[anonymousab]

> Why shouldn’t it be done?

The point of the product is to gamble, not to determine in advance which one has the best outcome or odds.

In much the same way that a casino won't let you hover around and count cards, or watch a machine all day and only play when you've determined that it's about to cache out. They take other countermeasures against that stuff these days but you get the idea.

[dragonwriter]

> The point of the product is to gamble, not to determine in advance which one has the best outcome or odds.

The manufacturer’s goal is to leverage the addictive behavior associated with gambling to get money while not being restricted in market reach (as to venues, eligible purchasers) or profits by regulations and taxes targeting gambling, sure.

That’s not the buyer’s goal, though, and I see no reason that the manufacturer’s buyer-hostile attempt to hack around laws designed to protect against and provide resources to mitigate exactly the kind of predation it is engaging in deserves particular respect.

> In much the same way that a casino won't let you hover around and count cards

Casinos, by law, where permitted to operate at all, in many jurisdictions wouldn’t let most of the market for the goods in question even on the floor except to make through transit, specifically to protect them from gambling.

[dTal]

Because it's a zero-sum game with other customers. "Cheating" doesn't hurt the company at all, but it does lower everyone else's chances.

[dragonwriter]

> "Cheating" doesn't hurt the company at all

If the people that care most about rare cards target them more effectively rather than buying however many packs needed to get them randomly, how can it not?

And, also, if those playing by the rules that the manufacturer set up get less of a “ooh shiny” bump to keep playing by the rules than is designed, again, how can it not?

[dTal]

Hm. I suppose you're right, in the large.

In the small, it still mostly feels like you're unfairly changing the rules of the game out from underneath the next person to walk in the store. By analogy, it's not ethical to rig someone else's slot machine to steal people's money and pay it out only to you - even if you think slot machines themselves are unethical. Claiming to be be curing them of their gambling addiction seems... convenient.

[ygjb]

> The point of the product is to gamble

You know that, and I know that, but legal weenies and regulators go to great pains to make it clear that it's not gambling, as do defenders of the "sport". And to be clear I love me some MtG, so I am not criticizing the model or the industry.

That said, if weighing the packs as a viable strategy became common knowledge and is even a marginally reliable method for gaming the system, then there would be a solid case to be made that the companies that produce that these cards need explicit countermeasures to prevent that strategy.

If they don't, and there is a real secondary market, then there is nothing stopping an FLGS from selling individual packs from a box after having weighed all of the packs. The only way to protect yourself from the game being rigged would be to buy guaranteed unopened boxes.

[derefr]

> as do defenders of the "sport"

People who buy Pokemon/MtG cards have an interesting relationship with WotC.

They're usually perfectly willing to buy cards on the secondary market (which doesn't make WotC money) but they're constitutionally unable to play "real" (non-"casual") matches — even in tournaments WotC has no relationship to! — if the cards are https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Proxy_card s.

I've never been clear on what the difference is. Both the secondary market, and proxies, result in perfectly usable cards, and result in WotC making no money from you. But one's acceptable to the community, while the other very much isn't.

I have a feeling it's probably to do with the community having a lot of collectors in it, who want their rare cards to retain value, and who fear that that value would be lost if there's no reason to play with the card, only to hide it away in a binder while playing with a proxy.

[gpderetta]

WotC of course strongly benefits indirectly from the secondary market as it makes packs more desirables (and in fact packs and boxes are priced close to their Expected Value). It is not a surprise that they are strongly opposed to proxies. And most non-WotC tournament organizers of course have strong relationships with WotC.

[mort96]

But a store isn't a casino, it's a store. AFAIK, a company can't prohibit anyone from inspecting their product on store shelves before buying. I would certainly expect to be able to weigh, say, a pack of batteries, and use their weigh as a part of my buying decision.

[colejohnson66]

The store can do whatever they want (within discrimination laws). If they say Hot Wheels collectors can’t look at every single one on the shelf, and doing so will get you banned, they can do that.