What were the chances of being drafted with a high lottery number in 1969?
Executive summary
The December 1, 1969 draft lottery assigned each of 366 calendar dates a random sequence number; for inductions in 1970 the Selective Service called numbers 1–195, so anyone whose birthday received a number higher than 195 escaped being called that year (highest number called = 195) [1] [2] [3]. Statisticians quickly argued the draw was not truly random — birthdays late in the year tended to get low (dangerous) numbers — meaning the "chance" of having a high lottery number depended on your birthdate and the imperfect mixing, not just pure 1-in-366 odds [4] [5].
1. How the 1969 lottery worked — simple odds versus reality
In theory each of the 366 dates (including Feb. 29) had an equal chance of being assigned any spot in the sequence, so the naïve probability of receiving a “high” number (one above the last call of 195) would be 171/366 ≈ 46.7% in a perfectly random draw. The Selective Service ran 366 capsules, drew them one by one and affixed dates to sequence numbers; the mechanism was meant to produce uniform 1-in-366 chances across dates [6] [4].
2. What actually determined who was safe in 1970
Practically, safety for the 1970 induction year was determined by the Administrative Processing Number: officials called up to APN = 195. All men assigned lottery numbers 1–195 who were otherwise available were eligible to be called for medical processing and possible induction; those assigned numbers above 195 were not called that year [1] [7] [3].
3. Why “equal chance” was contested — statistical evidence of bias
Soon after the drawing, statisticians and critics concluded the results deviated far more from uniformity than chance would predict. Analysts noted clustering: late-year birthdays were disproportionately assigned low draft numbers (higher risk of induction). Academic and journalistic coverage recorded formal complaints and calls for review; the New York Times and later statistical studies documented that the outcome was unlikely if the draw were properly randomized [5] [4] [8].
4. How big the irregularity looked in statistical terms
Modern re-analyses and data visualizations find the 1969 pattern was unlikely under ideal randomness. One analysis reported that only about 1.2% of simulated random mixes produced as much month-to-month deviation as the real drawing, indicating the observed skew was statistically improbable and consistent with imperfect mixing of capsules [8] [4].
5. Practical implication for an individual in 1969
What mattered to any given man was his birthday’s assigned number and whether that number was ≤195. If your date drew one of the first 195 sequence numbers your chance of being processed for induction in 1970 was effectively 100% conditional on availability and classification; if you drew above 195 you would not be called that year [2] [9]. But because the draw favored certain months, your true “chance” depended on calendar position as assigned by that flawed procedure [10] [5].
6. Competing narratives and institutional response
Government officials defended the process as intended, but critics — including statisticians and some members of Congress — demanded investigation and even a new draw; the Selective Service later adjusted procedures in subsequent lotteries to try to ensure better mixing and fairness [5] [11]. Some sources note that later lotteries (1970–1972) appear to have been more properly randomized [3].
7. Limitations of available reporting
Available sources document the core facts about APN = 195 called in 1970 and the statistical critiques of the drawing, but they do not provide a single authoritative probability for an individual beyond the combinatorial 171/366 figure for a perfectly random draw; instead, contemporaneous and later work shows the draw’s bias made those ideal probabilities misleading in practice [1] [4] [8].
8. Bottom line — numbers you can rely on
Reliable, repeated facts from official and documentary sources: the 1969 lottery assigned 366 dates to sequence numbers; officials called through number 195 for 1970 inductions (so >195 meant you were not called that year) [1] [7]; statisticians promptly concluded the draw was likely not uniformly random, which altered any simple “1-in-366” interpretation of one’s personal odds [5] [8].
If you want, I can extract the assigned lottery number for a specific birthday from the published 1969 results so you can see whether that date fell inside the called range (sources include the Selective Service tables and compiled datasets) [12] [7].