Comparison of PB single and averages

[Cride5]

I've noticed quite a few cubers posting the session standard deviation, which I think probably makes the best measure of consistency. Because deviation is relative to your average it's probably better to take the percentage standard deviation than absolute, so for example:

My last session:
Std = 4.51619 = (4.51619 / 30.13775) * 100 = 15.0%

@ Kxg
(first set)
Std = 7.11879
Std% = (7.11879 / 37.206) * 100 = 19.1%
(second set)
Std = 8.83198
Std% = (8.83198 / 42.354) * 100 = 20.8%

@ Logan
Std = 10.64875
Std% = (10.64875 / 39.568) * 100 = 26.9%

So according to percentage standard deviation Logan is indeed the least consistent

For comparrison with world class cubers (best official avgs):
Tomasz Zolnowski: 6.5%
Yumu Tabuchi: 6.8%
Erik Akkersdijk: 11.5%
Harris Chan: 2.1%
Yu Nakajima:10.1%

... is Harris Chan always this consistent?

A larger data set makes the standard deviation calculation more accurate so I've not omitted the best and worst times from the averages of 5. Averages of 100 would obviously give a much more accurate figure!

 

[Meisen]

Pb's in signature

 

[Kxg]

I've noticed quite a few cubers posting the session standard deviation, which I think probably makes the best measure of consistency. Because deviation is relative to your average it's probably better to take the percentage standard deviation than absolute, so for example:

My last session:
Std = 4.51619 = (4.51619 / 30.13775) * 100 = 15.0%

@ Kxg
(first set)
Std = 7.11879
Std% = (7.11879 / 37.206) * 100 = 19.1%
(second set)
Std = 8.83198
Std% = (8.83198 / 42.354) * 100 = 20.8%

@ Logan
Std = 10.64875
Std% = (10.64875 / 39.568) * 100 = 26.9%

So according to percentage standard deviation Logan is indeed the least consistent

For comparrison with world class cubers (best official avgs):
Tomasz Zolnowski: 6.5%
Yumu Tabuchi: 6.8%
Erik Akkersdijk: 11.5%
Harris Chan: 2.1%
Yu Nakajima:10.1%

... is Harris Chan always this consistent?

A larger data set makes the standard deviation calculation more accurate so I've not omitted the best and worst times from the averages of 5. Averages of 100 would obviously give a much more accurate figure!

Try calculating that without excluding best and worst times.

(yes, I do know that official averages of 5 exclude them, talking about consistency here)

 

[Cride5]

A larger data set makes the standard deviation calculation more accurate so I've not omitted the best and worst times from the averages of 5.

Try calculating that without excluding best and worst times.

I already did

 

[Kxg]

A larger data set makes the standard deviation calculation more accurate so I've not omitted the best and worst times from the averages of 5.

Try calculating that without excluding best and worst times.

I already did

Lol, sorry for that. I've only just noticed that average including and excluding best/worst times only differs by 0.2 for first set and 0.1 for second set.

(if not seeing times, that could sound as very consistent solves, lol)

 

[Lorenzo]

i feel so weird.
19.64 PB Single 3x3x3
36.47 PB Average 3x3x3