# 2x2 LBL vs Ortega

#### Zarxrax

##### Member
Everyone says that you when learning 2x2, you should try ortega, because it's so much better than LBL, and blah blah blah. So you know, I believed it of course. I have used ortega for maybe 5 months now, and my average has come down to just under about 9 seconds.

But, I've started learning CLL recently, so the first layer was something of a concern for me. I was curious how much slower I would be if I had to build a full layer instead of just a face. Doing some timing of just the first layer, I found that I'm about 1 second slower with the whole first layer, which seemed about right (about 3 seconds for a face, about 4 for a layer).

And then, just for fun, I thought I would try doing an average with LBL method, just to see how much slower it was than ortega for me. So, having not even really tried LBL method in many months, I proceeded to take an average.
And the results shocked me. I set a new PB single & a new PB average. (4.61, and 7.67, respectively).
After the initial shock, I immediately realized what was going on. LBL method has a very high chance (1/6) of a PLL skip!
In ortega, a PBL skip is impossible (unless you solve the full first layer, in which case you are just doing LBL).

anyway, my point is that I had always just dismissed the normal LBL method because everyone says to go with ortega, but LBL in fact has it's own advantages, and can be very fast! (and I suppose it didn't help me any that I learned about 2x2 methods from Erik's site, where he says you can get 'just about sub 10' with the LBL method and 5.25 with ortega. Ortega is twice as fast, LOLZ)

Now, on to my question. I was just wondering what sorts of averages other people get for both LBL (first layer, oll, pll), and also ortega. It would be interesting to see comparisons from a broad sample.

#### puzzlemaster

##### Member
OMG if you were to build one layer and then use ortegaZB you could get a PLL skip everytime!!!!

#### joey

##### Member
LBL isn't really that good. It's just a bad version of CLL.

Also, I think this probably proves that you haven't really put much work into Ortega.

#### Neo63

##### Member
Well 7 seconds isn't fast for either method. I have gotten sub-3.5 ao5 with Ortega and about 5 with LBL, and Ortega is definitely faster for me. I think you just need to practice Ortega more, sub-6 isn't hard and is definitely achievable in 5 months.

#### Carrot

##### Member
Guimond is the way to go xD

#### Escher

##### Babby
I think all you need to do is compare average move counts. Everything else, like turning speed or PLL prediction or PBL execution etc is determined by the individual and practice.

Anyway, I just did two averages of 12: got something like 4.1 with LBL, and 3.3 with Ortega.

#### Diniz

##### Member
You can get good times with both. I use LBL and i just did a 5.30 avg12.
A pro can do the first layer in about 1 sec, so i think Rowe could avg low 3s with LBL

#### joey

##### Member
2s is probably quite hard for OLL + PLL + AUF.

#### Zarxrax

##### Member
I think all you need to do is compare average move counts. Everything else, like turning speed or PLL prediction or PBL execution etc is determined by the individual and practice.

Anyway, I just did two averages of 12: got something like 4.1 with LBL, and 3.3 with Ortega.
Well then, the difference in move counts would likely be seen mainly in the first layer then. For ortega, 3-4 move face should be average. And for a full layer, I think you need about 6 moves on average. So, let's give ortega a 3 move advantage there. Now, some of the PBLs are shorter on average than PLLs, so let's say ortega gets a 4 move advantage there.
So, we have a total 7 move advantage for ortega at this point.
Now for LBL, both PLLs are 11 moves each, and there is a 1/6 chance of a skip. So 1/6 times, your LBL solve will be reduced by 11 moves. Or just factoring this into everything, this reduces ortega's advantage by 2 moves.

So, all in all, it seems that ortega gets about a 5 move advantage over LBL. (can be higher or lower depending on how lucky you get with LBL skips)

#### scottishcuber

##### Member
I guess it might be good to use lbl so that if you want to get better and learn CLL you dont need to practice making a layer.
My eastsheen is rubbish and pll takes forever so i chose ortega.

#### Escher

##### Babby
Yeah, my estimates come out around the same.
Btw, J perm can be done with R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R2 for 9 moves, not 11, and I average around 4.5-5 moves for FL if I take my time.

EDIT: scrap that J perm (it's 10 with AUF anyway), Dan Cohen just showed me this alg I'd forgotten about: [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]x U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' R2[/FONT]​
[/FONT]

Last edited:

#### Owen

##### Member
I like Ortega. I've been using it for about a month, and my best average of 12 is 6.68. I also use the corners first method for 3x3, so I guess I practice that method more than most people. My PB single for LBL is 3.xx (LL skip) and I average around 12 seconds. My PB single for Ortega is 2.61 (easy first face, OLL skip, and easy PBL), and of course my average has improved very significantly. I usually get around 4 with a OLL skip, and easy first faces are very useful.

#### Neo63

##### Member
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]x U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' R2[/FONT]​
[/FONT]
yeah I use that, it's quite fast.

btw if anyone wants to learn full PBL David Woner has a page full of them, most of them are very nice.

#### Hiero

##### Member
I was thinking about the exact same thing just yesterday after I solved in 5 seconds with LBL. I solve the 3x3 in about 30 seconds, so I was thinking that if I can get that fast, the LBL couldn't be that bad on a 2x2. If you don't have time to learn Ortega before a competition, LBL is a good alternative.

There are a lot of PLL skips, but the bad thing is that if you only get one during a competition then it doesn't help your average at all.

#### Zarxrax

##### Member
I like Ortega. I've been using it for about a month, and my best average of 12 is 6.68. My PB single for LBL is 3.xx (LL skip) and I average around 12 seconds.
Is that a typo? You average almost twice as much with LBL?

I think LBL should be better if you are going for good singles, because 1 out of 6 times it will have lower movecount than ortega (by about 5 moves!)
I've done a few more averages with LBL, and my times generally come out about the same as my ortega times. I suppose I would attribute this to PBL recognition being much harder for me (takes me about 1 second), whereas PLL recognition can be instant.

#### joey

##### Member
I've done a few more averages with LBL, and my times generally come out about the same as my ortega times. I suppose I would attribute this to PBL recognition being much harder for me (takes me about 1 second), whereas PLL recognition can be instant.

ps: PBL recog = PLL recog, because you should know your FL.

#### Mr Cubism

##### Member
To see the whole first layer in advance (inspection time) in Ortega is very easy, almost too easy. The first layer solution in LBL is more of a challenge ( to see in inspection), at least in the beginning.
The danger with practicing LBL is that the step to the CLL-world is not far away.