DDrawLedger

New York Lotto · Reality check

Test the claims people make about lotteries

Six common beliefs, each checked three ways: against the real 2,603-draw historical record, against what probability math predicts, and against seeded random simulations that model a fair process. Every result is descriptive — none of it says what the next draw will be.

“Hot” numbers repeat more

Matches chance

Numbers that appeared in the previous draw are more likely to appear in the next.

Observed
0.62 repeats per draw
Expected (math)
0.61 (k²/pool — math)
Simulated random
0.61 (range 0.59–0.63)

Observed 0.62 repeats per draw; simulated histories average 0.61.

Draws repeat numbers at exactly the rate a fair process predicts. Repeats are not a sign that certain numbers are “hot.”

Cold numbers are “due”

Matches chance

A number that has not appeared for a long time is more likely to appear soon.

Observed
10.2% for the coldest 25% vs 10.1% for the rest
Expected (math)
10.2% for every number (k/pool — math)
Simulated random
10.2% for simulated “cold” numbers

Cold numbers appear in 10.2% of draws — the same rate as every other number (10.1%).

Long-absent numbers appear at the same rate as everyone else, in real and simulated history. An overdue number is not more likely.

A pair appears unusually often

Typical for random

The most frequent number pair appears more than chance allows.

Observed
43 appearances for the top pair
Expected (math)
22.8 appearances per pair (math)
Simulated random
40.2 top-pair count (range 38–45)

Most common pair appeared 43×; simulated histories top out between 38–45.

With 1,225 possible pairs in a 6/49 game, some pair will always “lead” — random history produces the same. That pair is not more likely next time.

Consecutive numbers are rare

Matches chance

Draws almost never contain adjacent numbers like 17–18.

Observed
43.5% of draws
Expected (math)
42.7% (combinatorics)
Simulated random
42.9% (range 41.0%–44.3%)

43.5% of real draws contained a consecutive pair — close to the math expectation of 42.7%.

Consecutive numbers are common: about half of all draws include at least one adjacent pair, exactly as a random process predicts.

The previous draw affects the next

No evidence

What was drawn last time changes the odds of the next draw.

Observed
0.62 shared numbers between consecutive draws
Expected (math)
0.61 (k²/pool — math)
Simulated random
-0.00 average random-pair gap

Overlap between consecutive draws: 0.62 vs 0.61 between random pairs — a gap of 0.01.

Consecutive draws overlap no more than randomly paired draws. There is no evidence one draw influences the next.

Balanced odd/even is more likely

Matches chance

A draw with a balanced odd/even split (e.g. 3 odd + 3 even) is more likely than skewed splits.

Observed
34.1% of draws
Expected (math)
32.9% (hypergeometric)
Simulated random
32.9% (range 31.2%–35.3%)

34.1% of real draws had a 3-3 split vs 32.9% expected.

Balanced splits are the single most common split — but only because there are more balanced combinations. Every specific combination is still equally likely.

How to read these results

  • Observed — computed from the actual historical dataset on this site.
  • Expected (math) — the value a fair, independent random process should produce by the rules of the game.
  • Simulated random — the range produced by computer-generated random histories (reproducible via fixed seeds).

When all three agree, the belief describes ordinary randomness, not a pattern you can act on. Historical frequency never changes the probability of a future draw.

What this doesn't mean

  • Historical frequency and patterns do not change the probability of any future draw — every combination is equally likely.
  • This tool does not predict, guarantee, or improve winning odds. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling something.
  • Simulated and backtested results describe the past and model a fair random process; they are experiments, not advice.
  • Lottery tickets are a form of entertainment, not an investment. Play within your means.