Results on Monday, 31st of March (Afternoon draw)
Our best prediction for this draw
Notable in these results
- The first 3 statistical factors (Sum of numbers, Sum of digits and Numbers range) are mixed.
- Notice that there are 1 sets of three consecutive numbers in this draw. Now that's not an every day event!
- The greatest distance between two adjacent numbers in these results is 15 (4 to 19) while the smallest distance is 1 (due to the consecutive numbers)
- Numbers 19 from this draw can be found in the previous UK 49s Lunchtime numbers and/or their neighbors.
- Look how close to each other these 3 numbers have been: 24, 25, 26. Only 2 numbers apart and they all share the same decade represented by number 2
- Except for 2 (19, 25), all are even numbers: (4, 24, 26, 36)
UK 49s Lunchtime statistics for 1997-03-31
| Statistical factor | Value | Trend | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of numbers | 134 | ↑ | 34% |
| Sum of digits | 44 | ↑ | 57.14% |
| Numbers range | 32 | ↓ | -17.95% |
| Evens | 4 | ↑ | 2 |
| Odds | 2 | ↓ | -2 |
| Repeating Decades | 3 | ↓ | -1 |
| Repeating last digits | 2+2 | ⟳ | |
| Hot number | 49 | not drawn | |
| Cold number | 29 | not drawn | |
| Repeating numbers | 19 | ⇢ |
Note: Trend column based on the previous results.
Comments, requests & suggestions
New comment
user-6849e9c68eed1 @ 2025-06-11 20:40 GMT | #3390
💬Can you please help with Facebook page I'm trying to follow you but I don't find it
Reply
We no longer have a Facebook page. This is our website, right here, and the services have been and will always be here, on this very website.
💬Please send me password Reply
LottoMatic Re @ 2025-06-11 12:58 GMTHello. As a commenter, you don't need a password. You only need a password to access the advanced features.
You can get one at the LottoMatic Membership page
💬That was for the draw that took place on June 11, 2025.Reply
LottoMatic @ 2025-06-11 12:02 GMT | #3381💬Four winning numbers in the first of the 3 random predictions and the other two winning numbers in the second one.
Not too bad...Reply