Full OLL time gain

[Rudinie]

I've read quite often in these forums that learning full OLL will speed up your averages with as little as 1.5 to 2 seconds and i have to say: i really doubt that this is true.
When for example you stumble upon a case (nr3 with the only correct corner on the left back) where 2Look OLL would have you do: F(RUR'U')F' f(RUR'U')f' and then OLL 23 (headlights) i'm looking at a OLL of about 6.5 seconds. (i know, my fps is not very high)
If however i would do U2 f(RUR'U')f' U' F(RUR'U')F' the OLL would be done in 3 to 3.5 seconds.
That's a big difference.
So when people here say you only need full OLL when you are close to sub 15 averages is a little weird imho. Sure when you are close to sub 15, your fps will probably be high. So the difference in 2LookOLL and full OLL can be small. But when your average is somewhere in between 25 and 30 (like mine) full OLL might have a much greater impact on my averages then the 1.5 to 2 seconds i thought it would.
I'm currently trying to learn fullOLL and i have so far learned about 20 of them.

 

[Forte]

For that OLL, if you do your EO from a different angle, you can get a Sune
Anyway, that's for that OLL, but for many OLLs, EO is pretty fast and needs almost no lookahead to do, so it doesn't affect times that much.

 

[Faz]

It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.

To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL

9.63, 8.81, 9.34, 8.43, 8.83, 8.47, 10.77, 8.43, 8.72, 7.66, 11.71, 8.19

8.96 avg. 4/12 solves, the edges were already oriented. 2/12 were corner skips after orienting edges.

 

[onionhoney]

It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.

To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL

9.63, 8.81, 9.34, 8.43, 8.83, 8.47, 10.77, 8.43, 8.72, 7.66, 11.71, 8.19

8.96 avg. 4/12 solves, the corners were already oriented. 2/12 were corner skips after orienting edges.

I think it should be 'the edges were already oriented'? :rolleyes:

 

[Tim Major]

It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.

To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL

9.63, 8.81, 9.34, 8.43, 8.83, 8.47, 10.77, 8.43, 8.72, 7.66, 11.71, 8.19

8.96 avg. 4/12 solves, the corners were already oriented. 2/12 were corner skips after orienting edges.

Sub 9 a12 with 2-look OLL? That's insane

 

[koreancuber]

isn't it Full OLL time loss?

OT: just practice PLL recognition and your F2L and cross. Then when you get sub-20.. start learning full OLL

 

[Tim Major]

Ok, so here is my view. Even though 1LOLL is only slightly faster, you'll want to learn it in the long run. If you already know 1LPLL, you might as well start learning, to get them out of the way

 

[Rudinie]

To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL

Ok, that's like more then a second slower then YOUR average with 1lookOLL. Given the fact that i need about 3 times as much time in total as you do, for me that would mean 3 seconds slower, right?

My whole point here is that ultragurus like yourself will only notice a slight drop in time when they do 2look oll instead of the 1lookoll they use normally, but for us, normal people (;-)) the difference will be bigger (in absolute terms, not relatively speaking).

 

[Faz]

Say wat I average about 9 on the dot normally. I'm sure if I did full OLL the average would have been about 8.5ish.

 

[gavnasty]

The reason people say you don't need to learn full OLL unless you're around 15-20 seconds is because you don't need full OLL to be that fast. Go ahead and learn it, but you don't need to know OLLs to get sub-20 averages.

 

[Rudinie]

Say wat I average about 9 on the dot normally. I'm sure if I did full OLL the average would have been about 8.5ish.

What? You're telling me you don't use fullOLL normally? (English is not my first or even my second language so i might have misunderstood)

 

[Rudinie]

The reason people say you don't need to learn full OLL unless you're around 15-20 seconds is because you don't need full OLL to be that fast. Go ahead and learn it, but you don't need to know OLLs to get sub-20 averages.

I'm sure you don't NEED it, but why is started this thread is because i have the feeling that it might help more than 1.5 to 2 seconds. Maybe this is just my wishfull thinking, because i'm having a hard time believing that i can get anywhere close to sub-20 average with my current toolset.

One doesn't NEED good tools but it makes the job hell of a lot easier.

 

[Forte]

The reason people say you don't need to learn full OLL unless you're around 15-20 seconds is because you don't need full OLL to be that fast. Go ahead and learn it, but you don't need to know OLLs to get sub-20 averages.

I'm sure you don't NEED it, but why is started this thread is because i have the feeling that it might help more than 1.5 to 2 seconds. Maybe this is just my wishfull thinking, because i'm having a hard time believing that i can get anywhere close to sub-20 average with my current toolset.

One doesn't NEED good tools but it makes the job hell of a lot easier.

with a 25-30 average, full OLL won't really make the job a hell of a lot easier >_>

also feliks was saying that if he had done those solves using full OLL (like he normally does), then the average would have been around 8.5

 

[ariasamie]

It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.

To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL

9.63, 8.81, 9.34, 8.43, 8.83, 8.47, 10.77, 8.43, 8.72, 7.66, 11.71, 8.19

8.96 avg. 4/12 solves, the corners were already oriented. 2/12 were corner skips after orienting edges.

Sub 9 a12 with 2-look OLL? That's insane

that's something I know I will never achieve even with 1LLL!

 

[radmin]

My issue with two look oll is that sometimes its actually three. So I learned all the dot olls then stopped.

Right now I average 32. I've realized that of I start the timer at f2l I get low 20s so I'm working on the cross to get to sub 30. I guess I'm only planning the first 2 then looking around for the other two cross edges.

 

[Johan444]

I did not stand the inconsistency that comes with 2-look-and-sometimes-1-look, that's the reason I learned them. It also makes the 3x3 way more fun, or less boring to solve.

 

[Andrew Ricci]

The problem I have with 2 look is this:
2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
1Look- 6 to 14 moves

 

[cyoubx]

The problem I have with 2 look is this:
2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
1Look- 6 to 14 moves

After awhile, you begin to recognize all the OLL cases, so even if you use two look, you'll know which of the 7 algorithms to use after the edge orientation.

 

[Andrew Ricci]

The problem I have with 2 look is this:
2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
1Look- 6 to 14 moves

After awhile, you begin to recognize all the OLL cases, so even if you use two look, you'll know which of the 7 algorithms to use after the edge orientation.

I have, but I still find myself pausing a bit between looks. Either way, I've already started learning full OLL.

 

[Lucas Garron]

The problem I have with 2 look is this:
2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
1Look- 6 to 14 moves

Ahem.