Betting isn't the same as stating as fact. In betting, you can lose if you are wrong. In stating as fact, you can't lose, because it's already true. And I've made the point before, because you've brought up the whole "me stating as fact" thing before (for some odd reason, you felt it important to bring up again), and that I usually always cover myself with words like imho, feel, think, etc, etc. I don't have any insider sources like some people might, so all my thoughts are exactly that, just thoughts, and I hope I make it quite clear of that.
Why am I negative? Give me two examples of me being negative with the new set. 1 lv.X per box. One. Now, give me a second. You won't find it. It might sound negative, but in reality and imho, it's somewhat rational and realistic. I can't remember sets off the top of my head, but I remember people have better luck with lv.Xs in sets that had less than 4 in them. I seem to remember people pulling 2 lv.Xs more often in earlier sets than they do now (almost never it seems). Why should this change? More lv.Xs in the set? Has it changed between MT and MD? Nope. I don't see why it would change now. We aren't even guaranteed 8 lv.Xs. We are guaranteed more than 4 thanks to the "more lv.Xs than ever before." 5 is more than 4.
I don't see how you can apply EX-set logic to lv.X set logic. They are two totally different kinds of cards. We had so many sets where we had over 4 EXs in the set (all of them, I think, had more than 4), and we have never had a set with over 4 lv.X in them (yet). So there is no pattern for you to jump upon to (hopefully) "prove" me wrong.
I don't know what your problem with me is. You seem to be trying to find reasons to call me out, because you don't seem to be quoting anyone else here that shares the same views with me. I would think you might have better stuff to do with your life than come up with excuses to put down a fellow player of the game.
=/ [DEL]'Mom[/DEL] Prime
Saying there would be 4 lv.Xs in the set before the press release was out, was negative? O-kay.
If I kept posting that we were going to get 14 lv.Xs in the next set (DP5+DP6), would that be overly positive?
Again, EXs =/= Lv.Xs. You could come up with a pattern, but with only 2 sets (according to the information you provided) with 4 or less EXs, it would be quite hard to connect the dots.
I would never rub it in your face or anyone else's if I were right. I only speak speculation, so if I am right, it is no better or worse than if I am wrong.
I feel that Ex = Lv. X. Ex were rotated out as the Lv. X are in. If you look it seems that Lv. X have the same type of border as Ex's and seem to comes as frequently as the sets that had Ex's with close to the same number.
I understand speculation. Maybe I just took your post as saying something with a lack of info. I just dont see where the other 4 or 2 Lv. X would go.
Prime, I have a serious question? Why are you so negative about new set releases all the time? You ALWAYS think of the absolute worst possibility and then say it like it is a fact.
Here is why your actually wrong, If you look at sets that have had 8 Ex's then you would know what is going to happen here. Most of the time if a set has 1-4 Ex's/Lv. X it is 1 per box. If it has 5-7 Ex's/Lv. X it is 2 per box. 8 is interesting because it was about 2-3 per box. 9 is 3 per box.
Now, I dont know why you wouldnt use past history for this but saying it as fact or "betting" (which I feel is the same) isnt the greatest way to say it.
Oh, and B_T, I agree with you that would be absolutely horrifying to try to get the Lv. X and I might be in the same boat with you possibly.
Drew
DarkTwins and Prime, I have a serious question,
Why are you always arguing?
Oh they always do that? Guess it wasn't just me then... :lol:
Big set = hard to get the good cards BOO
At least most of the Lv Xs are playable in this set...