I can imagine this sort of misguided math leading to a truly unfortunate outcome.
One could seek out a set of dice chips from the thrift store for $5, play one game a year and end up with an index number less than $1. Is that a good thing? Hard to imagine someone here is advocating used dice chips or worse as the ideal chip set. Maybe low numbers on this index indicate bad thing rather than desirable things even if the OP implies otherwise.
Who is better off, the chipper who tables a $10,000+ grail set once a year, then moves on to his/her next remarkable set. Or a cheapskate who tables a used set of dice chips every week?
Maybe the highest score on the index is the winner. Assuming they host a minimum number of games. After all, you can hit infinity on the index just by never hosting.
Proud owner of a several sets with high scores! -=- DrStrange