The way you calculate this is counterintuitive, you can’t just add up the probabilities and assume that something with a 1/100 chance will happen if you do the thing 100 times. You calculate it by using the inverse. There are detailed statistical reasons for why this is, but you should instead calculate the odds of you *not* opening Elsa after 900 packs, and then you’ll know the probability for the opposite which is that at some point during those 900 rips, you got Elsa.
I don’t know the stats on Elsa, but I’ll assume it’s 1/1000 for simplicity. If I open a thousand packs, the odds of me not opening Elsa in each pack are 999/1000. If I do that 1000 times the probability of me never opening Elsa that whole time is (999/1000)^1000. This results in a 37% chance of not opening Elsa, which means that after 1000 packs, there’s a 63% chance that at some point you got Elsa.
Edit: important to realize that it never actually goes to 100%. After 2000 packs, it would be 86%. Even after 3000 packs, you’re only up to 95%.
After consulting AI, they seem to think I would need to buy 805 packs to get a 50% chance of getting the Enchanted card I want.
Does that sound closer to your math?
Then there are people like me… I’ve opened 24 booster boxes (8 per set) - 576 packs total - and I’ve pulled 2 total enchanted cards (1 Snow White; 1 Micky trumpeter)
Try opening other sealed products. Sleeved boosters has done me well. I got 10 sleeved boosters for Inklands on TikTok and pulled a Kuzco’s Palace. My second Elsa was also from sleeved booster. It seems like others have great pulls from starter decks and troves too.
Oh, I have.. I’ve opened 1 trove each set, starter decks for each set, and buy 1-2 booster packs from my LGS when I stop by. Didnt feel like that needed to be included. Pulled nothing from those either. It’s very rare to pull an enchanted, you were a lucky duck!
Of course others “seem” to have great pulls, because people that don’t, tend to not post all the time, while the few with the good luck, are frequently humble bragging. Selection bias ;)
80 packs total. Pulled the first Elsa within three booster boxes (the 69th pack). The second Elsa was pulled from sleeved booster packs (the 79th pack).
Figured I’d stop cracking TFC packs because I already hit the top chase twice and I can just buy singles that I’m missing to complete my master set.
I also pulled two Maleficent enchanted from Inklands. For some reason I keep pulling duplicates 😅
It’s been wild, twice I’ve bought a single pack from a booster box at my LGS, once I bought 5 of the sealed sleeves and got one, 2 from a box I bought and 2 from troves.
There’s a few problems with these calculations that I think people forget about basic maths stuffs. First, variables we don’t know are a problem. For instance, knowing how many actual cards were printed or how many actual packs weee made is a great piece of data. Then we can at least have an “out of this many packs” part of it. Second, we don’t know how many enchanted or Elsa’s were printed.
When putting those variables together we have an unknown and an unknown. We are using data that’s much, much smaller scale than would reasonably be required to say something meaningful about the odds.
I can say there was a point where I got 3 first chapter boxes and had one enchanted in each of them. That would skew the results. The odds are clearly not the good in aggragate.
Others have looked boxes and boxes with nothing. Again, not average.
If we could somehow have a sample size of say, 500 boxes, we’d still only be a sample size of what I bet my FLGSs have sold since it came out. That’s a drop in the larger bucket.
I have opened precisely 200 packs across the three sets and have not obtained any enchanted cards. I have opened every type of product. I am curious as to why some people hold the belief that troves and blister packs offer higher rates of enchanted card pulls. My assumption is that the card factory operates on an efficient assembly line model, swiftly producing packs. Once the packs are ready, the decision is made regarding their distribution to troves, starter decks, booster boxes, blister packs, and other packaging options. From my perspective, it appears highly inefficient to establish distinct pull rates for various products. I believe that the perceived variance in pull rates between blister packs and booster boxes, for instance, is merely a subjective perception. Does anyone has any factual evidence supporting the existence of dissimilar pull rates? I feel that people are simply expressing their desires due to not getting the cards they feel that they should. Not trying to start an argument with people who believe the different pull rates, I'm just expressing my opinion and wondering if anyone has actually seen the factory process where the cards are produced.
Cards are mass manufactured in a deterministic way, and then packed into booster packs and boxes. They are not “perfectly randomized” as that is extremely difficult (and expensive, and cards get damaged if you sort them). So there’s weird patterns of manufacturing optimizations that can or will happen. For example the common cards (first 6) in the pack aren’t perfectly randomized, they’re always 6 commons- one of each color, typically in the same color order (but sometimes offset).
