What is your definition/formula for "odds of pulling value"? Number of cards on these tallies divided by the number of rares + Mythics? Because if so, I'm not seeing how your odds of pulling value in Modern Master comes to 41%, considering MSRP is $10 per pack.
Also, has it been said there will be a Modern Masters set in 2016? The first two weren't released annually.
Finally, there is no such card called Animist's Tutelage.
-
- SonofaBith
- Registered User
-
Member for 14 years, 5 months, and 3 days
Last active Mon, Jan, 22 2018 07:09:07
- 0 Followers
- 954 Total Posts
- 525 Thanks
-
Sep 6, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for September 4, 2015Posted in: Articles -
Aug 2, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for July 31, 2015By falling off the tally, you could say the Kraken was released...Posted in: Articles
-
Jul 20, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for July 17, 2015Minor correction for the next update, in the heading it still says you're tracking 8 sets, but with the addition of Origins it's now nine.Posted in: Articles
-
Jun 25, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for June 22, 2015Hi Wildfire,Posted in: Articles
I agree with your point 1. And I agree with Rai when he said it. My point was, "when was it stated MM15 would reduce the point of entry into the format". No 235 cards are going to do that, because any card that's not IN the set is subject to a rise, often as the result of the fall of one of the 235. If Maro says MM1 did that, does anyone believe him? Any one of us with a handle on the marketplace know that 235 cards going down in price won't affect the barrier to entry or cost of cards as a whole, only the 235.
I also agree with your point 2, there were a dozen of good C's and UC's left out, but even if they were included, the cost of entry to the format wouldn't have changed, just those cards.
As for point 3, whether or not MM15 cards are leveling off or starting to rise is moot. The only thing that matters is NOT what MM15 cost 2-3 weeks ago vs. what it costs now. The only thing that matters is what MM15 costs now, VS what the version of the card cost before MM15 came into being. Please refer to my first post, and you can see the cost of cards on the day of MM15's spoiler release, to what they cost a day ago. UNTIL MM15 prices today cost what an earlier incarnation of the same card cost before MM15 existed, MM15 has reduced the price of these cards. Some are only 11% cheaper. Some are 50% cheaper. Only Spellskite costs the same/more now than it did before MM15 came out (Primeval Titan is also basically the same price in it's MM15 version as it was earlier).
Rai says MM15 failed to reduce the barrier to entry of Modern, and I agree, but what I counter with was "was it expected to, beyond these 235 cards"? -
Jun 25, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for June 22, 2015"When did I ever state you claimed prices were now higher on every card?"Posted in: Articles
I never said that you said that.
"Please tell me where I said that Modern Masters 2015 would lower the price of other cards. Lower the cost to Modern is not the same as lower the cost of other cards not in Modern Masters."
You said "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set", to which I asked, and you've yet to answer "Who ever said that was the intent of this set? The intent was to lower prices (and make more available) THESE CARDS."
"Where has Tarmogoyf has ever been over 163 on my Tally Threads. The highest it has ever been was 162.99 on May 15, when I first started doing the Tallies for Modern Master 2015. This makes me believe you are making up numbers. Same with Kozilek. I cannot find any record of the prices for my table that you are quoting in my records. I am looking at my archive, and it does not have those prices."
OMG, can't you read? Did I not say Goyf's MM (the FIRST MM) Medium on 5/22 was $187. This number is available using the sliding line price graph on TCG player. The numbers aren't made up, so why don't you apologize for that statement. Let's see if you will, but I'd bet you won't. The WHOLE point of me quoting that price was your saying you prefer to use medium values, whereas I prefer to use low, but regardless of whether you use Medium or Low, the prices on the cards in MM15 have dropped. I asked if Medium was not seeing the same drop as low, because I honestly didn't know the answer to that. Since you also failed to answer that, I looked up the medium prices of two cards. They're there, you can look them up too.
I think I see what the problem here is: Are you comparing the prices of MM15 a few weeks ago, to the prices of MM15 now? And you're seeing little change, and in some instances a slight uptick? If so, you're completely judging the impact MM15 had on the barrier to Modern entry as it pertains to only these versions of these cards.
