That was exactly what I was demonstrating above. If you've taken that as some kind of inducement to sell old blocks of bonds, you are very wide of the mark. Personally I have large blocks of Bonds decades old which I would never bother to recycle. Wouldn't waste my time.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 3, 2020 23:13:51 GMT
Re-reading the last few posts and strategically adding an extra 'ol' to the words 'block' and 'blocks' makes for a waaaaay more entertaining thread |
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 4, 2020 1:25:09 GMT
Re-reading the last few posts and strategically adding an extra 'ol' to the words 'block' and 'blocks' makes for a waaaaay more entertaining thread Bollingers... ...as in have you been at the, again?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043 
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 4, 2020 10:38:04 GMT
Maybe not the calculations per-se, but certainly the wording of bernythedolt 's post.
Berny's post was all worded around the concept of block size.
To give anyone the idea they should be flogging their smaller blocks to buy a bigger one (or vice versa) is complete codswallop.
That's the point. What's the current vernacular here? Oh yes, utter "bull excrement". I was answering (hopefully perhaps even mathematically educating) those who maybe felt that THEIR block sizes might actually matter and have some influence on their win probability. You and I know they don't. In Jonno's particular case, his smaller block has won him more prizes than his larger block recently...why on Earth would I be encouraging him to recycle it? The size of his blocks has zero influence. I happen to agree 100% with everything you've written in your posts above, and that anyone trading in an old block in exchange for a new block (for instance) is wasting their time. Premium Bonds are a purely random process, and as you say, they take every care to ensure it stays that way. Have another read of everything I've posted above and hopefully you'll see that was my fundamental stance. Supposed "unexpected" and "remarkable" outcomes relating to "this block has outperformed that larger block", and so on, are entirely explainable in a process that is random. That was exactly what I was demonstrating above. If you've taken that as some kind of inducement to sell old blocks of bonds, you are very wide of the mark. Personally I have large blocks of Bonds decades old which I would never bother to recycle. Wouldn't waste my time. Yet there are plenty of people around who believe that if you win big this month it reduces the likelihood of you winning next month.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 4, 2020 11:12:01 GMT
What's the current vernacular here? Oh yes, utter "bull excrement". I was answering (hopefully perhaps even mathematically educating) those who maybe felt that THEIR block sizes might actually matter and have some influence on their win probability. You and I know they don't. In Jonno's particular case, his smaller block has won him more prizes than his larger block recently...why on Earth would I be encouraging him to recycle it? The size of his blocks has zero influence. I happen to agree 100% with everything you've written in your posts above, and that anyone trading in an old block in exchange for a new block (for instance) is wasting their time. Premium Bonds are a purely random process, and as you say, they take every care to ensure it stays that way. Have another read of everything I've posted above and hopefully you'll see that was my fundamental stance. Supposed "unexpected" and "remarkable" outcomes relating to "this block has outperformed that larger block", and so on, are entirely explainable in a process that is random. That was exactly what I was demonstrating above. If you've taken that as some kind of inducement to sell old blocks of bonds, you are very wide of the mark. Personally I have large blocks of Bonds decades old which I would never bother to recycle. Wouldn't waste my time. Yet there are plenty of people around who believe that if you win big this month it reduces the likelihood of you winning next month. Winning big one month doesn't have any causative effect BUT regression to the mean is a real thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 4, 2020 15:01:23 GMT
What's the current vernacular here? Oh yes, utter "bull excrement". I was answering (hopefully perhaps even mathematically educating) those who maybe felt that THEIR block sizes might actually matter and have some influence on their win probability. You and I know they don't. In Jonno's particular case, his smaller block has won him more prizes than his larger block recently...why on Earth would I be encouraging him to recycle it? The size of his blocks has zero influence. I happen to agree 100% with everything you've written in your posts above, and that anyone trading in an old block in exchange for a new block (for instance) is wasting their time. Premium Bonds are a purely random process, and as you say, they take every care to ensure it stays that way. Have another read of everything I've posted above and hopefully you'll see that was my fundamental stance. Supposed "unexpected" and "remarkable" outcomes relating to "this block has outperformed that larger block", and so on, are entirely explainable in a process that is random. That was exactly what I was demonstrating above. If you've taken that as some kind of inducement to sell old blocks of bonds, you are very wide of the mark. Personally I have large blocks of Bonds decades old which I would never bother to recycle. Wouldn't waste my time. Yet there are plenty of people around who believe that if you win big this month it reduces the likelihood of you winning next month. Surprising isn't it, the tricks the mind will play? Like the people who convince themselves the roulette ball has a memory of the colour it landed on last spin, which will somehow influence the next spin.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 4, 2020 18:31:51 GMT
