An Opinion on SMPRATTE's Pokemon Go YouTube Video

First off, go watch it. We’ll wait here…

Ok, short and sweet.

Brought up in an orphanage

Worked in Boston with much success

Bar fights galore

Transferred to New York with much success

Unprecedented success

Divorces and infidelities

Major child supporter and advocate

Depression as career sputtered

Biggest career goal unrealized, though guaranteed/promised


Many ups and downs, all of which had some impact on the life and reputation of the principle…but none on the legend which continues to grow even 100 years later.

Babe Ruth and Pokemon actually have a lot in common. The ups and downs experienced by the Pokemon franchise were influenced some by happenings but none are responsible for its success and growth. Why? Because it’s driven by…us.
Years from now there will be even more stories. More mountains and valleys. But the legend will grow regardless because the memories began before the highs and lows occurred and were strong enough to carry you through anything.


Alternative title: Man Begs for Data for 15 Minutes

Real though, he’s right. Pokemon GO is… not dead, but it’s not popular anymore. The cards are better than ever. The fact that people can’t differentiate is astonishing.



What’s the grey book?


Hit the nail right on the head. Great video :blush:

The Pokemon GO game was more of a response to the overall growth of Pokemon since the early 2000s… not the start of it. I love having this conversation with people when I tell them about Poke’mon’s current market.

1 Like

I think Pokemon Go is a fallacy itself.

1 Like

Scott:Knock Knock
Who’s there?
Scott: Data
Data who?
Scott: Data get rid of the Pokemon Go fallacy


Prove to me that Pokémon Go did not spike interest of those who had “forgotten” about Pokémon so to speak. I want a quantifiable metric that proves Pokémon Go DID NOT rapidly increase the population of people suddenly interested. It’s not a feeling, it’s an observation and I believe there is some truth to that observation. You mean to tell me that for almost two decades Pokémon cards were increasing by 1000% a year? No way! This recently happened, why? Because the demand rose! Why? Because those adults that had forgotten about Pokémon came back! Why? Well that’s quite obvious. Iirc a 1st edition Charizard was $3-5k last year(before Pokémon GO) since 1999 when it was $100.

1 Like

Scott hates everything modern, facebook-instagram-pokemongo :stuck_out_tongue:

oweeee sheeet. This video is gonna bring in some hate.

Smpratticoinz stirring that hate pot.

round and round. :nerd_face:


He’s not saying that Pokemon GO didn’t bring people back… he explicitly said that Pokemon GO did indeed bring people back into the hobby just like any other big event for Pokemon. What he is saying is that the current prices only reflect the continued participation of people in the market itself. Obviously a lot more people started at least selling their old cards around that time, but the fact that prices have continued to rise and/or remain stable AFTER Pokemon GO’s wave of popularity was slaughtered by quality management by Niantic shows that Pokemon GO really doesn’t still have a grip on the market like everyone who complains about prices being too high says it does. Scott is all about adjusting to the market and to keep up or just not participate. You can disagree with him on that, but I think he’s right. It’s not like the people that jumped back in after Pokemon GO NECESSARILY have deeper pockets or anything. They are just like the rest of us, just joined later.


Nah I believe he is implying that Pokémon Go has nothing to do with the price spike. Which I believe is not true, it has a lot to do with the increase.

PoGo is an advertisement, that is all. There is no one reason for prices increasing. There is no one reason for overall market activity. That was the main point of the video.

@Troy pretty much hit it on the head. I also literally said PoGo influenced the hobby in the video. I believe my direct quote was, “abso-fucking-lutely it had an influence”. Where this observation becomes egregious is when people propagate the market entirely deriving from Pokemon Go, or that PoGo is the main contributing factor. Prices were strong before PoGo. I sold multiple 50k illustrators when PoGo was still a Google April Fools joke.

I actually still play pogo daily! The other 2, not so much. :blush:


It kind of was the main factor, for a while at least. Maybe not now, but in the beginning of the PoGo craze it certainly was. Which technically means it always will be…haha

I am glad someone mentioned this. One bit I forgot to add in the video is when pogo was at its peak, I was visiting some family. They asked if pogo had any effect on my sales, and at the time, it didn’t. In fact I would say it took a good 6 months after the release when you saw the meteoric rise of charizard and whatnot.

Basically advertisement makes sense for advertising a taco then going out and eating a taco. That commercial doesn’t keep someone consistently buying tacos 18 months later after the ad.

Bro you yourself started pricing evolutions and CP6 out the roof. Knowing damn well people were in a nostalgia trip due to Pokémon Go. They might not have sold, but subconsciously you thought they might have.

As for the taco commercial,
How do you know it doesn’t?

1 Like

What you said strengthens the overall point I was trying to make in the video. Prices were higher during the initial release of EVO CP6. Then with time + supply, prices decreased & stabilized. Classic short term spike, then market stabilizes. This pattern agrees with a nostalgia trip, short term influence.

However, the overall market does not follow this trend. In fact, majority of the prices started to increase during the decrease of evo prices. Therefore, acknowledging evo as a temporary nostalgia trip only strengthens the point that the market is not derived from one singular advertisement. The lesson from the 20th anniversary should have been, this market/hobby has 21 years of inertia.


It indeed does strengthen it. But just like it helps my point and yours, Pokémon Go helped the prices then it helps them now. Which is my point.

PoGo didn’t have any influence on my returning to the hobby, but Gary’s Pawn Shop episode sure as hell did :slight_smile:


PoGo helps prices but I don’t think it’s the defining factor in the massive price increases which seemed to me was the point Scott was trying to make. It most likely helped yes by bringing people into the market but it’s possible (likely IMO) that the market would’ve headed along this trend even if PoGo never existed, it just might’ve taken a little longer.

I started collecting this year, after almost a year of watching the pokemon market (before PoGo launch) … but it wasn’t pokemon go or even evolutions that brought me into the hobby. I didn’t buy evolutions and I don’t play pokemon go, yet here I am spending tens of thousands on cards.