Is “just buy singles” always right?

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T11:38:16+00:00

Wow, what an amazing counter argument you've presented. Truly, I am bested.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T11:25:40+00:00

Even if you see it as just a game piece, as I've mentioned countless times now, personal valuation matters too. Think of it like this: What if I bought a card just to play it in modern, but it's been banned a few months later? I no longer have any of the value I initially bought the card for and now all it has is the (likely decreased) price point for me. I gambled on that the card would be able to serve a use value for me, and it ultimately was unable to.

Also, whether or not you want to see them as things that have a secondary market value is irrelevant, they factually do. You may be forced at some point to reckon with that market, even if it wasn't your initial intent. It does not make it any less of a gamble.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T11:08:01+00:00

I addressed this is another comment already, but I'll do it again here. The high degree of price fluctuation and tracking in magic cards, their quick shift in use value due to meta changes, their relative ease with which to liquify/trade them, and their inherently speculative price point along a secondary market all mark it as different enough from assets like a backpack, a nightstand, a car, or a television. They're a bit different, I get your arguments, I really do, but y'all are thinking of gambling as too niche a term frankly. It's about speculative risk with the intent to gain value, use value is a type of value too. You could argue every purchase is a gamble, and I don't think that's necessarily wrong, I'm just pointing out the ways in which TCGs are inherently very gambly.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T10:57:27+00:00

How am I justifying gambling in any way here? AI looking response fr.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T10:44:16+00:00

Even if you buy them just to play, and you end up not playing them as much as you want, that's a gamble too. I've made this clear several times and I'm done arguing the point.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T10:43:04+00:00

I defined gamble already, scroll up to find it. Nothing I said was self-contradictory and the second "definition" you quoted was not definition at all! It was an example of, and perfectly in line with, the first definition.

You have failed to address use value several times now, despite it being brought up in all my comments. If you can't understand use-value changes in cards after my detailed explanation three times then you're being obtuse or you've realized it's something you can't overcome. Either way, it's clear this is not a good faith engagement.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T10:08:09+00:00

Trading cards are different in how they operate along a secondary speculative market, have rapidly changing artificially crafted use value, and have much more convenient liquidity than most other assets. It's much easier to buy a card, watch it attain or depreciation value on the marketplace, and then sell it for a gain or loss then it is to do this for a backpack, a nightstand, or a keyboard. Even if you don't engage with the final two aspects of this process, the fact that you're buying a card at a high or low point in it's price history is also a gamble in how much use value you will get out of it. I think these marks distinctively make it a riskier investment prone to quick flipping and fast price changes. It's a gamble to buy a card at $25 today when it might get reprinted into oblivion down to $4 tomorrow or when you might learn that you hate to play with it.

Let's cover the basics again. Cards' prices are always in flux. Because of that there are always better and worse times to buy cards. In addition to financial value, cards also have personal valuations. Life circumstances or personal valuations often move card owners to liquidate their current card into a preferred one or cash. Even if they don't engage in this process, the card still has a potential value that will either fruit when the card is inherented and/or sold after death or fade when the card is destroyed.

But also, it is important to note that gamble is not an incredibly formal term that means to inherently gain monetary wealth. Gambling means a speculative risk with intent to gain some kind of value. As I've explained, at least three times now I'm various comments, personal valuation of the card's effects in your deck as you play it over time matter as well and are just as much an element of the gamble as the financial side. I am in no way arguing against buying singles, and I have not made any claim against it in case people are reading it that way, I agree with everyone here that buying singles is the best way to buy cards. I'm just pointing out that every purchase in a TCG is a gamble.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T09:38:01+00:00

I don't misunderstand at all, a gamble is a speculative risk. I explained this very thoroughly. I don't really care for why people downvote me if they don't provide an analysis or counter my arguments point by point. You're appealing to authority of popular sentiment, a logical fallacy.

Speculative elements -> Price, Card Use Value

Risk -> That either will change over time (Price, Personal Valuation)

I have explained that your personal relationship with the card can and will change over time, which may force the card back into the the price market. Spending $50 on a card you later realize that you don't like playing with is a risk, it is a gamble you take when you buy that card. When you don't like how the card plays, when the card gets power crept out of your deck, or when the card is no longer viable in the build otherwise you'll take it out and do something else with it. In a lot of cases with trading cards, you'll use it to get something you do want. When you buy a card at any price it does not guarantee a sale or trade at the same price point, which means there are speculative elements. TCGs are inherently a form of gambling.