To see the impact MM15 has, you need to compare the price of either original or previous versions of these cards to what an MM15 version goes for. That is the impact MM15 has had: Take the price of the original/previous version of a card before MM15 came out, then look at the price the MM15 version is now. You're saying "on 6/8 a MM15 goyf was $161, now its $159, essentially no change. A Clique was $50.37 then, $50.04 now, essentially no change". But that's simply tracking the value of MM15. BEFORE MM15 came out, your cheapest Goyf option was MM, with a $187 mid/$160 low. Now it's $159 mid/$145 low. Therefore THE BARRIER FOR ENTRY OF A GOYF is down $28 using mid, or $15 low.
The barrier for entry of THESE cards, which is the ONLY thing MM15 can control is down, when compared to earlier version of THESE cards before MM15 came out. MM15 cannot act as a panacea in reducing the cost of all Modern cards across the board, but you said "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set.". NO 235 card set, even if it were the best set released in the history of Magic, can do what you seeminly expected, which is lower the cost across the board of entry into a large format. Rather than judge the set for what it didn't do, why not judge it for what it did do, namely reduce the price of 68 MR's and R's 10-50%. -
Jun 25, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for June 22, 2015Re: use of Low vs. Medium, that's fine, I DO understand your point, but MY point is, is are you not seeing the same drop in Med as I am in Low?Posted in: Articles
If Kozilek went from $30 low to $20 Low, are you not seeing the same percentages in Medium, except with a higher starting and ending number? I see ON TCGP, that on 5/22 his Medium was $45.92. Now his Medium is $25. THEREFORE his medium dropped from 4$6 to $25, while his low from $30 to $20.
Goyf's (MM) Medium on 5/22 was $187, in your chart it's now $159. Low went from $165 to $146.
Both Low and Medium are dropping, we're just starting from and ending on different points.
And please explain why this set was supposed to reduce the cost of Modern staples across the board because for the life of me I'm not seeing why that was EVER the expectation for this set. That Wurmcoil went up, or Grove went up, is irrelevant. The set was designed to put more of THESE 235 cards on the market, and to reduce to cost of THESE 235 cards. You said "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set". When did Wizards say these cards would have a bearing on other cards? -
Jun 25, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for June 22, 2015In addition to what Teia said, my point was not that the cards are cheaper now than they were they came out but rather the set is already gaining in value instead of gong down. Any card that sees extensive play is going up or not moving down.Posted in: Articles
- But that's not all you said. You said "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set", and "The only thing that is concerning is how little Modern Masters 2015 seems to affected card prices". Were you (and Teia) expecting this set to reduce the barrier of entry for ALL of Modern, specifically for cards NOT in this set? Because if you did, that's beyond absurd. To expect a 265 card set to reduce the costs of literally thousands of other cards is just ridiculous. And actually I wouldn't even consider it 265 cards; remove the 101 Commons because a common reprint shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on Modern's entry point, Serum Visions excluded. So what you're saying is MM15 failed to do it's job because its 164 cards didn't reduce the financial barrier of entry? When practically ALL the cards that were actually, you know, IN MM15 went down 10-50%?
I disregard Low as an indication of the value of the card. Low is how cheap you can get the card and almost always factors condition into the numbers, which artificially lowers the price further. I have never taken Low as anything other than what people will try to sell their cards for a competitive edge, which is fine for selling, but not for determining value.
- That's fine if you want to disregard low by burying your head in the sand. But Low is what I happened to have historical data on. If prices are down 11-50% in Low, wouldn't they be down similarly in Medium as well, only starting with and ending with a higher value as well? And BTW, your comment on condition is COMPLETELY unfounded, because I wasn't using the stated Low value, but rather all my prices that I quote as low represent the lowest price I was finding near mint copies for. Go ahead, look at the prices I quoted yesterday and you'll see that's the case. I don't count the prices of lightly played.
I didn't even care for the set, but there's no denying that the reprinting of these 265 cards lowered the price of these 265 cards (Spellskite excluded). If you want 265 cards to be responsible for lowering the price of 5,000 other cards your expectations were too high. -
Jun 24, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for June 22, 2015If you're referring to only the cards that are in MM15, I would take huge issue with the statement "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set."Posted in: Articles
I noted the prices of original printings of cards on the date the full MM15 spoiler was released (5/8). I then noted the price of MM15 versions on their release (5/22). Finally, I'm noting the value today, 6/24. I realize that I'm using TCGP LOW as opposed to mid for the below numbers, but as long as I am using low for all data points, the notion MM15 lowered prices is completely valid.
