You forgot inflation, market fluctuation, perceived rarity over actual rarity, pack availability, set availability, etc.
Please re-do your math as it is (mostly) wrong.
Man, wouldn't it be great if there were some long thread discussing that, so that you could make the assumption that Charlequin has factored in those things?
You forgot inflation, market fluctuation, perceived rarity over actual rarity, pack availability, set availability, etc.
All of those (except "perceived rarity," which is not going to be meaningfully relevant in a situation where the numbers are as freely accessible as new-set Magic rarity) affet the specifics of card valuation over time, but none are actually relevant to my specific example here.
If you imagine two different worlds containing different versions of the same set -- one where a given rare is pulled from packs at a 1/80 rarity and another where it's pulled at 1/120 -- if the card sells for $15 in the former case, it's not going to sell for $60 in the latter. Condor's done quite a bit of math on this, though, and he could probably break down the possibilities more effectively than I could.
"Perceived rarity" will only affect the initial price of singles - the price that flucuates wildly until the actual rarity and demand begins to be felt, and the market drives prices to their long-term values.
What sets long-term prices is the retailers who sell singles. They are in business to make a profit, and that business is driven by two forces:
Prices have to be high enough for retailers to recoup on singles what they spend on the packs they get most of their singles, and...
Prices have to be low enough to compete with other retailers doing the same thing.
If you look at past sets, you will find that the total value of the rares in a set (the sum of PRICE(rare #N)*FREQUENCY(rare #N)) stays relatively constant. That's the result of those forces.
And that total value will always be between $3.50 and $4.00. Yes, there is some wiggle room. The "bad" sets come in at $3.50 and the "good" sets at $4.00. But that tends to reflect the middle-priced cards, not the high-priced ones. AND, it works against the high-priced-mythic arguments, since they need the rest of the set to be low in value for their arguments.
Using typical ranges of prices, and the actual frequencies for mythic rares, a top-valued Mythic rare (i.e., one that would sell for $25+ in previous sets) should sell for $35 to $50. Making bad assumptions about the low value of the rest of the set, that can get pushed to $80 to $90. One of the bad assumptions was that I didn't force the total value of the set to decrease when calculating that (look at Future Sight, and you will see that I should decrease it). It's almost impossible to make it go higher than that. And I only say "almost" because anything is possible.
Here's one possible breakdown. I assumed that the best card in the set would be a Mythic, and that there would essentially be no difference in demand for the rest of the mythics and "normal" rares (which makes mystics cost more, on average):
One Mythic at $50.
One Mythic at $14.
One Mythic at $9.
Three mythics at $4 to $6.
Four Mythics at $2 to $3.
Five mythics at $1.50.
Two rares around $15.
Six rares at $7 to $12.
Seven rares at $4 to $6.
Five rares at $3.
Twelve rares at $2.
Twenty-one rares at $1.
Note that my assumptions are counter to the stated intent - that mythics will occupy the bottom portion of demand - so this is an example that favors high-priced mythics.
Nice breakdown on the math Condor!
I'm glad to see someone exploring price probabilities so thoroughly, it needed to be done to help dispel the idiocy that has overtaken people since the mythic rare announcement was made.
Thanks!
Interesting breakdown, but that still leaves us with fairly pricy rares. Granted it's not as bad as mutvault and goyf. Time will tell, and I hope we don't get that dreaded 50$ mythic.
Interesting breakdown, but that still leaves us with fairly pricy rares. Granted it's not as bad as mutvault and goyf. Time will tell, and I hope we don't get that dreaded 50$ mythic.
You are still misunderstanding. That breakdown was specifically trying to make expensive Mythic rares. It made assumptions about things happening, that are not supposed to happen. A more realistic breakdown (still rounding prices up more than down) is:
Two Mythics at $2.50.
Three Mythics at $2.
Two Mythics at $1.50.
Eight Mythics at $1.
I have a feeling Mythics won't be going for $1.
