# Full 1LLL

#### IsThatA4x4

##### Member
Given what happened with ZBLL, I wouldn't be surprised if learning a lot of 1LLL becomes standardised.
I could even see a kind of 2-alg pauseless approach being taken like with square-1 PBL possibly? Maybe?

#### turtwig

##### Member
I could even see a kind of 2-alg pauseless approach being taken like with square-1 PBL possibly?
I've heard that some top cubers can essentially always predict PLL from OLL (mostly subconsciously from what I understand). Jayden McNeill has ROLL and JOLL, which allows you to narrow PLL down to about 1/6 of the cases.

#### Filipe Teixeira

##### Member
I've heard that some top cubers can essentially always predict PLL from OLL (mostly subconsciously from what I understand). Jayden McNeill has ROLL and JOLL, which allows you to narrow PLL down to about 1/6 of the cases.
meanwhile me feeling the king of the black coconut candy because I can predict auf before pll

#### IsThatA4x4

##### Member
I've heard that some top cubers can essentially always predict PLL from OLL (mostly subconsciously from what I understand). Jayden McNeill has ROLL and JOLL, which allows you to narrow PLL down to about 1/6 of the cases.
That's pretty cool, but I think the reason behind 2-alg PBL was to get a lower slice count than CP/EP.
If you could theoretically learn a set of relatively short 1LLL algs, maybe about as large as ZBLL (or less maybe), that when combined could solve every 1LLL case, and end up with a lower movecount, that would be great, but it seems slightly out of the realm of viability to me.

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
That's pretty cool, but I think the reason behind 2-alg PBL was to get a lower slice count than CP/EP.
If you could theoretically learn a set of relatively short 1LLL algs, maybe about as large as ZBLL (or less maybe), that when combined could solve every 1LLL case, and end up with a lower movecount, that would be great, but it seems slightly out of the realm of viability to me.
You can. There are even sites out where you put in the desired algs and it shows what every combo covers. Look up stuff like DUPLEX.

#### Thom S.

##### Member
That's pretty cool, but I think the reason behind 2-alg PBL was to get a lower slice count than CP/EP.
Different thing because predicting both Layers before CP is incredibly easy(I personally recognise CP and EO at the same time so I just need to look at the Edges before PBL) but except for when you use Pure OLL, OLL isn't that easy to learn piece manipulation( F R U R' U' F' is a Y Perm, ******* am I right) as it is CP.

If you could theoretically learn a set of relatively short 1LLL algs, maybe about as large as ZBLL (or less maybe), that when combined could solve every 1LLL case, and end up with a lower movecount, that would be great, but it seems slightly out of the realm of viability to me
OLLCP, you are thinking of OLLCP. Learn how edges are manipulated and look at UF ad UR at every solve to see what EPLL you get. Then pauseless look at the AUF.