Kozilek (original) on 5/8: $37
Kozilek (MM15) on 5/22: $30
Kozilek (MM15) on 6/24: $20
Ulamog (original, 5/8): $32
Ulamog (MM15, 5/22): $22
Ulamog (MM15, 6/24): $15
Karn (original, 5/8): $38
Karn (MM15, 5/22): $29
Karn (MM15, 6/24): $33
Mox Opal (original, 5/8): $38
Mox Opal (MM15, 5/22): $31
Mox Opal (MM15, 6/24): $34
All is dust (original, 5/8): $20
All is dust (MM15, 5/22): $8
All is dust (MM15, 6/24): $5.50
Elesh Norn (original, 5/8): $25
Elesh Norn (MM15, 5/22): $17
Elesh Norn (MM15, 6/24): $14.50
Iona (original, 5/8): $25
Iona (MM15, 5/22): $16
Iona (MM15, 6/24): $11
Leyline (original, 5/8): $21
Leyline (MM15, 5/22): $15
Leyline (MM15, 6/24): $11
Cryptic (original, 5/8): $48
Cryptic (MM 5/8): $37
Cryptic (MM15, 5/22): $33
Cryptic (MM15, 6/24): $30
Clique (original, 5/8): $57
Clique (MM 5/8): $55
Clique (MM15, 5/22): $41
Clique (MM15, 6/24): $44
Bitterblossom (original, 5/8): $39
Bitterblossom (MM15, 5/22): $28
Bitterblossom (MM15, 6/24): $25
Bob (original, 5/8): $46
Bob (MM 5/8): $50
Bob (MM15, 5/22): $38
Bob (MM15, 6/24): $41
Kiki (original, 5/8): $19
Kiki (MM 5/8): $20
Kiki (MM15, 5/22): $15
Kiki (MM15, 6/24): $9.50
Splinter Twin (original, 5/8): $20
Splinter Twin (MM15, 5/22): $14
Splinter Twin (MM15, 6/24): $13.50
Noble Hierarch (original, 5/8): $45
Noble Hierarch (MM15, 5/22): $33
Noble Hierarch (MM15, 6/24): $33
Goyf (original, 5/8): $185
Goyf (MM 5/8): $165
Goyf (MM15, 5/22): $140
Goyf (MM15, 6/24): $146
Fulminator (original, 5/8): $27
Fulminator (MM15, 5/22): $18
Fulminator (MM15, 6/24): $17
Spellskite (original, 5/8): $18
Spellskite (MM15, 5/22): $15
Spellskite (MM15, 6/24): $19
As you can see, just from the examples above, prices are down with the exception of Spellskite. All are down at least 11%, while many are down 30, 40, even 50%.
-
Jun 9, 2015
SonofaBith posted a message on The Running Tally of Current Sets for June 8, 2015While I understand the point of moving these tallies to the home pages and converting them from threads to an article, can I just point out that it seems pretty unnecessary to produce these articles on a twice weekly basis.Posted in: Articles
Theros biggest gainer +3 cents
Theros biggest loser: -16 cents
Born of the Gods biggest gainer +4 cents
Born of the Gods biggest loser -12 cents
Journey biggest gainer +13 cents
Journey biggest loser -15 cents
M15 biggest gainer +7 cents
M15 biggest loser -17 cents
Khans biggest gainer +21 cents
Khans biggest loser -10 cents
Fate Reforged biggest gainer +12 cents
Fate Reforged biggest loser -11 cents
I don't believe that there are enough changes every 3 to 4 days that this exercise warrants twice a week updates. It's helpful to know upwards and downward trends but that's 6 sets listed where not a single card went up or down by as much as a quarter. Not a single card here would warrant a post in the Huge Gainers threads. If you're reporting on 4 cent changes, you're essentially reporting on nothing. Considering the work involved in compiling these list, would it not make more sense to do it just once a week? I'm not saying do away with these articles, but there's not enough time for the market to change by the time the next list is generated. -
Feb 4, 2014
SonofaBith posted a message on Launch Giveaway!Wild Pair. Green is my favorite color, and the ability to get two creatures for the price of one can quickly swing things in your favor. Plus the ability to tutor for just the right creature can often get you out of a sticky situation.Posted in: Announcements
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While the thread ultimately is about missing cards, the point of my post was to talk about randomization/distribution/collation which is an underlying theme of this thread. My post had NOTHING to do with duplicates as you erroneously claim, since duplicates by their definition in general refer to cards within the same box. If the same card is pulled from a different box, it's not really a duplicate, it's a copy.