First there is the smaller set size. Each card in Shards of Alara will be more important to the overall cohesion of the set since there are less cards to convey the flavor and mechanics of the new plane (or planes). While there will still be "bad" rares and certainly probably "bad" mythics as far as Spike and constructed tournaments, I would expect most of them to be Timmy rares and since they are Mythics in the set that Mythics debut in, a cut above the typical 9/13 Timmy rare. Regardless, I don't think you'll be seeing a set of Mythics go for $22 for 15 (especially as they represent an average of 120 packs being opened to acquire them - that's almost 4 boxes worth of mythics!).
The only recent comparison that we have that is remotely accurate is, imo, the Time Spiral Timeshifted rares. Look at a card like Psionic Blast. Not a bad card, but it never really found a deck. However due to the pedigree of the card it stayed at over $20 for a long long time. A mythic that is perceived to be a possible tournament card, even if it doesn't immediately find a deck, will retain a decent value. The comparison isn't very good because a) Psionic Blast was already around and so there were available copies and b) Psionic Blast is a utility "staple" which Mythics will purportedly not be.
Anyway, based on my intuition I would expect a spread like this for the 15 Mythic rares (by December, after there has been a bit of drafting and price stabilization):
-Two at $8
-Two at $6
-Three at $4
-Six at $3
-Two at $2
Which yields a Mythic rare set for about $62... But maybe I'm bonkers
PS- Are any of the Planeswalkers going for $2.50? Because we know Shards will have at least one...
Emphatic no. Planeswalkers are supposed to be like... one in a million. By printing 15 planeswalkers, that would pretty much destroy that flavour. Plus, 15 planeswalkers would be boring as hell, because the design space would be pretty much completely used up, and there would be no future for them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 3 Magic Judge
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
Ok, so I got about 20 pages into this thread and I realized that there was 56 pages...so I must confess that I didn't read the whole thing.
Has anyone complained about the fact that drafting with 3 packs of a 220 card set will utterly and completely suck? Or the fact that Building a sealed deck with a Tourney pack and 2 packs of a 220 card set will utterly and completely suck?
@Ako: It's very possible that there could be a cycle of allied-coloured Planeswalkers. I have no idea. 5 seems like a decent amount to do.
@bokwinkle: Why? I mean other than Coldsnap draft, where people drafted Sound the Call.dec and Surging Sentinels.dec, I would say that in a smaller pool, you have a higher chance of drafting/opening multiples of good cards, common or otherwise. And that opportunity is available for anyone, so I'm thinking it would be a good thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 3 Magic Judge
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
And I ask again: why will hypothetical chase mythic "Sarkhan's Limbo Stick," which will be pulled from 1 out of every 121 packs of Alara opened, shoot up to $80 a card, when actual in-reality chase rares of the past like Cursed Scroll, Tolarian Academy, Urza's Rage, Call of the Herd, and Exalted Angel, all of which could be pulled from 1 out of every 110 packs of their home sets never went above $30 apiece?
Because even if most people understand that the rarity of mythic is actually only a little bit different than the rarity of the rares you listed, the fact that it's listed as more rare automatically will make people mark it up higher. The fact that it's only a minor rarity increase, will not effect the price as much as Wizards advertising complain, which will play it up as a new/higher/better/rarer/faster/longer/harder rarity. The reality of the situation does not mater as much as the perception of the public. That is why all marketing is evil. Not that I believe in evil...
As much as they claim that mythic rares will not be staple cards, remember Jitte...
This is capitalism at it's best. It's not a mater of giving the best product to the consumer. It's a mater of making the consumer buy your product. That's why fast food is so horrible for you. They realize that it's unhealthy, but their statistic show that price out weighs health in the eyes of the consumer. That's why fast food companies battle over prices and not the health benefits of their product.
@bokwinkle: Why? I mean other than Coldsnap draft, where people drafted Sound the Call.dec and Surging Sentinels.dec, I would say that in a smaller pool, you have a higher chance of drafting/opening multiples of good cards, common or otherwise. And that opportunity is available for anyone, so I'm thinking it would be a good thing.
