Premium bonds - one £50k block or scattergun?

[Mottie]

Mrs Mottie and I have just over £40k each in premium bonds that we have bought at various times over the past 8 years or so as well as having any winnings reinvested so we have quite a few separate random blocks of bonds. Just recently we are lucky enough to be able to afford to top them up to the max holding of £50k.

What I'm wondering is whether it is best to just top up to the maximum amount or cash in what we have and each buy a single 'fresh' holding block of £50k. I know it will mean missing out on one draw but is any method better than the other? The only 'evidence' I have is that my mum has had much better luck with her single maximum holding (so far!).

Any arguments for or against either method?

 

[crystal ball]

Cash em in buy one block & blow the rest on a mega holiday, we are musing with that once covid is under control

 

[JohnD]

Any arguments for or against either method?

random numbers are random.

it doesn't make any difference.

 

[jeds]

Mottie, did you ever see Deal or no Deal; Random boxes - random numbers. No methods involved.

 

[elite123]

Slightly better odds if you don't cash them in, as you wont miss a draw

 

[Mottie]

Okay, okay. Random numbers it is. I've just topped up and I'm now holding the max. My latest purchase doesn't go in the draw until February though. In all, I now have 44 scattered blocks of numbers. Going to do the same for Mrs Mottie when she gets home this afternoon.

 

[Doug99]

Like you my random numbers have been purchased over many years and have won diddly squat. All my winnings have been within my £5k x2 and £10k x 1 blocks.

 

[Trazor]

Each bond number has exactly the same chance of winning as any other number.

The more you hold the greater the chance of winning, simples.

Any other way of looking at it, is superstition or witchcraft.

 

[jeds]

If ever I have the conversation about chances of winning the lottery, I always use the example of choosing numbers; 1,2,3,4,5,6. Because the chance of winning with those numbers is exactly the same as any other random set. A few people don't believe it but it does help to illustrate the actual chance of winning.

 

[Mottie]

Mrs Mottie all topped up to max now. Just gotta sit tight and wait for the big one!

 

[crystal ball]

If ever I have the conversation about chances of winning the lottery, I always use the example of choosing numbers; 1,2,3,4,5,6. Because the chance of winning with those numbers is exactly the same as any other random set. A few people don't believe it but it does help to illustrate the actual chance of winning.

When I started at my last proper job I joined the syndicate, my numbers were just those, all the guys were saying that will never win, first week won about £100

 

[crystal ball]

Mrs Mottie all topped up to max now. Just gotta sit tight and wait for the big one!

Don't forget your DIYnot mates

 

[The Samaritan]

My OH go 25 pound and me a zero this month.
The average for 12 months stands at 0.69% tax free.

It's well below the inflation rate but I think they are now advertising just under 1%.

We hold them for just in case we win more than 25 pounds poss 1k or more as we don't do the lottery etc gave up as soon as it went twice a week.

Our children all invest in PB's as they are higher rate taxpayers so it's one of the best rates around and get you money out quick if need be.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

If ever I have the conversation about chances of winning the lottery, I always use the example of choosing numbers; 1,2,3,4,5,6. Because the chance of winning with those numbers is exactly the same as any other random set. A few people don't believe it but it does help to illustrate the actual chance of winning.

Surely there is less chance of the 6 random numbers being consecutive than non-consecutive?

 

[The Samaritan]

Surely there is less chance of the 6 random numbers being consecutive than non-consecutive?

No, the odds remain the same.