again, getting back to the original question of would there ever be a situation in which one should not use HV's exclusively on a recruit at close range.

* Some are saying that use of anything other than HV for a close recruit is just dumb.  Learn the ratio.

* And others aren't really sure if they can trust what they believe to be the HV:CV ratio entirely in all cases. 

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/14/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):
again, getting back to the original question of would there ever be a situation in which one should not use HV's exclusively on a recruit at close range.

* Some are saying that use of anything other than HV for a close recruit is just dumb.  Learn the ratio.

* And others aren't really sure if they can trust what they believe to be the HV:CV ratio entirely in all cases. 

IG - I don't think there is a ratio issue per say other than one has to learn is at what mile point one should flip from all HV to all CV & honestly, I don't think that is very difficult to figure.  That of course assumes that the ratio is somewhere in the ballpark of the ratio of CV/CH thru the relevant miles of the game - LOL - if the ratio was something like 10 to 1, well then we all should be using CV's all of the time, except when we couldn't afford them?

One way I could see a balanced approach being the right way, would be if there is diminishing returns in visits,  just like practice time minutes, but I don't recall any hints to that effect over the years - but it would be a good way to do it.

This is much more an issue now than ever, but only in d1, as when 60-100k gets spent on one player, spending it 10-15% more efficiently matters a great deal, in d3, most battles are more like 2 hvs to 1 hv rather than 200 to 199, hence 10% doesn't matter very much in d3 like high end d1

Posted by jeffdrayer on 7/14/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Huh? Nope.

Figure out what you think the ratio is. Then maximize your value. End. Of. Story.

you're looking at this in overly simplistic terms.

you're trying to maximize your chance of victory, not maximize value. if you knew anything about probability distributions and knew how to apply them conceptually, you'd understand.

EDIT: EXAMPLE if you THINK canadian dollars are worth more than american dollars (but arent sure of it) and your opponent spends 100 american, and you want to outspend him...say you can afford 102 american dollars or 102 canadian dollars, you KNOW the american dollars will win, but you're only pretty sure the canadian dollars will win.

Posted by oldresorter on 7/14/2011 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/14/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):
again, getting back to the original question of would there ever be a situation in which one should not use HV's exclusively on a recruit at close range.

* Some are saying that use of anything other than HV for a close recruit is just dumb.  Learn the ratio.

* And others aren't really sure if they can trust what they believe to be the HV:CV ratio entirely in all cases. 

IG - I don't think there is a ratio issue per say other than one has to learn is at what mile point one should flip from all HV to all CV & honestly, I don't think that is very difficult to figure.  That of course assumes that the ratio is somewhere in the ballpark of the ratio of CV/CH thru the relevant miles of the game - LOL - if the ratio was something like 10 to 1, well then we all should be using CV's all of the time, except when we couldn't afford them?

One way I could see a balanced approach being the right way, would be if there is diminishing returns in visits,  just like practice time minutes, but I don't recall any hints to that effect over the years - but it would be a good way to do it.

This is much more an issue now than ever, but only in d1, as when 60-100k gets spent on one player, spending it 10-15% more efficiently matters a great deal, in d3, most battles are more like 2 hvs to 1 hv rather than 200 to 199, hence 10% doesn't matter very much in d3 like high end d1

if you're near the 'break' point of the ratio, or believe you are, doing a HV/CV mix can hedge your bets a bit. if you accept that you don't know the exact ratio, you could justify a balanced approach as the 'right' way.

for example, if HV's ARE the most effective but you don't know it, doing a mix will get you 95% of the value, but only CV's 90%. same vice-versa if CV's are actually the most valuable. so by diversifying you guarantee 95% or so of the max value.

Maximizing your value does maximize your chance of victory.

Then again, I'm just some dummy who don't know nuthin' 'bout no distributions 'n whatnot.

EDIT: you got the rest of your posts in before I did.  I'll only add that yes, hedging your bets will get you better outcomes some of the time if you don't know what the ratio is.  But: whenever you hedge your bets, you're giving up some money to an opponent who knows the ratio better.  Therefore, it is in everyone's best interest to try to figure out the ratio.  In the end, it's the only strategy.  Every bet you hedge is money lost.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 7/14/2011 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Maximizing your value does maximize your chance of victory.

Then again, I'm just some dummy who don't know nuthin' 'bout no distributions 'n whatnot.

EDIT: you got the rest of your posts in before I did.  I'll only add that yes, hedging your bets will get you better outcomes some of the time if you don't know what the ratio is.  All I'm saying is that, whenever you hedge your bets, you're giving up some money to an opponent who knows the ratio better.  Therefore, it is in everyone's best interest to try to figure out the ratio.  Every bet you hedge is money lost.

read my example that i just edited in.

you clearly are just some dummy . i'm glad you agree with the hedging part at least.

but figuring out the ratio, with all the variables in place, is next to impossible. if you dont ACTUALLY know what your value is, then maximizing expected value and maximizing the chances that value is above X ARE different.

Is there any kind of consensus on this one, yet?

no but im pretty sure i posted somewhere in this thread, and if its resurrected, id just like to restate again, that i withdraw my old opinions on the cv/hv ratio. i was mistaken.

So, I decided to graph the ratios CV/HV; HV/ST; & CV/ST at one point.  The blue line is the one you probably care about.   At 360, the ratio goes from 2.333 to 1.691.  If the recruiting effort value of a CV is any number between 1.7 - 2.3, then you always use HV up until 360 and always use CV thereafter.  The only reason to choose otherwise is if your budget only allows for either 2 HV or 1 CV and you put the ratio > 2.  Then you choose 1 CV. 


Note that, at 4,000 miles and up, if both HV & CV were available, then it would be difficult to know which to choose.    There's probably a way to test between HI & ME or PR & HI.

Very nice.  Thank you.