Mine perhaps isn't the best all around, but it's one of the few posted so far. What I am getting at is the rules stated that, by only acting as a player and not a shop, it might be a fruitless effort to begin with, so the best option might be one that is really poor profit for a lot of effort, because there might be nothing better than this.
If something is bad, but there is nothing better than it under the context, then it is the *best*. If I decide to play an arcade game from home, and I get a high score of 2, that is the BEST high score in the house, even though it isn't good.
Anyways, the point being missed was that "most" people were calling out the method without actually providing a better one within the rules. This isn't the point of "theory crafting". The point of theory crafting is asking "what if". In this case, "what if someone actually wanted to try and do it this way?"
Many people HAVE actually given you a better way; speculating on singles. Or just sitting on sealed product.
I even trivially theorycrafted a better method than yours by changing the numbers.
You can get a higher ROI than a store by taking risks, but you're not going to get anywhere by having an equally diverse but less robust inventory than a store, with the model of luckily bumping into people who can't be inconvenienced to go a little further to a store.
Yes, many people have, and those are not the ones this is directed at. This is directed at the people who are commenting only about how it's too time consuming, or they completely ignore the things I have said.
Ex.:
Short of scamming people, or having a card massively spike in value, you don't. Ever.
As you pointed out, you are not a store. When its time to convert your cards back to cash, you're going to have to sell them to a buylist or through Ebay, so best cast scenario you'll lose 20% of the value in doing so. That should quite easily wipe out any of your, "profits."
They for some reason assumed that I would have to use ebay, even though the original post listed puca-trade, not ebay, in which case I can usually retain value at the end.
Not sure if anyone watches "magic: the amateuring" here (Tolarian podcast, great one too.) but they brought in Judge Robb who mad a good point.
They should've added the colorless change in magic origins, but done nothing with it. By adding the colorless symbol to cards that would produce it, but NOT to cards cost, it would've familiarized people with the concept a bit more. Then, they could've swooped in with Battle for Zendikar and added it in the cost and most people would've understood it perfectly fine.
So, taking a step back from game mechanics for a moment, I want to take a bit about the lore function now...
Since eldrazi are the physical embodiment of colorless, the new ones require colorless. This makes sense. They are soulless creatures. Colorless mana, in my mind, is the embodiment of a "lack" of Magical properties. Generic mana costs and colorless costs are the only thing asteroid colorless (just colorless) mana can pay for. Artifacts typically either possess magical power from a previous creator, or have no magical properties at all (it cannot have colored mana in any of the costs.) There are no colorless enchantments that I can think of (outside of eldrazi), but there are a few colorless spells (that usually still somewhat stay intact with the "lack of magic" concept.) Eldrazi on the otherhand come from the Blind Eternities, the AEther, and in that sense are the "purest" life forms (if the AEther/Blind Eternities pieces all the planes together, then it is the basis for all life) since they are incapable of being influenced by the infinite planes of the world. This is why I believe there is plenty of "eldrazi magic". They are simply able to shape planes using the AEther/BE. In my eyes, it's like this. Imagine if you stepped into a pond. To the fish, your two legs and a hand are three gigantic beasts coming from someplace out of their concept of existence, and you can influence the underwater with anything outside of the water. This isn't the equivalent of "magic", which would be somehow getting these objects without actually access the AEther, but instead simple movement/placement in our eyes. The Eldrazi are the same way.
This still leaves two questions...
1. Colored Eldrazi that are colorless. Where does this fit in with the lore? I don't see why one would need "colored" mana for a "colorless" creature. The only thing I can think of is maybe the Eldrazi brood, upon their constant death and return, are somewhat influenced or scarred by colored mana/influence of the planes, but at the heart of them they are still able to be manipulated easily by the AEther, which is colorless.
2. Where does generic mana fit in here? I can understand why artifacts would be generic at the heart of them, since they are machines and embody nothing, not even colorless, and the same for any magical property that comes from the AEther and is not influenced by any of the mana of the planes (planar portal is a good example), but what about other cards? I feel that, if they reprinted Grimoire of the dead, they would keep it generic and not add colorless, but from a lore perspective this makes little sense. It seems like something that wasn't created from the AEther at all, nor is it a machine of sorts that would be uninfluenced by the magic of the planes.
Almost everyone who has posted on this thread has completely missed this point.
How is yours the best method? It's not time efficient. It's not high gain. It's not even the best method if you measure it as a product of the two.
Mine perhaps isn't the best all around, but it's one of the few posted so far. What I am getting at is the rules stated that, by only acting as a player and not a shop, it might be a fruitless effort to begin with, so the best option might be one that is really poor profit for a lot of effort, because there might be nothing better than this.
