Am I the only one who thinks it's cringe when sportsball card terminology has leaked into Pokemon? Hits? Really? God that sounds so dumb. OH MY GOD I GOT A HIT. CHARIZARD!!! Ugh... Just call it what it really is, you pulled a secret. Sounds a lot less boomery.
- Thread starter Water Pokémon Master
- Start date
I love Pokemon TCG as a hobby, but this is another blow. Even if it doesn't impact pull rates, the fact that there will be more people out there doing stuff like this is just frustrating.
One other point I just added to the article: the factories weigh every single booster pack. This is to ensure there's the proper amount of cards in them, but it's also to ensure they know what code card to put in the packs (to prevent pack weighing). So again, while this is all speculation, I find it highly unlikely they wouldn't have noticed packs were leaving the factory without the heavier secret rares.
Honestly my buddies and I use the terms interchangeably, but usually use “hits” for the good packs, not individual cards. We’ll still use “alt art,” “full art,” etc. but say something like “I got 6 hits in my ETB.” To us, it’s more clear and concise.
The theft of random unscratched scratch-off tickets literally doesn't effect your chances of winning though. Even if 99% of scratch off tickets were stolen, yours still has the same odds of winning that it's always had.
If 99% of a certain scratch off were stolen it would most certainly effect the chances of the 1% that remain.
The remaining 1% of cards would still contain the exact same results they would contain even if the other 99% weren't stolen. How would other cards being stolen change the result of the scratch cards that already have pre-determined results independent of the other scratch cards?
Here is how I understand the situation.
Let's assume a booster pack has 3 cards. 2 are non-holo, and 1 can be either a regular rare or a rainbow rare.
I have 3 boxes of cards.
Box 1 - has 18 non-holo rares.
Box 2 - has 6 regular rares.
Box 3 - has 3 rainbow rares.
I have created a machine automatically makes packs by taking 2 cards from Box 1, and 1 card from either Box 2 or Box 3. I want a very generous pull rate on Rainbow Rares, so I've programmed it so that for every third pack, it takes a card from Box 3 instead of Box 2. If there are not enough cards from either Box 2 or Box 3, it stops making packs, an alarm goes off, etc.
Pack - [contents from Box 1, contents from Box 2, contents from Box 3]
Pack 1 - [2,1,0]
Pack 2 - [2,1,0]
Pack 3 - [2,0,1] – 2 cards remain in Box 3
Pack 4 - [2,1,0]
Pack 5 - [2,1,0]
Pack 6 - [2,0,1] – 1 card remains in Box 3
Pack 7 - [2,1,0]
Pack 8 - [2,1,0]
Pack 9 - [2,0,1] – 0 cards remain in Box 3
This is my complete run. I have 9 packs, with a 33.333% rate of including a rainbow rare.
Now, suppose someone stole a card from Box 3;
Pack 1 - [2,1,0]
Pack 2 - [2,1,0]
Pack 3 - [2,0,1] – 1 cards remains in Box 3
Pack 4 - [2,1,0]
Pack 5 - [2,1,0]
Pack 6 - [2,0,1] – 0 cards remain in Box 3
Pack 7 - [2,1,0]
Pack 8 - [2,1,0]
Pack 9 - [2,0,0] – Insufficient cards in Box 3. Rather than seal the Pack, an alarm goes off.
I think people might be assuming, is that Pack 9 was being filled with a card from Box 2 rather than Box 3. In favor of the printers, I'm going to assume that that wasn't the case. So, no problem, right? Well, no, because you'd also need to hold back Packs 7 and 8, too. As it currently stands, for Packs 1-8, you have 2 out of 8 packs with a Rainbow Rare – great on you for not releasing Pack 9, but you've still ended up reducing the odds of pulling a RR from 33% to 25% – unless you held back Packs 7 and 8 as well!!!
I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but in most thought experiments I can think of in terms of trying to understand how these thefts could've not affected pull rates, and in many cases, the only way you can make that claim is by necessarily separating even those potentially affected packs. There are other scenarios where it isn't necessary to separate packs (i.e. if the response to an alarm on Pack 9 is to refill Box 3, then there is no problem whatsoever) but it really depends on what their defined process was/is for handling a shortage.
Let's assume a booster pack has 3 cards. 2 are non-holo, and 1 can be either a regular rare or a rainbow rare.
I have 3 boxes of cards.
Box 1 - has 18 non-holo rares.
Box 2 - has 6 regular rares.
Box 3 - has 3 rainbow rares.
I have created a machine automatically makes packs by taking 2 cards from Box 1, and 1 card from either Box 2 or Box 3. I want a very generous pull rate on Rainbow Rares, so I've programmed it so that for every third pack, it takes a card from Box 3 instead of Box 2. If there are not enough cards from either Box 2 or Box 3, it stops making packs, an alarm goes off, etc.
Pack - [contents from Box 1, contents from Box 2, contents from Box 3]
Pack 1 - [2,1,0]
Pack 2 - [2,1,0]
Pack 3 - [2,0,1] – 2 cards remain in Box 3
Pack 4 - [2,1,0]
Pack 5 - [2,1,0]
Pack 6 - [2,0,1] – 1 card remains in Box 3
Pack 7 - [2,1,0]
Pack 8 - [2,1,0]
Pack 9 - [2,0,1] – 0 cards remain in Box 3
This is my complete run. I have 9 packs, with a 33.333% rate of including a rainbow rare.
Now, suppose someone stole a card from Box 3;
Pack 1 - [2,1,0]
Pack 2 - [2,1,0]
Pack 3 - [2,0,1] – 1 cards remains in Box 3
Pack 4 - [2,1,0]
Pack 5 - [2,1,0]
Pack 6 - [2,0,1] – 0 cards remain in Box 3
Pack 7 - [2,1,0]
Pack 8 - [2,1,0]
Pack 9 - [2,0,0] – Insufficient cards in Box 3. Rather than seal the Pack, an alarm goes off.