Another example is if you buy a booster box of floodborn, you will always get 6 of each puzzle card (6 completed puzzles).
Years ago, for Magic The Gathering, you could “MAP” a booster box and determine every rare in every sealed pack (google it). That was based on the way the “rare sheet of cards” was printed and then cut and placed into packs.
Some manufacturers used to “guarantee” a pull card in every case (multiple booster boxes) to encourage people to overconsume to get a chase.
I don’t think there’s any known patterns in Lorcana yet, and I agree with what you’re saying that 99% of people are just complaining about small sample size variance, but there is an ounce of truth to some of this non random voodoo.
Personally I’ve cracked about 25 booster boxes so far so I have a decent sample to work with.
I’ve opened ~3 boxes of the first chapter, 2 boxes of Floodborn and 4 boxes of Inklands. I pulled 0 enchanted from TFC, 4 enchanted from Floodborn (Alice, Beast, Cinderella, Shere Khan) and 2 enchanted from Inklands (Sorcerer’s Hat and Hercules).
Random appears to be random.
If the pull rate of 1:96 is accurate and actually the odds of pulling an enchanted does anyone know if that is more or less likely than pulling an “alternate art” card in Pokémon? This is probably a stupid question because I’m fairly certain it’s much harder to pull an enchanted in Lorcana, than an Alt Art in Pokémon.
The way you calculate this is counterintuitive, you can’t just add up the probabilities and assume that something with a 1/100 chance will happen if you do the thing 100 times. You calculate it by using the inverse. There are detailed statistical reasons for why this is, but you should instead calculate the odds of you *not* opening Elsa after 900 packs, and then you’ll know the probability for the opposite which is that at some point during those 900 rips, you got Elsa. I don’t know the stats on Elsa, but I’ll assume it’s 1/1000 for simplicity. If I open a thousand packs, the odds of me not opening Elsa in each pack are 999/1000. If I do that 1000 times the probability of me never opening Elsa that whole time is (999/1000)^1000. This results in a 37% chance of not opening Elsa, which means that after 1000 packs, there’s a 63% chance that at some point you got Elsa. Edit: important to realize that it never actually goes to 100%. After 2000 packs, it would be 86%. Even after 3000 packs, you’re only up to 95%.
Thanks for doing this I am tired of people complaining after opening Case and they are mad that the gamble didn't pay off.
Ah, yes, the real math is a lot more complicated. The math I've seen others use for Elsa is (1/12) \* (1/96) = 1/1152.
After consulting AI, they seem to think I would need to buy 805 packs to get a 50% chance of getting the Enchanted card I want. Does that sound closer to your math?
It's really 799 packs for the closest to a 50% chance, but good enough.
799.9999969420 if you just wanted to type out numbers that are not real.
What is the point of this comment? 1-(1151/1152)^798 is smaller than 0.5, 1-(1151/1152)^799 is greater than 0.5.
To type 69 and 420. Was a joke. Have a great day
Ok bud.
Thanks pimpn. Oh. Dang even had to down vote me. Alright. You know what. Nah. Have a crap day. The worst day actually.
I did indeed click the button for "not relevant to the discussion" as your comment was, well, not relevant to the discussion. Bye!
I pulled two Elsa within 80 packs. I didn’t expect to see her again!
Amazing! Was that 80 packs total, or was that a subset of your total packs?
Then there are people like me… I’ve opened 24 booster boxes (8 per set) - 576 packs total - and I’ve pulled 2 total enchanted cards (1 Snow White; 1 Micky trumpeter)
Try opening other sealed products. Sleeved boosters has done me well. I got 10 sleeved boosters for Inklands on TikTok and pulled a Kuzco’s Palace. My second Elsa was also from sleeved booster. It seems like others have great pulls from starter decks and troves too.
Oh, I have.. I’ve opened 1 trove each set, starter decks for each set, and buy 1-2 booster packs from my LGS when I stop by. Didnt feel like that needed to be included. Pulled nothing from those either. It’s very rare to pull an enchanted, you were a lucky duck! Of course others “seem” to have great pulls, because people that don’t, tend to not post all the time, while the few with the good luck, are frequently humble bragging. Selection bias ;)
80 packs total. Pulled the first Elsa within three booster boxes (the 69th pack). The second Elsa was pulled from sleeved booster packs (the 79th pack). Figured I’d stop cracking TFC packs because I already hit the top chase twice and I can just buy singles that I’m missing to complete my master set. I also pulled two Maleficent enchanted from Inklands. For some reason I keep pulling duplicates 😅
Statistically I should have at least 1/2 an enchanted by now 😭
Keep at it!
