Mike,
I seriously hope you are kidding. First off, as I mentioned in another thread, against 1. g4 f5 is just about the worst move on the board. Second, I hope you don't think a knowledge of openings will get you to master level. Picking openings and analyzing them is a good idea of course, but trying to memorize all the lines in a bunch of openings of your choice is not only probably impossible but a huge waste of time. Who do you think would win in a match of 100 games:
One player who spends his 100 hours studying only openings. Literally, he just sits there and studies the lines to openings and analyzes them with Fritz and Chessbase. That's all he does. He has almost no idea about tactics, the endgame, or middlegame strategy.
Or the other, who spends 10 hours studying a small, simple repetoire of solid easy to learn systems. Maybe even 1. Nf3, since you didn't give a line against that in your profile. In that 10 hours, he learns the important lines and the ideas. Important pawns structure and piece placement ideas. Then for 60 hours he studies tactics/middlegame strategy. All about development, weak squares, good and bad pieces, pawn structure, all that stuff. Then for the remaining hours he studies the endgame. Mating with material stuff, winning simple pawn and rook endgames, etc.
Who will win. Clearly player 2 will win about 80-90 of the games. He will just play reasonable opening moves that may or may not be book, but don't lose. He will then just completely outplay the other guy.
All I am saying is that openings aren't chess. Take it from someone who has more chess books than necessary (prolly around 90) a substantial amount on different openings: Chess is about everything else. You need a good position out of the opening, but it most cases it's everything else that decides a game. Feel free to debate, but I think you are in the minority. Please post here saying you were kidding. Please. 🙂
Not to mention...the idea of picking 3 openings as white. Say you decide to learn the Scotch, Petrov, and Ruy Lopez. You proudly play 1. e4, secure in the fact that you massive 3 opening repertoire will crush this weakling that you are facing. Then, unbelievably, the patzer has the audacity to play 1...c5. How could he be so stupid?! That isn't one of your openings....I just don't get it I suppose.