This does bring up a rules question. I have a few big states - CA, TX, FL, NY, maybe one other - where I'll provide more than one candidate to get the field up to the proper 64-mansion field.

In most states, you get a good spread of houses, but in TX I think I'm picking 4 houses and all or nearly all are in one neighborhood in Houston. They're pretty different houses and are all gorgeous legitimate mansions, but they're all within a mile or two of each other. I'm torn between maintaining the system and putting them each up, or replacing at least one with a different property elsewhere in Texas. It's a pretty big state to have all of the candidates in one neighborhood. What do y'all think - stick with the most expensive or spread them out?

Delaware is the easy option for me. The home itself is actually rather modest, but I'm OK with that. The ocean view/access win it for me.. Oh, and the fact that the I literally wouldn't pick that Kansas property even if it was the only option in this entire tourney.

Spread them out

A few other questions:

-It looks like the most expensive house in WA is currently pending. Will it qualify?

-The most expensive property in HI is actually a development of 3 houses, which combine to more than 5,000 sqft. Would this qualify?

-What will you do if a property wins its round and then sells before the next round?

That's what I'm leaning toward. Don't tell lawrenceraider that I'm changing my rules.

I may put two up from that neighborhood because of a particular selection rule in my system. But I'll spread out the other two.

50,000 acres is 78 square miles. That’s a….lot.

Paid for ground makes money man.

We're kind of screwed if a house sells, because the listing goes down. I think my only choice will be to put up the next most expensive house in that state as a proxy. I'll probably take the risk and put a pending up, because I think these sales probably take a long time.

On the HI house, I haven't looked yet and will make the determination when I see it, but I think my rule will be that the main house has to be 5,000+ square feet. I've already bypassed a place or two where someone was selling a bunch of houses as a package for a lot of money, and none of them were mansions.

If it was just me, I would have vote for Kansas without hesitation. Knowing absolutely dick about farming I would need Buehler's phone number ASAP after taking ownership. Are there even phones in the middle on nowhere? I might need to have Mike Tyson come and train some pigeons for me. But I digress. With a wife and two teenage sons to think about, I would take the beach house.

I'm pretty sure that the Pony Express runs through that area.

If I had to stay within 100 miles of that Western Kansas place for the rest of my life except for two weeks a year I think I'd hang myself within 3 years.

With that much land, just make it into a hunting preserve. You could have people from all over the world come and see you. Heck put in your own airstrip and make your own town.

With all that land, money, and time, I'd build enough stuff that future archaeologists would think that a small civilization lived in the area.

Do what you gotta do, bro.

But I'm not living in Houston.

Kind of an underwhelming one here. The Delaware house looks like it's begging to get washed out by the sea. Inside it looks like a mid 90's condo.

The Kansas house must be so tranquil and quiet, so that's nice. It's a nicer house but i think i'd get pretty dang bored.

Delaware for me.

Ugh.

Feel like this is probably the worst heat so far for me.

If I choose Kansas I feel like I would probably add to the statistics of suicide in the farming industry. I would get bored out of my ****ing mind. But it's got the land I've cherished in just about every selection I've made.

On the other hand the Delaware house has no land but is more appealing as a home to me because its not like living in a lodge. You have the ocean which opens up many more activities, but every major city is just out of reach.

I dont know... flip a coin. Delaware.