# When do you switch to CV's? (POLL) Topic

At what distance in miles. I chose after 360 miles just because the cost of an HV after that point grows significantly. I've seen a lot of great coaches (rednu, and maybe wronoj, and many more) have a differing opinion on the subject though, so I'd like to see a few of the legends come out of the woodwork (I'm looking at you girt!) to answer this one. Please answer the poll then post an explanation.

(Last vote received: 10/5/2013 5:29 PM)
7/19/2013 11:20 AM
Glad to see you brought this to a poll and flattered to even think I deserve mention in the "great coaches" line. Here's my explanation...

Since you're concerned with recruiting effort, the moment of switching from HV's to CV's should come at the point where the same amount of recruiting effort using CVs becomes cheaper than using HVs. So, for example, if you feel 1 CV = 2.5 HV's, then you'd look at the cost of one CV vs. the cost of sending 2.5 HV's and whichever is cheaper is the one you should go with (at 2.5, the tipping point comes down around 160 miles, I believe). If you think a CV is worth a different number of HV's, then simply sub in the number of your personal belief and calculate accordingly.
7/19/2013 11:46 AM
Posted by rednu on 7/19/2013 11:46:00 AM (view original):
Glad to see you brought this to a poll and flattered to even think I deserve mention in the "great coaches" line. Here's my explanation...

Since you're concerned with recruiting effort, the moment of switching from HV's to CV's should come at the point where the same amount of recruiting effort using CVs becomes cheaper than using HVs. So, for example, if you feel 1 CV = 2.5 HV's, then you'd look at the cost of one CV vs. the cost of sending 2.5 HV's and whichever is cheaper is the one you should go with (at 2.5, the tipping point comes down around 160 miles, I believe). If you think a CV is worth a different number of HV's, then simply sub in the number of your personal belief and calculate accordingly.
+1, it depends what amount of CV equals HV, and I think it's more of in the range that Rednu suggested.
7/19/2013 5:46 PM
so what this poll really shows is the creator (who can see who voted what) how much the respondents value CV vs HV, which might be good to know in future battles...
7/19/2013 9:07 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
so what this poll really shows is the creator (who can see who voted what) how much the respondents value CV vs HV, which might be good to know in future battles...
While you're right, the poll answers can be viewed by the original poster and possibly could assist in recruiting, I'm quite sure this is a legitimate attempt at a discussion that grew out of a comment he made and a follow-up question I asked in another thread. I'm 99.9 percent certain the motivation at posting it here was to get more discussion on this specific issue and to avoid hijacking the other thread and taking it in a different direction.
7/19/2013 10:13 PM
There's no incentive at all to tell the truth. I didn't. I mean I did.
7/19/2013 10:21 PM
Posted by rednu on 7/19/2013 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
so what this poll really shows is the creator (who can see who voted what) how much the respondents value CV vs HV, which might be good to know in future battles...
While you're right, the poll answers can be viewed by the original poster and possibly could assist in recruiting, I'm quite sure this is a legitimate attempt at a discussion that grew out of a comment he made and a follow-up question I asked in another thread. I'm 99.9 percent certain the motivation at posting it here was to get more discussion on this specific issue and to avoid hijacking the other thread and taking it in a different direction.
I don't doubt that or question anything, I'm just not going to answer since I'd rather keep my value estimates to myself... mostly I mentioned it because I don't know if it is common knowledge that the poster can see who voted for what option.
7/19/2013 11:12 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rednu on 7/19/2013 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
so what this poll really shows is the creator (who can see who voted what) how much the respondents value CV vs HV, which might be good to know in future battles...
While you're right, the poll answers can be viewed by the original poster and possibly could assist in recruiting, I'm quite sure this is a legitimate attempt at a discussion that grew out of a comment he made and a follow-up question I asked in another thread. I'm 99.9 percent certain the motivation at posting it here was to get more discussion on this specific issue and to avoid hijacking the other thread and taking it in a different direction.
I don't doubt that or question anything, I'm just not going to answer since I'd rather keep my value estimates to myself... mostly I mentioned it because I don't know if it is common knowledge that the poster can see who voted for what option.
Rednu is correct, although I can see where you're coming from dacj, I was just curious what people thought and I wanted to see if there was a general consensus (it appears to be over 360 miles, my initial thought), and also just to see if I could learn something about the game and a critical component of it; when to CV and when to HV.
7/20/2013 2:54 AM
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rednu on 7/19/2013 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
so what this poll really shows is the creator (who can see who voted what) how much the respondents value CV vs HV, which might be good to know in future battles...
While you're right, the poll answers can be viewed by the original poster and possibly could assist in recruiting, I'm quite sure this is a legitimate attempt at a discussion that grew out of a comment he made and a follow-up question I asked in another thread. I'm 99.9 percent certain the motivation at posting it here was to get more discussion on this specific issue and to avoid hijacking the other thread and taking it in a different direction.
I don't doubt that or question anything, I'm just not going to answer since I'd rather keep my value estimates to myself... mostly I mentioned it because I don't know if it is common knowledge that the poster can see who voted for what option.
Or you could answer the wrong answer and really throw them for a loop ;)
7/20/2013 4:09 AM
Posted by llamanunts on 7/19/2013 10:21:00 PM (view original):
There's no incentive at all to tell the truth. I didn't. I mean I did.
The truth should be it's own incentive.
7/20/2013 11:01 AM
You got me.  I'm not even gonna pump-fake anymore, and no-look passes are right out.
7/20/2013 11:45 AM
Well, as long as you are intentionally pump-faking and intentionally throwing no-look passes then you are truthfully doing both of those things, and consequently they would have been done for their own incentives.
7/20/2013 12:43 PM
So I was intentionally pump-faking or not when I did or did not answer the poll question truthfully.
7/20/2013 2:06 PM
i used to post the opinion that you absolutely should switch at 360. i am pretty confident at one point in time, that was correct. but over the last couple years, maybe even since sebles "new engine" release when he rewrote it, things seemed to have changed. i meant to make a thread to publicly rescind a couple things ive stood behind over time, when i retired, and i probably still will, just havent gotten to it - but pretty much, this was the most important item i wanted to rescind my statements on. not to replace them with any set belief - but i hate to lead people astray. so sorry, no comment on the answer.