If something is bad, but there is nothing better than it under the context, then it is the *best*. If I decide to play an arcade game from home, and I get a high score of 2, that is the BEST high score in the house, even though it isn't good.
Anyways, the point being missed was that "most" people were calling out the method without actually providing a better one within the rules. This isn't the point of "theory crafting". The point of theory crafting is asking "what if". In this case, "what if someone actually wanted to try and do it this way?"
5. This post isn't about a way to make a lot of money, but the best way to make the most money possible. This means that a really, really poor profit for a lot of effort could be the best method.[/b]
Almost everyone who has posted on this thread has completely missed this point.
The problem with this idea is that your goal is mostly infeasible. If I replace the "1/6" in your plan with "2/9", I've made a plan that pays out more profit and just as ambiguously likely to result in real gain.
We can break down your plan as:
1. Buy a box.
2. Open packs.
3. Sell things for more than their value via being more convenient than walking ten feet to the counter at your local LGS.
(1) and (2) almost always lose you money by necessity (if a box ever became less valuable than its contents, the price of the box would go up or contents would go down). So in order to break even, before even making a profit, you have to do (3), which as people have said is unrealistic at worst and incredibly time consuming at best.
It's like you completely missed my entire post about *why* it's a better option than buying the cards straight up.
To be fair, i had deals you wont belive, like getting a 15euro card for my 3 2Euro cards, all after informing my trading partner of the values of the cards. I offered he get more, but he didn´t find anything else he wanted to play, so he still wanted to make the deal, because he liked the cards he was getting and didn´t care for the money. Yet, such people are rare, and finding them as a concept seems...hard to do.
That's a bit different. Our goal is to obtain at least 1/6 more than the value, while you obtained 2.5x more than the value (what a trade!)
There are a lot of people who don't mind the extra few bucks lost compared to the hassle of their other options.
Do we break rule #2 or just wait for stupid or inexperienced card buyers?
Which is still breaking rule #2 in my mind. Your advice basically constitutes lying or begging and starts you off with a $500 entry fee to boot.
My "theory" doesn't constitute any lying or begging. At more than few LGS I've been to, there are always people who are willing to trade slightly more value for convenience.
If you have a sensei's divining top (about $28) that I really want, there are a few options I have.
*I can pay the full price at my LGS.
*I can sell twice as many cards at my LGS to get the money needed.
*i can sell a playset of Sorin, Solemn Visitors ($32) at a slightly cheaper price so as not to wait too long for a sale, do some waiting, then end up with $28.
*I can right there, right then choose to trade them to you for a $28 card.
That's the biggest reason the theory stated expensive staples, as I've seen people easily trade away a playset worth slightly more than a card for the convenience, especially if it's a playset of a card they don't have any use for.
It's important to note this isn't a thread for people looking to get rich quick. This thread is for theory crafting as to what, theoretically, would be the best way to make the most profit.
Rules:
1. You may deal with cards only, and only like a player would, not like a store would. This means "open a store" and "sell cheap boosters" are not valid answers.
2. No scams, no stealing, no misleading.
3. If luck is a factor, it's still valid. Sometimes you have to crack a pack to make money.
4. Mention "startup cost" and maybe even total time in your post. Sometimes the richest method isn't always the fastest, the cheapest, the most efficient, or the safest odds of success.
5. This post isn't about a way to make a lot of money, but the best way to make the most money possible. This means that a really, really poor profit for a lot of effort could be the best method.
That being said, I'm going to give my theory, please feel free to share yours!
---
Essentially, the idea is trading up, up, up.
Start out with buying a booster box of an expensive set that has a lot of staples. In this case, it's going to be a generic $500 box. Purchase that box, crack that packs. The hope is to crack at least $400 worth of cards that cost more than $2-3. From here, take those cards and find someone in person to trade with. The goal is to get at least 1/6th more than their value, to 1/4th more than their value. A lot of people have no problem trading down for good cards, as it's easier than simply trying to sell the cards individually. The goal is to get 4-5 cards worth, total, $85 dollars for a $70 dollar card.
Then from here, repeat the process again. Get 4-5 cards worth $25 dollars for a $20 card. Then, repeat this once more, getting 4-5 $7-8 dollars worth of cards for a $5 card.
After doing this a total of three times, you can then take them all to puca-trade and wait, In the end, what was once $400 worth of cards is now worth $640, with a profit of $140.
A lot of effort for little reward, but I imagine that if your luck is right, you could work your way up to cracking some alpha edition magic and praying for the big dogs. It's like the lottery, except if you fail, you still have some sweet cards to play with.
Honestly can't believe how many people call it diamond mana or some crap, it's stupid and I have no idea why they started doing so? Do you say skull mana, sun mana, broccoli mana?