Well, try drafting a tripple morningtide and let me know what you think - I'll save you some trouble though...it's aweful. Now immagine someone drafting 5 silkbind Faeries or it's Shards Equivilant.
Small card pools = bad drafts.
Now, in sealed it gets bad too. We had a guy get 3 silkbind's in a Shadowmoor sealed the other day...it was disgusting.
It's not just the commons either - you end up becoming quite likely to draft multiples of uncommons as well.
If one player doesn't pull all of the same cards then you'll see multiples of the same deck...which also sux - because one of the reasons for playing limited is to avoid playing with and against the same decks repeatedly. Tripple shadowmoor is already going a little this way - as you can always expect someone to be playing machine gun (either power of fire or pressense of gond with one of the untappers)...it's almost like a limited archetype.
Given a smaller cardpool you can expect 2-3 reliable archetypes to pop up for limited. To avoid this WotC will have to take large leaps and make some pretty significant changes, and it won't be easy.
I do a ton of casual drafting when I get my pre-orders in, and I'll tell you that with a small set you can start to count on a very limited number of decks - it's extremely frustrating.
Because even if most people understand that the rarity of mythic is actually only a little bit different than the rarity of the rares you listed, the fact that it's listed as more rare automatically will make people mark it up higher. The fact that it's only a minor rarity increase, will not effect the price as much as Wizards advertising complain, which will play it up as a new/higher/better/rarer/faster/longer/harder rarity. The reality of the situation does not mater as much as the perception of the public. That is why all marketing is evil. Not that I believe in evil...
As much as they claim that mythic rares will not be staple cards, remember Jitte...
This is capitalism at it's best. It's not a mater of giving the best product to the consumer. It's a mater of making the consumer buy your product. That's why fast food is so horrible for you. They realize that it's unhealthy, but their statistic show that price out weighs health in the eyes of the consumer. That's why fast food companies battle over prices and not the health benefits of their product.
Then you can consider yourself ahead of the game then - and if the cards are selling for greater prices than they are worth you can capatalize on this by utilizing the secondary market - ie, buying/selling/trading. You can't be upset at wizards marketing for people being dumb - it's irrational, and it's like calling me dumb for buying gas at $3.00 per gallon because a store owner was dumb enough to sell it that cheap...or it's like being mad at a store owner for selling gas at $10 per gallon and people buying it.
Wizards is appealing to what their customers and potential customers want and you are belittling them for it? I don't get it.
Make sure you use the EDIT button instead of doubleposting, thanks. Posts merged.
You can't be upset at wizards marketing for people being dumb - it's irrational, and it's like calling me dumb for buying gas at $3.00 per gallon because a store owner was dumb enough to sell it that cheap...or it's like being mad at a store owner for selling gas at $10 per gallon and people buying it.
I'm not upset, nor am I calling people dumb. The fact that people fall for marketing is not because they are dumb, but because marketing is doing their job. A salesman selling you something you do not need, is not a sign of your intellect but the ability of the salesman. At least that's how I see it...
Wizards is appealing to what their customers and potential customers want and you are belittling them for it? I don't get it.
The fact that it's what consumers want is debatable, as you can tell by this thread. Marketing being evil is not belittling Magic or anything other than just marketing. It's not MTG marketing that's specifically evil, it's all marketing. I really don't see how I was belittling anyone, but the concept of marketing/advertising. At least that's the only belittling that was intentional.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Man, wouldn't it be great if there were some long thread discussing that, so that you could make the assumption that Charlequin has factored in those things?
-E
All of those (except "perceived rarity," which is not going to be meaningfully relevant in a situation where the numbers are as freely accessible as new-set Magic rarity) affet the specifics of card valuation over time, but none are actually relevant to my specific example here.
If you imagine two different worlds containing different versions of the same set -- one where a given rare is pulled from packs at a 1/80 rarity and another where it's pulled at 1/120 -- if the card sells for $15 in the former case, it's not going to sell for $60 in the latter. Condor's done quite a bit of math on this, though, and he could probably break down the possibilities more effectively than I could.
