Do all historical cards of same rarity have same probability?
 

So we know the probability that a card of a given rarity will show up when a deck is opened --- it is placed right on the pack. Also, the developers have disclosed the probability that a given card will be LIVE (70%) or other.

But I haven't seen anybody post whether historical cards of the same rarity are equally likely to come up or whether LIVE cards of the same rarity are equally likely to come up.

So... the question I have is: Is a Waite Hoyt (98) (average auction price 440k) as likely to come up as, say, a Vic Rashi (90) (average auction price of 6300)?

And is a perfect Mike Trout (44k average auction) as likely to come up as any other LIVE perfect?

Thanks for the information!

I don't know if you'll find any explicit confirmation of this fact anywhere, but I would be very surprised if it were not true. From a programming standpoint, it would take very specific, irrational dev intervention to make this not be true.

Here are two links to This Week In Perfect Team where rare cards are discussed:

For 20: https://youtu.be/l0UQ5jsiLXA?t=1215
For 19: https://youtu.be/gz1adl2lGXc?t=726

Kris does specifically mention that the pulls are equal for the different card categories (ie a Legend has the same chance to be pulled as an All Star). Nothing is mentioned here about card pulls being affected by overall ratings. However, the 5 rarest cards in 20 were all between 95 and 98 OVR, while all but 3 of the 15 rarest cards in 19 were between 96 and 98 OVR, with the outliers being 2 historic perfects and 1 random 92 OVR card.

This is all that a very brief search returned on the subject, so more information may well be out there.

I would be shocked if a higher overall rating didn't play a factor in rarity.

For perfects though I expect them to all be the same within a category.

Ok, based on these posts, my guess is that the top half of a particular rarity is less likely than the lower half.

So the indication that the rarest cards were all in the top half of the diamond level could be explained either if that top half were less likely than the bottom half, or if there were far more cards in the top half than the bottom half.

However, the reverse appears to be the case. There are a total of 307 cards rated 95 - 99, but 376 cards rated 90-94. So the indication that the most rare diamond cards are in the top half (fewer to choose from) solidifies the case that these are sampled less often.

Interesting, I stand corrected. The quality of these 95-99 historical cards really is a step above the lower 90s cards, so it makes sense. I wonder if this is also true for lower rarities.