I personally believe we ought to just start calling 1 "neutral mana" and C "colorless mana." My reasoning is simple.
5 does not mean five colorless. In reality, it means 5 mana of any or no color. This means it is essentially "neutral." In terms of spellcasting, it makes sense. A neutral spell can come from any source. C does not mean a mana of any color. It means it must specifically be colorless. This makes sense in terms of spellcasting as well. A colorless spell must come from the source of colorless mana.
So, essentially, my point is that 5 implies the spell can be used by the heart of any planeswalker, despite their color/mana usage, while C can only be used by pure, colorless sources.
Anyone with me on calling it neutral and colorless?
I really do enjoy the new "required colorless" symbol. At pre-release, it really did add a change of pace while deckbuilding and playing. It felt, at times, like a sixth color (though I imagine outside of sealed it will feel less like that.)
Will they continue to not only print wastes, but have cards that *require* colorless? It seems they could go either way. Wastes as a basic land helps out a lot for EDH if you're on a budget, but outside of that, it can be easily replaced with basically any land that produces colorless. It's only real purpose seems to be for a colorless based deck, but even then, that doesn't seem very viable.
I also heard that when they draft this set, you are NOT allowed to add wastes into your deck, you actually have to draft them. Is this correct? If so, I feel that it could be hard to balance the amount of cards they actually print that *require* colorless.
Finally, is there a term for the new required colorless mana? I assume when I read a card that requires 4C I should read it as "four and colorless"? My playgroup has always referred to colorless mana as "neutral mana", so maybe that will be the thing.
Yes, many people have, and those are not the ones this is directed at. This is directed at the people who are commenting only about how it's too time consuming, or they completely ignore the things I have said.
Ex.:
They for some reason assumed that I would have to use ebay, even though the original post listed puca-trade, not ebay, in which case I can usually retain value at the end.
They should've added the colorless change in magic origins, but done nothing with it. By adding the colorless symbol to cards that would produce it, but NOT to cards cost, it would've familiarized people with the concept a bit more. Then, they could've swooped in with Battle for Zendikar and added it in the cost and most people would've understood it perfectly fine.
So, taking a step back from game mechanics for a moment, I want to take a bit about the lore function now...
Since eldrazi are the physical embodiment of colorless, the new ones require colorless. This makes sense. They are soulless creatures. Colorless mana, in my mind, is the embodiment of a "lack" of Magical properties. Generic mana costs and colorless costs are the only thing asteroid colorless (just colorless) mana can pay for. Artifacts typically either possess magical power from a previous creator, or have no magical properties at all (it cannot have colored mana in any of the costs.) There are no colorless enchantments that I can think of (outside of eldrazi), but there are a few colorless spells (that usually still somewhat stay intact with the "lack of magic" concept.) Eldrazi on the otherhand come from the Blind Eternities, the AEther, and in that sense are the "purest" life forms (if the AEther/Blind Eternities pieces all the planes together, then it is the basis for all life) since they are incapable of being influenced by the infinite planes of the world. This is why I believe there is plenty of "eldrazi magic". They are simply able to shape planes using the AEther/BE. In my eyes, it's like this. Imagine if you stepped into a pond. To the fish, your two legs and a hand are three gigantic beasts coming from someplace out of their concept of existence, and you can influence the underwater with anything outside of the water. This isn't the equivalent of "magic", which would be somehow getting these objects without actually access the AEther, but instead simple movement/placement in our eyes. The Eldrazi are the same way.
This still leaves two questions...
1. Colored Eldrazi that are colorless. Where does this fit in with the lore? I don't see why one would need "colored" mana for a "colorless" creature. The only thing I can think of is maybe the Eldrazi brood, upon their constant death and return, are somewhat influenced or scarred by colored mana/influence of the planes, but at the heart of them they are still able to be manipulated easily by the AEther, which is colorless.
2. Where does generic mana fit in here? I can understand why artifacts would be generic at the heart of them, since they are machines and embody nothing, not even colorless, and the same for any magical property that comes from the AEther and is not influenced by any of the mana of the planes (planar portal is a good example), but what about other cards? I feel that, if they reprinted Grimoire of the dead, they would keep it generic and not add colorless, but from a lore perspective this makes little sense. It seems like something that wasn't created from the AEther at all, nor is it a machine of sorts that would be uninfluenced by the magic of the planes.
Mine perhaps isn't the best all around, but it's one of the few posted so far. What I am getting at is the rules stated that, by only acting as a player and not a shop, it might be a fruitless effort to begin with, so the best option might be one that is really poor profit for a lot of effort, because there might be nothing better than this.
If something is bad, but there is nothing better than it under the context, then it is the *best*. If I decide to play an arcade game from home, and I get a high score of 2, that is the BEST high score in the house, even though it isn't good.
