Best Possible Time with 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL?

[uberCuber]

Since the best time with 1-look OLL and 1-look PLL is somewhere between 4 and 5 seconds, the best possible time with 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL should be somewhere between 6 and 7, I guess.

Yep, you're right. 6.73 is the fastest that can be done with 4LLL, any faster is impossible.

 

[pipkiksass]

Not true, on average it's whatever you're capable of with 2LLL +1 because you can have anything between 0 and 4 last layer algs to perform. I could be more precise by looking at the probability of each OLL and PLL, but pretty sure it will be around a second on average.

For a single solve, the chance of OLL skip or PLL skip is still the same. There's nothing stopping someone with all 2-look algs sub-1 getting a solve that requires only 1 or 2 algs to complete, so no reason why sub 6 or even sub 5 shouldn't be possible.

Not probable, but that's not what the OP is asking!! ;-)

 

[ben1996123]

sub 10

 

[vgohit]

i did 4 look till i came to up to 40 secs
i have starte learning full pll and my average is 34-ish

thnks 4 your reply ultimatecuber. my goal was to try getting sub 30 with 4 look.bt its too tough with my current skills.

sub 10

thanks 4 your reply.sub 30 is itself a dream for me.sub 10 is way tooo ahead 4 me

 

[PeelingStickers]

Plenty of practice and you should break that sub-30 barrier pretty soon

 

[Yuxuibbs]

It depends completely on your F2L.

I get sub 14 ao100 with 3LLL (only 16 OLLs left to learn)

Just did an ao12 with 4LLL with no warm ups: (I deleted the times that I accidentally 1 looked OLL/PLL and replaced with another scramble)

14.48, (8.73), (16.49), 13.58, 15.23, 13.39, 13.75, 14.45, 14.64, 9.94, 13.79, 13.00
number of times: 12/12
best time: 8.73
worst time: 16.49
current avg5: 13.75 (σ = 0.73)
best avg5: 13.75 (σ = 0.73)
current avg12: 13.63 (σ = 1.46)
best avg12: 13.63 (σ = 1.46)
session avg: 13.63 (σ = 1.46)
session mean: 13.46

WTF PLL skip with a chameleon OLL for the 8.73
so many G perms.... I think I had 8 G perms in this average and 2 PLL skips


So I guess you can sub 10 with only 4LLL....

 

[aceofspades98]

I don't see why people try to discourage people from learning full OLL and or PLL. If learning an algorithm a day is hindering your F2L, then you probably aren't practicing enough anyway.

 

[jayefbe]

I don't see why people try to discourage people from learning full OLL and or PLL. If learning an algorithm a day is hindering your F2L, then you probably aren't practicing enough anyway.

Most people people like to learn them at a faster rate than one alg a day. It's especially bad for OLL, because you get a line and go, "can I 1-look this case?", then have to determine if it's one you know, and find your average time is increasing despite learning a few more algs. If you're going to learn full OLL, you may as well learn a few at a time. If all you can manage is an alg a day, then you should be focusing on other aspects of your solve anyway. I personally think learning full PLL early is a good idea, but OLL provides so little improvement to your time, and requires so many algs, spending the same amount of time on F2L and cross will yield much better results, especially if you're a beginner.

 

[pipkiksass]

I don't see why people try to discourage people from learning full OLL and or PLL. If learning an algorithm a day is hindering your F2L, then you probably aren't practicing enough anyway.

I don't think anyone's trying to discourage anyone else from learning full OLL/PLL. The OP said they are going to be learning algs anyway, but just asked how fast you can be with 4LLL.

Yeah you could average sub 8 with 4LLL, but why the hell would you want to do that, when 2LLL (with the same finger speed) would be sub 7 or sub 6?

Personally, I found this an interesting hypothetical question. I'm not overly bothered about learning 1-look OLL, but I pick up a new alg every now and then. I have about 15 cases left to learn, and will probably do so over the next few months. Knowing that it will improve my times by perhaps a second or two every 50 solves is not a massive incentive.

I learnt full PLL from the start, fwiw.

 

[vgohit]

Learn full pll while practicing Cross + F2l

Thanks Lagom.I'll start full pll and start focusing f2l.my current solves of f2l are quick (for my skill ) only if most of the pairs are in the upper layer.
If their in the bottom layer i really struggle. Any suggestions please regarding this ??

 

[jayefbe]

Thanks Lagom.I'll start full pll and start focusing f2l.my current solves of f2l are quick (for my skill ) only if most of the pairs are in the upper layer.
If their in the bottom layer i really struggle. Any suggestions please regarding this ??

Learn ways to deal with those cases. Some of the less intuitive cases it can be very helpful to learn algorithms for them. Don't just memorize them like you would for LL algs, but learn how they work, so you can apply them from different angles too.

 

[vgohit]

Learn ways to deal with those cases. Some of the less intuitive cases it can be very helpful to learn algorithms for them. Don't just memorize them like you would for LL algs, but learn how they work, so you can apply them from different angles too.

Thanks jayefbe. i'll c algorithms for those tough cases. so your saying its best to have a mixed bag of intuitive + algs for f2l ???
Can you please tell me your approach for the f2l. is it full intuitive ???

 

[jayefbe]

Thanks jayefbe. i'll c algorithms for those tough cases. so your saying its best to have a mixed bag of intuitive + algs for f2l ???
Can you please tell me your approach for the f2l. is it full intuitive ???

I'd call my F2L all intuitive. But I sat down, and went through every single F2L case from all angles. Those cases that I didn't have a good solution (awkward, too many moves, excessive cube rotations) I found algorithms for online. Now, I don't implement them like typical algorithms where I just mindlessly do the moves. I learned how these algorithms work, how the corner-edge pieces are being paired and inserted, and then began implementing those techniques in my solves. This way my F2L is very fluid and very flexible. This means that I can take advantage of open slots, I can use these techniques from different angles without having to memorize a new algorithm, and I can adjust my solve based on what else I may see on the cube, and my hand positions.

 

[vgohit]

Really nice info.thanks a lot.

 

[stoic]

my current solves of f2l are quick (for my skill ) only if most of the pairs are in the upper layer.
If their in the bottom layer i really struggle. Any suggestions please regarding this ??

Jeff2L is your friend