I think people might be assuming, is that Pack 9 was being filled with a card from Box 2 rather than Box 3. In favor of the printers, I'm going to assume that that wasn't the case. So, no problem, right? Well, no, because you'd also need to hold back Packs 7 and 8, too. As it currently stands, for Packs 1-8, you have 2 out of 8 packs with a Rainbow Rare – great on you for not releasing Pack 9, but you've still ended up reducing the odds of pulling a RR from 33% to 25% – unless you held back Packs 7 and 8 as well!!!
I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but in most thought experiments I can think of in terms of trying to understand how these thefts could've not affected pull rates, and in many cases, the only way you can make that claim is by necessarily separating even those potentially affected packs. There are other scenarios where it isn't necessary to separate packs (i.e. if the response to an alarm on Pack 9 is to refill Box 3, then there is no problem whatsoever) but it really depends on what their defined process was/is for handling a shortage.
Last edited:
Quite dissapointed. Not in the article, that was a really good read. Im just dissapointed in the company. I am just really tired of companies being secretive about stuff like this.
"If customers find out we may look bad"
No. If you tell the customers on your own, and tell the customer what safety measures you are takeing, it will not make you look bad. in fact it might even strengthen the customers trust in your company.
But no. Instead we hear stuff like this through the backdoor, with no idea if safety measures where already in place to ensure pullrates and no idea if safety measures are taken to prevent this from happening again. And THAT does make your company look bad.
"If customers find out we may look bad"
No. If you tell the customers on your own, and tell the customer what safety measures you are takeing, it will not make you look bad. in fact it might even strengthen the customers trust in your company.
But no. Instead we hear stuff like this through the backdoor, with no idea if safety measures where already in place to ensure pullrates and no idea if safety measures are taken to prevent this from happening again. And THAT does make your company look bad.
They should have evolved their Nickit before the heist.. 
Last edited:
Ok so take 100 scratch off tickets and say 10 of them are winners. Then 90% of the 100 tickets were stolen or 90 tickets total. Do you honestly not understand that by having only 10 remaining tickets your chances of winning drop significantly considering there's a good chance that some or all of the winning tickets could have been included in the 90% stolen? If there are set number of hits and a certain amount of those hits were stolen how could it not impact what the consumers could pull?
I think you guys forget the HORRENDOUS pull rates of Evolving Skies and the subsequent releases. Gen 8 was the fudging WORST for pull rates.
Honestly the best way to sell that many secret rares is to send about 4-5 of them to individual card shops across the country. If they actually thought that they could get away with selling over 1k Mew VMAX alt arts without any suspicion at all is absurd. Not to mention this definitely did something to the packs. I got a FS pack where I got 3 Mew V full arts in one. All the other cards were reverse bulk but I was very confused BC they came in the last 3 slots. In general FS isn't a great set in terms of hits and prices, considering that there are only about 3-4 BIG MONEY hits and the rest barely make $5 IF THAT. I don't think this helped it's sales AT ALL. NOT TO MENTION HOW EMBARRASSING THEIR JAIL TIME WILL BE!!! I
Inmate: "I'm here for murdering a mother of 3. What are you in here for?"
Thief: "I S T O L E P O K E M O N C A R D S ."
L M F O!!!!!
Inmate: "I'm here for murdering a mother of 3. What are you in here for?"
Thief: "I S T O L E P O K E M O N C A R D S ."
L M F O!!!!!
Actually at ES prerelease I had every pack with a hit. Alt Art Leafeon VMAX, Espeon VMAX, Rainbow Rare Lycanroc VMAX, and Gyarados VMAX. It was insane
That's not how odds work though. If 10 of the 100 scratch off tickets were winners and you buy 1, your odds of winning are 10/100. If 90% of them are stolen, you're still buying a single ticket out of 100 that were produced, and still have a 10/100 odds of winning.
If those 90 tickets were stolen or sold to 90 different people, your odds of winning are exactly the same. Odds don't change because those other 90 tickets were stolen rather than purchased. The chances of some/all of the winning tickets being among the 90 stolen is exactly the same as what the chances would be of some/all of the winning tickets being among those 90 if they were sold to different people instead.
Last edited:
It definitely would have affected the pull rates and it's pretty simple to explain. There's limited number of rare cards that get printed especially AA. And each card is seeded randomly in a pack for that batch. If the box of rare cards is empty, they don't go and print more, because it affects the rarity. They just assume the cards have already been packed and fill the packs with whatever's left such as regular holos or non-holo rares. The problem here is the factories clearly did not keep track of whether the cards being printed were getting packed. So that gap allowed the thieves to steal an entire box (or more) of rare cards without anyone noticing.
You know what I think would be a really cool job benefit to those who work at these factories actually making this hobby happen is a free master set for each expansion. Might deter some of the theft as well. Let's be real here, these workers provide a vital function for the hobby and while Poketubers and the like are getting free product I don't hear of the ones doing all the work getting any.
They can choose to either sell it or give it someone or keep it. Since TCPi cannot go on market value when determining card value, otherwise legally it'd be consider gambling, it's not much cost to them but could still be a tax write off for the company giving them that perk.
They can choose to either sell it or give it someone or keep it. Since TCPi cannot go on market value when determining card value, otherwise legally it'd be consider gambling, it's not much cost to them but could still be a tax write off for the company giving them that perk.
Last edited:
While I can't speak for TPCI etc, factory jobs did come with some perks in the form of products (not sure if this is the case anymore), but it wouldn't surprise me if they did get the odd free card or something.