Anyways, the point being missed was that "most" people were calling out the method without actually providing a better one within the rules. This isn't the point of "theory crafting". The point of theory crafting is asking "what if". In this case, "what if someone actually wanted to try and do it this way?"
Almost everyone who has posted on this thread has completely missed this point.
It's like you completely missed my entire post about *why* it's a better option than buying the cards straight up.
That's a bit different. Our goal is to obtain at least 1/6 more than the value, while you obtained 2.5x more than the value (what a trade!)
There are a lot of people who don't mind the extra few bucks lost compared to the hassle of their other options.
My "theory" doesn't constitute any lying or begging. At more than few LGS I've been to, there are always people who are willing to trade slightly more value for convenience.
If you have a sensei's divining top (about $28) that I really want, there are a few options I have.
*I can pay the full price at my LGS.
*I can sell twice as many cards at my LGS to get the money needed.
*i can sell a playset of Sorin, Solemn Visitors ($32) at a slightly cheaper price so as not to wait too long for a sale, do some waiting, then end up with $28.
*I can right there, right then choose to trade them to you for a $28 card.
That's the biggest reason the theory stated expensive staples, as I've seen people easily trade away a playset worth slightly more than a card for the convenience, especially if it's a playset of a card they don't have any use for.
Rules:
1. You may deal with cards only, and only like a player would, not like a store would. This means "open a store" and "sell cheap boosters" are not valid answers.
2. No scams, no stealing, no misleading.
3. If luck is a factor, it's still valid. Sometimes you have to crack a pack to make money.
4. Mention "startup cost" and maybe even total time in your post. Sometimes the richest method isn't always the fastest, the cheapest, the most efficient, or the safest odds of success.
5. This post isn't about a way to make a lot of money, but the best way to make the most money possible. This means that a really, really poor profit for a lot of effort could be the best method.
That being said, I'm going to give my theory, please feel free to share yours!
---
Essentially, the idea is trading up, up, up.
Start out with buying a booster box of an expensive set that has a lot of staples. In this case, it's going to be a generic $500 box. Purchase that box, crack that packs. The hope is to crack at least $400 worth of cards that cost more than $2-3. From here, take those cards and find someone in person to trade with. The goal is to get at least 1/6th more than their value, to 1/4th more than their value. A lot of people have no problem trading down for good cards, as it's easier than simply trying to sell the cards individually. The goal is to get 4-5 cards worth, total, $85 dollars for a $70 dollar card.
Then from here, repeat the process again. Get 4-5 cards worth $25 dollars for a $20 card. Then, repeat this once more, getting 4-5 $7-8 dollars worth of cards for a $5 card.
After doing this a total of three times, you can then take them all to puca-trade and wait, In the end, what was once $400 worth of cards is now worth $640, with a profit of $140.
A lot of effort for little reward, but I imagine that if your luck is right, you could work your way up to cracking some alpha edition magic and praying for the big dogs. It's like the lottery, except if you fail, you still have some sweet cards to play with.
No, but I do now.
I actually just got a new job, so there is a strong chance I can actually take this deck to game-day this time.
I will keep you all updated. Thanks for the great ideas.
Since this is still considered on topic, what kind of cards do you think the new innistrad set will have that require colorless?
5 does not mean five colorless. In reality, it means 5 mana of any or no color. This means it is essentially "neutral." In terms of spellcasting, it makes sense. A neutral spell can come from any source.
C does not mean a mana of any color. It means it must specifically be colorless. This makes sense in terms of spellcasting as well. A colorless spell must come from the source of colorless mana.
So, essentially, my point is that 5 implies the spell can be used by the heart of any planeswalker, despite their color/mana usage, while C can only be used by pure, colorless sources.
Anyone with me on calling it neutral and colorless?
Will they continue to not only print wastes, but have cards that *require* colorless? It seems they could go either way. Wastes as a basic land helps out a lot for EDH if you're on a budget, but outside of that, it can be easily replaced with basically any land that produces colorless. It's only real purpose seems to be for a colorless based deck, but even then, that doesn't seem very viable.
I also heard that when they draft this set, you are NOT allowed to add wastes into your deck, you actually have to draft them. Is this correct? If so, I feel that it could be hard to balance the amount of cards they actually print that *require* colorless.
Finally, is there a term for the new required colorless mana? I assume when I read a card that requires 4C I should read it as "four and colorless"? My playgroup has always referred to colorless mana as "neutral mana", so maybe that will be the thing.
Now that they are, I must asked, why Stone Haven Outfitter? There is only one equipment in your deck? I feel that the Altar's Reap does well enough.
However, Captain's Claws is an excellent choice. I may or may not cut Sorin himself for this.