What's the current vernacular here? Oh yes, utter "bull excrement". I was answering (hopefully perhaps even mathematically educating) those who maybe felt that THEIR block sizes might actually matter and have some influence on their win probability. You and I know they don't. In Jonno's particular case, his smaller block has won him more prizes than his larger block recently...why on Earth would I be encouraging him to recycle it? The size of his blocks has zero influence. I happen to agree 100% with everything you've written in your posts above, and that anyone trading in an old block in exchange for a new block (for instance) is wasting their time. Premium Bonds are a purely random process, and as you say, they take every care to ensure it stays that way. Have another read of everything I've posted above and hopefully you'll see that was my fundamental stance. Supposed "unexpected" and "remarkable" outcomes relating to "this block has outperformed that larger block", and so on, are entirely explainable in a process that is random. That was exactly what I was demonstrating above. If you've taken that as some kind of inducement to sell old blocks of bonds, you are very wide of the mark. Personally I have large blocks of Bonds decades old which I would never bother to recycle. Wouldn't waste my time. Yet there are plenty of people around who believe that if you win big this month it reduces the likelihood of you winning next month. yes, well the population is not as smart as one would like umfortunately. Esp. when it comes to the UK and fundamentals of e.g. maths: with the UK being ranked barely in the top 20 in the2018 PISA ranking. There a plenty of people that think that 5G is causing Covid; that its a govt. hoax; that vaccinations will put microchips into your body; that boiling a kettle with more water than you need doesn't waste energy because it will take less time to boil next time; that injecting bleach might cure Covid; that offering their "hopes and prayers" will solve mass shootings. The fact that they 'believe' these things don't make them true.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Oct 4, 2020 19:26:57 GMT
I am nowhere near informed enough to have an opinion on the randomness of Premium Bonds, but I do recall an in-depth technical article on the subject which I read a few years back. This particular article expounded that TRUE randomness via electronic means is an impossibility, due to the inherent limitations of the electronics employed. Or somesuch. I know I will be corrected, but it's not my opinion, just what I remember reading. As an anecdote, I have random (or "shuffle") on my Juke Box and I am always surprised that in amongst the "random" selections (from about 2,000 songs) there are the same two or three that inevitably feature within the first hour or two of playing nearly every time I select "Shufflle." I am not The Red Baron, you can shoot me down. |
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Oct 4, 2020 21:34:12 GMT
I am nowhere near informed enough to have an opinion on the randomness of Premium Bonds, but I do recall an in-depth technical article on the subject which I read a few years back. This particular article expounded that TRUE randomness via electronic means is an impossibility, due to the inherent limitations of the electronics employed. Or somesuch. I know I will be corrected, but it's not my opinion, just what I remember reading. As an anecdote, I have random (or "shuffle") on my Juke Box and I am always surprised that in amongst the "random" selections (from about 2,000 songs) there are the same two or three that inevitably feature within the first hour or two of playing nearly every time I select "Shufflle." I am not The Red Baron, you can shoot me down. That's about the quality of the seed and entropy. It's true most electronics can only do pseudo-random. CloudFlare use Lava Lamps as a source of true random entropy.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 4, 2020 21:48:22 GMT
I am nowhere near informed enough to have an opinion on the randomness of Premium Bonds, but I do recall an in-depth technical article on the subject which I read a few years back. This particular article expounded that TRUE randomness via electronic means is an impossibility, due to the inherent limitations of the electronics employed. Or somesuch. I know I will be corrected, but it's not my opinion, just what I remember reading. As an anecdote, I have random (or "shuffle") on my Juke Box and I am always surprised that in amongst the "random" selections (from about 2,000 songs) there are the same two or three that inevitably feature within the first hour or two of playing nearly every time I select "Shufflle." I am not The Red Baron, you can shoot me down. That's about the quality of the seed and entropy. It's true most electronics can only do pseudo-random. CloudFlare use Lava Lamps as a source of true random entropy.I've admired that particular 'out-of-the-box' thinking since first hearing about it. This YT vid is worth 3mins of your time if your are so inclined - even opens with: " Computers aren't very good at picking random numbers."
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 4, 2020 21:49:18 GMT
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Oct 4, 2020 21:56:21 GMT
|
|
. 
.