[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Monster Number, and intriguing idea. Thanks for posting it.

1000 is a intrinsically pleasing maximum number; it's like batting a thousand. I agree with that back there about not counting zero, 1 to 1000 is 1000 possibilities, 0 to 1000 is 1001 possibilities. If zero were to count, then everyone on the planet would have a set, most of them zero sets... Methinks we begin the count at one, like Brother Maynard read from The Book of Armaments, Chapter 2...


Would a fellow with 80 common cards swap them for a Plank? Yes. Then the Plank should count more than 80, the commons less than 1, or both. Similarly, would someone swap 240 commons far a Wagner? Oh, Yes. Then that should be adjusted, too. And aside from dollar value, the Demmitt and O'Hara cards would limit the number of 1000 sets, they should have a bit of weight, too.

I figure this process is way too far along for folks to readily accept a recalibration of the process. But it is justified, don't you think?

I'll be Frank, Frank. The idea was to top out at 1000, reward the big four and keep it simple enough so that 85% of the people on this board could compute their monster number accurately in less than 48 hours.

Frank