I hate to do this because I really hate when it's done but here is what you've done through your last posts:
1. Constructed a strawman argument.
To elaborate: You're asking me to give a reason why I think packs will have value X. I'm NOT saying that and never have. I'm saying the probability declines as X increases.2. Begged the question.
Specifically, see paragraph 1 of your recent post.3. Ad Hominen'd me.
It's tame but see paragraph 3.
More importantly than any of that -
My initial statement was simply a word of caution. It was not an absolutist statement or prediction or evaluation of value. I will not conform to your demands to make it a numbers argument - it doesn't require it. It is supported by very simple and sound logic and I continue to stand by the assessment - people who are paying a lot for this product are putting themselves in a position of risk.
I think you are still unable to see what I'm saying clearly so here: The relationship is monotonic increasing - NOT black and white. Consider an upward sloping linear line which represents cost of a box. As you move to the right, the probability of that line being above the EV line (currently not drawn bc it's unknown) decreases at an increasing rate. You keep asking for me to quantify this when it doesn't need to be. When I refuse to quantify you try to make it black and white - it is not that either. Would you pay 500$ for a box of MM? Probably not, but why? Because risk, as you percieve it, is probably too high at that price point. You're asking me to quantify the risk equation and that's impossible. It doesn't invalidate my point or validate yours to ask me something that's impossible.
ps: Your assessment of comparing MM to Zendikar is still completely faulty. I'm not sure why you're even bothering on that point, but ok.
pps: I think you might want to take internet forums a little less seriously.