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?
|