What sets long-term prices is the retailers who sell singles. They are in business to make a profit, and that business is driven by two forces:
Prices have to be high enough for retailers to recoup on singles what they spend on the packs they get most of their singles, and...
- Prices have to be low enough to compete with other retailers doing the same thing.
If you look at past sets, you will find that the total value of the rares in a set (the sum of PRICE(rare #N)*FREQUENCY(rare #N)) stays relatively constant. That's the result of those forces.And that total value will always be between $3.50 and $4.00. Yes, there is some wiggle room. The "bad" sets come in at $3.50 and the "good" sets at $4.00. But that tends to reflect the middle-priced cards, not the high-priced ones. AND, it works against the high-priced-mythic arguments, since they need the rest of the set to be low in value for their arguments.
Using typical ranges of prices, and the actual frequencies for mythic rares, a top-valued Mythic rare (i.e., one that would sell for $25+ in previous sets) should sell for $35 to $50. Making bad assumptions about the low value of the rest of the set, that can get pushed to $80 to $90. One of the bad assumptions was that I didn't force the total value of the set to decrease when calculating that (look at Future Sight, and you will see that I should decrease it). It's almost impossible to make it go higher than that. And I only say "almost" because anything is possible.
Here's one possible breakdown. I assumed that the best card in the set would be a Mythic, and that there would essentially be no difference in demand for the rest of the mythics and "normal" rares (which makes mystics cost more, on average):
One Mythic at $50.
- One Mythic at $14.
- One Mythic at $9.
- Three mythics at $4 to $6.
- Four Mythics at $2 to $3.
- Five mythics at $1.50.
- Two rares around $15.
- Six rares at $7 to $12.
- Seven rares at $4 to $6.
- Five rares at $3.
- Twelve rares at $2.
- Twenty-one rares at $1.
Note that my assumptions are counter to the stated intent - that mythics will occupy the bottom portion of demand - so this is an example that favors high-priced mythics.I'm glad to see someone exploring price probabilities so thoroughly, it needed to be done to help dispel the idiocy that has overtaken people since the mythic rare announcement was made.
Thanks!
You are still misunderstanding. That breakdown was specifically trying to make expensive Mythic rares. It made assumptions about things happening, that are not supposed to happen. A more realistic breakdown (still rounding prices up more than down) is:
Two Mythics at $2.50.
- Three Mythics at $2.
- Two Mythics at $1.50.
- Eight Mythics at $1.
- Three rares around $15.
- Four rares around $10.
- Three rares at $7 to $8.
- Five rares at $5 to $6.
- Ten rares at $3 to $4.
- Eight rares around $2.
- Seven rares at $1.50.
- Thirteen at $1.
This reduces average prices about 7%.I have a feeling Mythics won't be going for $1.
First there is the smaller set size. Each card in Shards of Alara will be more important to the overall cohesion of the set since there are less cards to convey the flavor and mechanics of the new plane (or planes). While there will still be "bad" rares and certainly probably "bad" mythics as far as Spike and constructed tournaments, I would expect most of them to be Timmy rares and since they are Mythics in the set that Mythics debut in, a cut above the typical 9/13 Timmy rare. Regardless, I don't think you'll be seeing a set of Mythics go for $22 for 15 (especially as they represent an average of 120 packs being opened to acquire them - that's almost 4 boxes worth of mythics!).
The only recent comparison that we have that is remotely accurate is, imo, the Time Spiral Timeshifted rares. Look at a card like Psionic Blast. Not a bad card, but it never really found a deck. However due to the pedigree of the card it stayed at over $20 for a long long time. A mythic that is perceived to be a possible tournament card, even if it doesn't immediately find a deck, will retain a decent value. The comparison isn't very good because a) Psionic Blast was already around and so there were available copies and b) Psionic Blast is a utility "staple" which Mythics will purportedly not be.
Anyway, based on my intuition I would expect a spread like this for the 15 Mythic rares (by December, after there has been a bit of drafting and price stabilization):
-Two at $8
-Two at $6
-Three at $4
-Six at $3
-Two at $2
Which yields a Mythic rare set for about $62... But maybe I'm bonkers
PS- Are any of the Planeswalkers going for $2.50? Because we know Shards will have at least one...