The fact that my friend and I were matching rares, often times pack-by-pack, and that the boxes were 60 percent the same. We also opened two other boxes, and box three and four were nothing like each other, nor were they like the first two which were so similar to each other. To get such similar boxes was enough of an anomaly I thought it was worth posting about, which was my entire point.
Re: bragging about pack pulls, I would have still made the post if those 21 parrallel rares had all been garbage, it just so happened they were not. Only my last statement, which I prefaced with "unrelated" specifically addressed my pulls in terms of quality, so forgive me, mea culpa that ONE sentence went off-topic.
21 of 36 rares were identical between the two boxes:
Mordant Dragon
Stone Idol Trap
Chain Reaction
Bazaar Trader
Kazuul
Terastodon
Thada Adel x2 (we BOTH pulled doubles of this)
Jwari Shapeshifter
Jace, Mind Sculptor
Abyssal Persecutor
Butcher of Malakir
Quest for the Nihil Stone
Kalastria Highborn
Stoneforge Mystic
Talus Paladin
Marshal's Anthem
Basilisk Collar
Seer's Sundial
Lavaclaw Reaches
Celestial Colonnade
Unrelated, the contents of my two boxes were awesome, pulled about 8 man-lands, and also foil Lavaclaw Reaches and foil Stirring Wildwood. Between my two boxes, just missing Comet Storm, Dragonmaster Outcast, and Novablast Wurm.
Rent will certainly vary from town to town, but to expect any retail space for less than $800/month sounds awfully optimistic, even in this day and age with empty store-fronts the norm. Assuming you could get 20 people to come together (remember the more people involved the more difficult it will be to organize). A conservative $800/20 players, equals a payment of $40 per person. Each month. Every month. And that doesn't include any furniture, may not include utilities, or anything else. It also doesn't include any PRODUCT. No cards for a monthly bill of $40. Who cares if you can get product at 50% off? You would need to spend at least $80 a month retail normally just to break even. Do you have 20 friends who spend $80 a month? How about who could do it when held to a contract??
What about insurance and liability? If you're running a storefront, you'll need insurance so that when someone tips over in the chair and cracks their head, you're covered. If someone were to sue, who takes responsibility? All 20 members? BTW, the dues probably just went up 50% per person for insurance.
"No store hours/open 24 hours a day". A perfect little CCG utopia! LOL, so every member has their own key, coming and going as they please? And what happens when one person inevitably forgets to lock the place up? Is product being stored there? Cash?
And what happens when one person can't make their payment, or pay on time? Your lease is due every month, and the landlord won't give a damn that your buddy got laid off, or his car needed costly repairs...The other people in the coop's dues just got higher.
What about the argument that costs become cheaper when more people join? "Nonmembers would still be allowed to attend and purchase product from the shop. " Pssshh. Then what's my incentive to join? Be obligated to pay $40 a month, just for the privilege to THEN buy cheaper product? No thanks. I'd attend, but I'd rather spend my $40 on cards rather than dues. As soon as the paying members discover this, they'll become non-paying members who still come to the locale to play, creating nothing but hostility between those still paying.
Again, I'm just being extremely basic in my assessment, but if you really think a group of mostly teens and twenty-somethings can organize on the level needed you're delusional, IMHO. I'm sure people can poke holes in my arguments, I didn't spend a whole lot of time in crafting it, but if you're in a town with an active player base, seriously, ask yourself: are they the type of people who can commit a somewhat sizable amount of money every month, and be trusted not to bail out? Is there enough organizational structure to handle entering into a binding, legal document such as a lease? I look around at the people who attend our local FNM's/pre-releases/release tournies, and they usually have between 18-25 attendees for each, and I highly doubt more than a quarter of them could be depended on.
You talk about the benefits of essentially a "not-for-profit" store, where the only purpose was cheap product for its members and a place to play, but in essence you're asking for 20 people or more to come together and run and operate a store. With 20 equal owners, all sharing the same risk and liabilities, in addition to benefits. Never happen.