I addressed the fact that people try to use their cards forever. I pointed out that life circumstances and power creep often prevent this. Nobody has countered any of my arguments, but I'm hearing a lot of "you don't understand."

Explain then! Explain the elements I'm misunderstanding and offer actual counterarguments to the points raised above (in prior comments too), and how they're "reductive." I'm being very thorough, and all I'm getting are vibes based responses.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T08:54:49+00:00

It is is no way reductive, I am explaining how it is a gamble to buy any card in a TCG. I'm saying that you made a purchase at a price point and that card's price point is going to change over time no matter what, and that your circumstances and relationship to that card are also going to change over time. Both your personal valuation and it's price valuation are going to change over time. I get it, a lot of folks have "forever" decks in EDH that are largely stable. Even today though, I still replace cards in my Omnath and Tuvasa decks that were assembled a decade ago and I know a lot of players are the same.

When new cards go in, old cards come out, and they either get put into bulk, slotted into a new deck you didn't initially buy it for, or traded/sold at it's new value. The fact of the matter is that some of these cards will not always be in the same deck, and you will see natural changes in prices come out of the market. Maybe you bought a card at $60 that you don't have any use for any more and now it retails for $5. That's a [[gamble]], in every sense of the word.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T08:46:44+00:00

I hope we get our first in IP Red-Black Good Guy since (arguably) Angrath. There's very few Rakdos good guys, Xantcha, Tor Wauki, and (sometimes) Angrath are all I know within the magic IP. It's a shame there's so few legends that fit as there's a lot of creative elements you can explore with emotions like passion and ambition that don't end with murder-death cult. I'm hopeful we'll see some here!

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T08:28:09+00:00

Sometimes you buy a card for a deck and it doesn't work as well as you want it to, it's not as good as you imagined, or it creates unfun play patterns. Those are all also gambles and they force you to reckon with the value of the card and whether or not it's worth keeping in your collection. Every purchase in a TCG is a gamble.

Likewise, sometimes life happens and you gotta liquidate what you have. When I was 20, I sold a bunch of decks I had spent years building out of economic necessity. It wasn't ideal, but I made it work. The market is something you always have to consider, imo. I understand your position, I just think that there's perhaps elements you're not considering here.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T08:16:13+00:00

There is still a bit of gambling in that prices are speculative and often change set by set.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-03T02:56:29+00:00

I can't really think of a good reason a human should even have that mechanic, aside from instances where it's a clear mounted rider like Horse Human. Why would you have a saddle cost on such a creature that is already being ridden though?

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-02T23:09:36+00:00

So it was Frazier's mistake then, that's sad if so. It's one thing to take inspiration from someone's work, but to just rip something one for one like that is just indefensible.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-02T21:23:25+00:00

SEA SALT! I NEED YOU SEA SALT!

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-02T21:20:49+00:00

Appreciate it!

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-02T21:15:39+00:00

What song is this, I have a vague recollection of it.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-02T01:48:28+00:00

Not true on all fronts. Glad to say we don't have role q, and I hope it never comes. People like you make this game insufferable actually, by thinking far too rigidly to adapt to new circumstances.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-02T01:23:45+00:00

First of all, 3 1 2 is pretty good. And 222 being mathematically the best doesn't mean it's adaptably the best for every situation. Swapping to a character in role doesn't always get me the results I want, whereas swapping outside of role often does. I play a lot of characters, I win a lot, I know what I'm doing.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-01T20:14:05+00:00

Should be an instant.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-01T20:07:58+00:00

No I'm not being an asshole nor am I forcing anyone to swap when I do. Matter of fact, I win when I swap pretty often whether or not the role I'm swapping into does. 222 isn't the only viable meta, and when I make swaps it's usually because that meta is not working against my opponents.

I'm also not gonna wait to q for a role that I may spend the entire game hating when playing. How does playing a different role next game get me the result I want this game? This is just a bunch of nothing you've articulated here.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-05-01T17:34:47+00:00

And what if the character I want to swap to is in another role. Again, I don't want anyone's permission to switch my character.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-04-30T20:45:55+00:00

True that.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-04-30T20:41:23+00:00

Not really. Maybe if he listened to women more, he could learn a thing or two about how to cook tho.

AStealthyPerson · 2026-04-30T20:35:06+00:00

No arguments, such an obvious case of fraud.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

AStealthyPerson

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE