Where our pull rates come from

The bar a source has to clear

A source is usable here if it discloses how many packs it counted. That is the whole test, and it is deliberately blunt: a stated sample size can be judged, argued with, and weighed against another source. A confident-sounding table with no number behind it cannot.

Official TCGPlayer analyses come first where they exist — those are packs opened and counted by their Authentication Center, and several publish their own 95% confidence intervals, which we store per rarity tier. Where no official article covers a set, a community source with a disclosed sample is used instead, and the set page says so in as many words.

We never infer one set's rates from a similar set. Base Set (Shadowless) shares its card list with Base Set and still shows TBD, because nobody has separately counted the Shadowless print run.

One honest gap, visible in the table below: 45 rated sets carry a source citation but no pack count recorded against them, almost all of them older sets routed through thepricedex.com. Their rates trace back to research that does disclose counts, but the count itself was not captured when those sets were transcribed, so we cannot show you one. They are marked with a dash rather than a number, and re-sourcing them properly is the largest outstanding piece of work on this page.

The sources, one by one

Every rated set and its source

Japanese sets

Japanese set pages are not indexed and are listed separately for that reason, but their rates are sourced to the same standard. Japanese boxes hold 30 packs rather than 36, so box-level figures from these sources are converted to per-pack rates before storage.

Sources we checked and did not use

Listing these matters as much as listing the ones we use, because the sets they cover are the sets showing TBD.

• Flipside Gaming and PokéBeach's "Card Ratios" thread both state outright that their figures are estimations rather than counted ratios, and neither discloses a sample.
• A frequently-cited Pokegym thread said to contain a 43-box Dragons Exalted count does not contain one on reading — it is informal anecdote-swapping with no aggregated data.
• pulls.xyz, cited in several places as an XY-era source, is a parked domain.
• Dragon Vault's commonly-quoted figures trace back to a print-sheet reconstruction from YouTube pull observations, not a counted sample.
• Double Crisis, a 2015 blister-only release, has one page carrying figures for it that discloses no sample size and cites no source; the primary rarity-research thread does not cover the set at all.

Roughly 90 sets on this site are unrated as a result. Most were never sold in randomised packs at all — promo groups, trainer kits and insert subsets whose odds belong to a parent set — but a handful are real sealed releases where no usable study exists, and they will keep showing TBD until one does.

Corrections

If you know of a pull-rate study that discloses a real sample size for a set showing TBD, that is the single most useful thing anyone can send this project. So is a mistake in the table below.

Reach me at tcgroiofficial@gmail.com, or read how these rates are used to compute expected value.