Emphatic no. Planeswalkers are supposed to be like... one in a million. By printing 15 planeswalkers, that would pretty much destroy that flavour. Plus, 15 planeswalkers would be boring as hell, because the design space would be pretty much completely used up, and there would be no future for them.
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
Has anyone complained about the fact that drafting with 3 packs of a 220 card set will utterly and completely suck? Or the fact that Building a sealed deck with a Tourney pack and 2 packs of a 220 card set will utterly and completely suck?
@bokwinkle: Why? I mean other than Coldsnap draft, where people drafted Sound the Call.dec and Surging Sentinels.dec, I would say that in a smaller pool, you have a higher chance of drafting/opening multiples of good cards, common or otherwise. And that opportunity is available for anyone, so I'm thinking it would be a good thing.
Do you know any judges who always impress you with their work ethic, knowledge, or attitude? Nominate them to be the next Judge of the Week!
Because even if most people understand that the rarity of mythic is actually only a little bit different than the rarity of the rares you listed, the fact that it's listed as more rare automatically will make people mark it up higher. The fact that it's only a minor rarity increase, will not effect the price as much as Wizards advertising complain, which will play it up as a new/higher/better/rarer/faster/longer/harder rarity. The reality of the situation does not mater as much as the perception of the public. That is why all marketing is evil. Not that I believe in evil...
As much as they claim that mythic rares will not be staple cards, remember Jitte...
This is capitalism at it's best. It's not a mater of giving the best product to the consumer. It's a mater of making the consumer buy your product. That's why fast food is so horrible for you. They realize that it's unhealthy, but their statistic show that price out weighs health in the eyes of the consumer. That's why fast food companies battle over prices and not the health benefits of their product.
Well, try drafting a tripple morningtide and let me know what you think - I'll save you some trouble though...it's aweful. Now immagine someone drafting 5 silkbind Faeries or it's Shards Equivilant.
Small card pools = bad drafts.
Now, in sealed it gets bad too. We had a guy get 3 silkbind's in a Shadowmoor sealed the other day...it was disgusting.
It's not just the commons either - you end up becoming quite likely to draft multiples of uncommons as well.
If one player doesn't pull all of the same cards then you'll see multiples of the same deck...which also sux - because one of the reasons for playing limited is to avoid playing with and against the same decks repeatedly. Tripple shadowmoor is already going a little this way - as you can always expect someone to be playing machine gun (either power of fire or pressense of gond with one of the untappers)...it's almost like a limited archetype.
Given a smaller cardpool you can expect 2-3 reliable archetypes to pop up for limited. To avoid this WotC will have to take large leaps and make some pretty significant changes, and it won't be easy.
I do a ton of casual drafting when I get my pre-orders in, and I'll tell you that with a small set you can start to count on a very limited number of decks - it's extremely frustrating.
Then you can consider yourself ahead of the game then - and if the cards are selling for greater prices than they are worth you can capatalize on this by utilizing the secondary market - ie, buying/selling/trading. You can't be upset at wizards marketing for people being dumb - it's irrational, and it's like calling me dumb for buying gas at $3.00 per gallon because a store owner was dumb enough to sell it that cheap...or it's like being mad at a store owner for selling gas at $10 per gallon and people buying it.
Wizards is appealing to what their customers and potential customers want and you are belittling them for it? I don't get it.
Make sure you use the EDIT button instead of doubleposting, thanks. Posts merged.
I'm not upset, nor am I calling people dumb. The fact that people fall for marketing is not because they are dumb, but because marketing is doing their job. A salesman selling you something you do not need, is not a sign of your intellect but the ability of the salesman. At least that's how I see it...
The fact that it's what consumers want is debatable, as you can tell by this thread. Marketing being evil is not belittling Magic or anything other than just marketing. It's not MTG marketing that's specifically evil, it's all marketing. I really don't see how I was belittling anyone, but the concept of marketing/advertising. At least that's the only belittling that was intentional.