But transfer plans can change due to injuries, thus converting a HOHO transfer to a mid-term transfer or vice-versa.MPTree wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 15:09One of the most significant things theory does is put labels on things and give stuff names, so I disagree that it's not helpful to make distinctions like this.Football Hero wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 14:43There's no need to make a distinction though, they are both just 'transfers'. It offers no advantage to try and segregate them like this.MPTree wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 14:07 I think for the sake of the discussion (and based on SpiderM4tt's original intent when coining the term), it's helpful to think of HOHO as a strategy characterised by short term transfers. Defining short term as 1-3 GWs seems reasonable. Any transfers made for a period of (say) 4 GWs or longer could more realistically just be referred to as "a transfer".
HOHO: A strategy defined by making transfers for the short term (1-3GWs) in the hopes of capitalising on promising form or fixtures.
More than happy for that definition to be challenged if we can make it more accurate. I have problems with it, because a) attacking returns are difficult to predict, and b) I don't particularly believe in "form" (but that's a separate discussion). Everything's context and squad dependant of course, and I'm sure I've transferred players in for very brief spells in the past, but generally speaking I don't think it's particularly wise. I especially think HOHOHO (on, off, and on again) is detrimental to FPL success.
What if you planned to get player A in for two weeks, (therefore a HOHO transfer supposedly), then at the time you are meant to transfer them out, another player in your team gets injured, (player B), so you remove player B instead and player A ends up kicking around in your team for five weeks in the end, instead of the two weeks that you planned.
That would mean that in actual fact you had made a 'normal' transfer for them originally instead of a 'HOHO' transfer. Except all this really amounts to is arbitrary labelling at this point and it doesn't really change the substance of what you're actually doing, which is just making transfers that you think are profitable and in your team's best interests each week.
It's far too basic a model (for me anyway) to suggest that every transfer is just like every other. Aside from captaincy and benching decisions, the game is just a series of transfers. We have strategies and plans in mind when we make these transfers, so it makes perfect sense to differentiate between them in ways that help us better understand the game.
In the example you've quoted above, your aggressive transfer strategy has been hampered by the need to replace an injured player. You have, I believe, identified the key weakness in the HOHO strategy - that the squad is likely to suffer elsewhere.
I think there's really only four types of transfer strategy, with finer points to discuss among each, and probable cross-over in places:
Aggressive transfers, or HOHO: Transferring players for the short term.
Mid-term transfers: I'd say most active managers plan for the mid-term (5 GWs or more) and that most transfers fall in this category.
Long-term transfers: We normally refer to these as 'set and forget', barring injury.
TV transfers: Transfers made in an attempt to build team value.
These four types of transfer are made for different reasons, and it can only be helpful to know the benefits and pitfalls of each.
So if there are supposedly some inherent benefits and pitfalls relating to only HOHO tranfers and a different set of inherent benefits and pitfalls relating to mid-term transfers, then how can this be when a HOHO transfer can easily become a mid-term transfer and vice-versa due to other random players in your team getting injured? It doesn't make any sense for this to be the truth because the transfers can become interchangeable so easily. Therefore there is no real distinction that one can make and derive any benefit from making such a distinction.
- was that HOHO wasn't really about swapping around the premium captains every few weeks for the best fixtures (to captain them in). That's basically what's done by everyone all the time (e.g. many of us bringing in Kane for SWA or Aguero for CRY - and maybe this week many will Lukaku CRY) and seems to be the context the term seems to be widely used nowadays.
Lukaku and reverse it the week after. Or just go without Lukaku and captain Lacazette at home to Brighton? 
️ Kun (CPL)