i often wondered about the part of home visits where you would get the player to just not show - losing the money, not getting the credit. i havent seen this in years. has anyone else. i wondered if maybe the value of HV:CVs changed if and when that was removed or made less frequent. i seem to think it was frequent enough to be a concern, but now it feels like if it even exists, its nearly impossible to get to happen.

ive asked seble and he swears nothing has changed but i dont know, i really struggle to believe i figured this wrong 4ish years ago, i mean i was at least 99% confident, numbers don't lie, and i studied things in HD with a ridiculous level of intensity back then. so i feel like something had to change. or else the figures at d1 are NOT the same as d2/d3 where most of my research took place - old admin assured me the figures were the same across divisions, but you never know.

while im at it, the other things id like to rescind is the belief that WOTS falls into 2 categories - not that im saying thats wrong. girt always supports it and i tested the 3/3/3 3 tier theory (3 messages at 3 levels), and proved to myself it was wrong. but what about 3/2/4? or 3/1/5? clearly the top 3 are the same, but there are those 1 or 2 messages i only seem to get when i think i should be tight but am not, and i dont feel i see them when i do, for example, 110 dollar specials. so i really wonder if a 3/4/2 or 3/1/5 structure is in place - seems just as likely as 3/6 on principle. maybe girt can comment if hes only disproven the intuitive 3/3/3 model or also those other 3/4/2 or 3/1/5 models.

the final thing id like to rescind is the belief there is more at work with tempo than # of possessions and fatigue. old admin made such unclear and misleading statements, we effectively proved that wrong at one point, which gave me some confidence my overall theory was right - one of competing factors evening things out, explaining old admins claims that everything stayed the same with uptempo. for example, i could see fg% clearly was affected, beyond shadow of a doubt. old admin claimed it wasnt affected. he even mentioned running sims across a test world to make sure. i assumed this had to mean on average, fg% evened out, but there had to be competing factors that made it the case that it wasnt always even in individual circumstances. i thought maybe, fg% was better because of more fastbreak opportunities from uptempo, but worse in the halfcourt. what i saw was, with great defense, playing uptempo hurt my opponents on offense - and we had super fast teams back in those days.

anyway ive been convinced (largely by rgerkin) that maybe i was wrong on that - that rather, the lower fatigue of the other team just makes them worse in all cases, for many categories. i never saw fg% get better, i just was trying to incorporate statements by admin into what i saw to produce a model that was consistent with both. i think the end result is the same - uptempo is still absolutely terrible to run into better teams (assuming no ridiculous depth situation) - why increase the # of simulations and hurt yourself in each, when you are already worse off? and i still believe uptempo is total crap in general, except possibly if you are playing pressing teams, where the # of possessions going up increases # of fouls, and with fouls being marginally more detrimental the more you get. zone teams probably suffer the least from uptempo so a great zone team might even want to play it against other man/zone teams, with a substantial talent gap. but by and large, uptempo just isnt the way to go in competitive games.

7/20/2013 3:46 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 7/19/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
so what this poll really shows is the creator (who can see who voted what) how much the respondents value CV vs HV, which might be good to know in future battles...
i feel like you have a conspiracy theory about why a poster posted EVERY poll thats ever been posted on these forums =)
7/20/2013 3:47 PM
12 Next ▸
When do you switch to CV's? (POLL) Topic