How many solves in an average does it take to be Sub-X?

[jtslvrs]

Question, I've been thinking on this for around 4 years now. When someone says: "I'm sub-x on 3x3", what average solve number do you think that requires to be true? In other words, if someone said they were sub-10 with a pb AO12 being 9.99, do you think that's the case? Or what solve count do you think constitutes the phrase?

 

[the dnf master]

Question, I've been thinking on this for around 4 years now. When someone says: "I'm sub-x on 3x3", what average solve number do you think that requires to be true? In other words, if someone said they were sub-10 with a pb AO12 being 9.99, do you think that's the case? Or what solve count do you think constitutes the phrase?

I personally just go by my ao100

 

[jtslvrs]

I personally just go by my ao100

That's what I've been doing.

 

[MJS Cubing]

That's what I've been doing.

It depends. You can have an average of x, or a global average which is basically an infinite average, so if you are sub 20 global, all of your solves are sub 20.

 

[Deleted member 55877]

ao1000 is more accurate

 

[Eamon]

Question, I've been thinking on this for around 4 years now. When someone says: "I'm sub-x on 3x3", what average solve number do you think that requires to be true? In other words, if someone said they were sub-10 with a pb AO12 being 9.99, do you think that's the case? Or what solve count do you think constitutes the phrase?

i will go with my mean of the entire session

 

[Ishan0623]

I think if someone says they are sub 10 on 3x3 that means that for the most part they are under 10 seconds. Like when i say I'm sub 25 on 3x3 usually im around 24 or 23 seconds and that is the same if someone says they are sub 10

 

[the dnf master]

ao1000 is more accurate

No it isn't, because if you're improvement is very fast, then the average will include times when you were a lot slower. So in reality your true average will be faster the what the ao1000 says.

 

[BenChristman1]

It depends on the event. For shorter events, I do ao500 or 1000, but for long events ao50 or 100 is good enough.

 

[Nir1213]

ao1000 is more accurate

it wouldnt be that far from ao100, probably only a few milliseconds off, not worth the time.

edit: ninja'd

 

[DiamondGolem12]

ao500 for 2x2, 3x3 pyra, squan, clock
ao100 for 4x4, 5x5, mega, 3BLD
ao50 for 6x6, 7x7, 4BLD, 5BLD

This is just my option and I don't do all of these events so I'm probably wrong.

 

[BenChristman1]

it wouldnt be that far from ao100, probably only a few milliseconds off, not worth the time.

edit: ninja'd

Yeah 1000 is only 10 times 100, it’s not a big difference at all. :rolleyes:

 

[Nir1213]

Yeah 1000 is only 10 times 100, it’s not a big difference at all. :rolleyes:

if you are very inconsistent you might be a few seconds off though, so you might not be truly sub x in that matter.
but if you are, my statement should be mostly right, at most being a second off.

 

[DNF_Cuber]

it wouldnt be that far from ao100, probably only a few milliseconds off, not worth the time.

edit: ninja'd

My ao100 is 15.75 and my ao1000 is 16.22. I average much closer to 16.22. for big cubes I use ao100 though

 

[DNF_Cuber]

if you are very inconsistent you might be a few seconds off though, so you might not be truly sub x in that matter.
but if you are, my statement should be mostly right, at most being a second off.

A second is a lot when you generally set milestones 1 second apart

 

[xyzzy]

do
a
statistical
test

Don't want to do that? Then stop saying "sub-x". It's a term so devoid of meaning and yet so popular in the community.

 

[Eamon]

ao1000 is more accurate

it is accuate unless you improved quite a bit through 1000 solves

 

[Nir1213]

it is accuate unless you improved quite a bit through 1000 solves

a rolling average would fix that up

and it also wouldnt be accurate if you had one good solve going but it got messed up because your little brother shot in your room and screamed "I CAN SOLVE THE RUBIKS CUBE!!!" and you instead get a 11 second solve instead of a 6 second solve.

 

[Nir1213]

A second is a lot when you generally set milestones 1 second apart

sorry for double posting, but this is true, could happen if you just get a row of unlucky solves, or you just arent doing your best.

My ao100 is 15.75 and my ao1000 is 16.22. I average much closer to 16.22. for big cubes I use ao100 though

it is less than a second, its a couple of millisecond so my statment is still true based on this post. Not for other's though obviously as stated above.

do
a
statistical
test

Don't want to do that? Then stop saying "sub-x". It's a term so devoid of meaning and yet so popular in the community.

so true lol, sub x can mean anything, and being a faster time, like sub 10, could take more solves on average than like sub 30 maybe, since it is LOGIKKK that getting faster = more harder.

 

[jtslvrs]

do
a
statistical
test

Don't want to do that? Then stop saying "sub-x". It's a term so devoid of meaning and yet so popular in the community.

I wasn't meaning for me necessarily. I hear too many people saying stuff like "I'm sub-15" after one lucky solve, and I was wondering what people thought is the norm. I personally use multiple averages.