VHF2L, COLL, & EPLL

[EnterPseudonym]

I've looked at this combination for last slot F2L and LL, but there isn't much information on it. So I have a couple questions:

1. (if you have used this method) What where your times using it?
2. Would you recommend it?

 

[Kirjava]

Honestly, I think OLL/PLL is a better method.

 

[4Chan]

I can sub-20.

I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

I can sub-20.

I wouldn't recommend it.

Why exactly would you not recommend it? I'm guessing it has to do with VHF2L

 

[4Chan]

Lol, no wai.
Sub-10 F2L with VHF2L is difficult, but possible.

I think the number of looks, and the awkwardness of it, makes OLL and PLL better.

I like the factor of luck though.
That method has 1/27 OLL skip, a MUCH higher chance for LL skip, and 1/12 PLL skip.
And then the more algs you know, the higher the percentage gets.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

Lol, no wai.
Sub-10 F2L with VHF2L isn't that hard.
(But it is a bit hard.)

I think the number of looks, and the awkwardness of it, makes OLL and PLL better.

I like the factor of luck though.
That method has 1/27 OLL skip, a MUCH higher chance for LL skip, and 1/12 PLL skip.
And then the more algs you know, the higher the percentage gets.

One thing i don't like about PLL is the G-Perms.

The OLL/PLL skips and speed of COLL and EPLL where what made me consider this method.
And what do you mean by "And then the more algs you know, the higher the percentage gets."

Edit: lol, I just read your latest "journal" post

 

[4Chan]

I know a few alternate F2L algs which let me orient the last layer when I'm done. I also know a little bit of WV which compliments VHF2L very nicely.
If you know more F2L algs and WV, you can push the 1/27 OLL skip to around 1/25. (Which also affects LL skip percentage.)

If you know how to mirror your COLLs, and you learn lots of alternate COLL cases, you can push the PLL skip ratio to 1/10.
If you keep learning, you can even push it to a PLL skip every time.

More algs = Better percentages.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

Oh ok. Well looks like I might start learning these then.

 

[jazzthief81]

I think Dan Harris' page explains it well:
http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=3x3x3/vh/vh

It's not a good speedcubing method on its own but it's a nice way to focus your practice if you want to learn COLL or full ZBLL.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

14.39, (19.58), 19.55, 15.04, 14.90, 14.37, (8.73), 13.91, 13.34, 14.74, 14.93, 13.87 = 14.90

But I cheated: I used ZBLL on 3 of the 12 solves.

 

[Faz]

lol nice 8 Maarten.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

After seeing Dan's writeup about VHF2L, it makes me want to not learn OLL, so I can just do the 40 COLL algorithms. As it is I only know a handfull of OLL's outside the 2LOLL cases (less than 10 others). I can just do VHF2L (already know probably half of those) and COLL to make my life easier, heh.

 

[joey]

Easier but no faster.

I don't actually think it's easier anyway.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

After seeing Dan's writeup about VHF2L, it makes me want to not learn OLL, so I can just do the 40 COLL algorithms. As it is I only know a handfull of OLL's outside the 2LOLL cases (less than 10 others). I can just do VHF2L (already know probably half of those) and COLL to make my life easier, heh.

yeah, and he said it wouldn't decrease times dramatically. Which means it doesn't raise times, and learning COLL can help out your 2x2 as well.

 

[Kirjava]

yeah, and he said it wouldn't decrease times dramatically. Which means it doesn't raise times

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is actually true.

and learning COLL can help out your 2x2 as well.

Sure, but it's no way near as good as CLL, and I imagine many people wouldn't want to learn a completely new C*LL set for 2x2x2. Hurtful in the long run.


Also, I found OLL easier to learn than COLL tbqh.

 

[Weston]

yeah, and he said it wouldn't decrease times dramatically. Which means it doesn't raise times

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is actually true.

and learning COLL can help out your 2x2 as well.

Sure, but it's no way near as good as CLL, and I imagine many people wouldn't want to learn a completely new C*LL set for 2x2x2. Hurtful in the long run.


Also, I found OLL easier to learn than COLL tbqh.

For me, I learned CLL first, and I think that helped a lot in learning COLL.
I don't do VHF2L when I use COLL most of the time. I just use COLL when the edges are already oriented, so its quite fast for me.

 

[Kirjava]

I think using COLL when you get an EO skip is completely different than forcing EO because you rely on COLL for LL.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

yeah, and he said it wouldn't decrease times dramatically. Which means it doesn't raise times

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is actually true.

and learning COLL can help out your 2x2 as well.

Sure, but it's no way near as good as CLL, and I imagine many people wouldn't want to learn a completely new C*LL set for 2x2x2. Hurtful in the long run.


Also, I found OLL easier to learn than COLL tbqh.

Once you become adept to solving this way it Should leave you at the same times as your previous.

as for COLL and 2x2. :fp i forgot it was CLL not COLL

 

[Kirjava]

Once you become adept to solving this way it Should leave you at the same times as your previous.

So you could learn OLL and get faster, or learn VHF2L/COLL and either stay the same speed or get slower while inheriting harder recog, more looks and worse algs.

Right >_>

 

[EnterPseudonym]

Once you become adept to solving this way it Should leave you at the same times as your previous.

So you could learn OLL and get faster, or learn VHF2L/COLL and either stay the same speed or get slower while inheriting harder recog, more looks and worse algs.

Right >_>

Key word "adept". Although i understand the point you're getting at.

also lol random caps?