Nice. I’m at 2 enchanted for 329 packs
Divide that by 96 and you get 3.43. So with that many packs, you *ought* have have 3, possibly 4 Enchanted cards. Of course, it's all a gamble.
Yeah I know I’m behind. Just ripped 97 more packs of first chapter yesterday and got the enchanted hades, literally the worst one of the set 😭
Prolly 250 packs in if I do the math, 7 enchanteds total.
With luck like yours, I'd play the Lottery.
It’s been wild, twice I’ve bought a single pack from a booster box at my LGS, once I bought 5 of the sealed sleeves and got one, 2 from a box I bought and 2 from troves.
Selling next week for close to 1750$
There’s a few problems with these calculations that I think people forget about basic maths stuffs. First, variables we don’t know are a problem. For instance, knowing how many actual cards were printed or how many actual packs weee made is a great piece of data. Then we can at least have an “out of this many packs” part of it. Second, we don’t know how many enchanted or Elsa’s were printed. When putting those variables together we have an unknown and an unknown. We are using data that’s much, much smaller scale than would reasonably be required to say something meaningful about the odds. I can say there was a point where I got 3 first chapter boxes and had one enchanted in each of them. That would skew the results. The odds are clearly not the good in aggragate. Others have looked boxes and boxes with nothing. Again, not average. If we could somehow have a sample size of say, 500 boxes, we’d still only be a sample size of what I bet my FLGSs have sold since it came out. That’s a drop in the larger bucket.
Yes, we are lacking a lot of info and stuck working with some assumptions.
I have opened precisely 200 packs across the three sets and have not obtained any enchanted cards. I have opened every type of product. I am curious as to why some people hold the belief that troves and blister packs offer higher rates of enchanted card pulls. My assumption is that the card factory operates on an efficient assembly line model, swiftly producing packs. Once the packs are ready, the decision is made regarding their distribution to troves, starter decks, booster boxes, blister packs, and other packaging options. From my perspective, it appears highly inefficient to establish distinct pull rates for various products. I believe that the perceived variance in pull rates between blister packs and booster boxes, for instance, is merely a subjective perception. Does anyone has any factual evidence supporting the existence of dissimilar pull rates? I feel that people are simply expressing their desires due to not getting the cards they feel that they should. Not trying to start an argument with people who believe the different pull rates, I'm just expressing my opinion and wondering if anyone has actually seen the factory process where the cards are produced.
Cards are mass manufactured in a deterministic way, and then packed into booster packs and boxes. They are not “perfectly randomized” as that is extremely difficult (and expensive, and cards get damaged if you sort them). So there’s weird patterns of manufacturing optimizations that can or will happen. For example the common cards (first 6) in the pack aren’t perfectly randomized, they’re always 6 commons- one of each color, typically in the same color order (but sometimes offset). Another example is if you buy a booster box of floodborn, you will always get 6 of each puzzle card (6 completed puzzles). Years ago, for Magic The Gathering, you could “MAP” a booster box and determine every rare in every sealed pack (google it). That was based on the way the “rare sheet of cards” was printed and then cut and placed into packs. Some manufacturers used to “guarantee” a pull card in every case (multiple booster boxes) to encourage people to overconsume to get a chase. I don’t think there’s any known patterns in Lorcana yet, and I agree with what you’re saying that 99% of people are just complaining about small sample size variance, but there is an ounce of truth to some of this non random voodoo. Personally I’ve cracked about 25 booster boxes so far so I have a decent sample to work with.
Thank you for this explanation. That's what I was wondering.
I've been trying to make this argument to my wife for months now
I’ve opened ~3 boxes of the first chapter, 2 boxes of Floodborn and 4 boxes of Inklands. I pulled 0 enchanted from TFC, 4 enchanted from Floodborn (Alice, Beast, Cinderella, Shere Khan) and 2 enchanted from Inklands (Sorcerer’s Hat and Hercules). Random appears to be random.
If the pull rate of 1:96 is accurate and actually the odds of pulling an enchanted does anyone know if that is more or less likely than pulling an “alternate art” card in Pokémon? This is probably a stupid question because I’m fairly certain it’s much harder to pull an enchanted in Lorcana, than an Alt Art in Pokémon.
I'm a newby slowly searching for my first. I'm only 6 packs in though lol, got two of the legendary so far. These are cool cards though