Just realized how much OLL affects my times

[jeff081692]

This is my average of 5
(22.84), 32.33, 23.76, 32.34, (32.84)

The 22 and 23 i knew the OLL and the 32s I had to do 2 algs. I would have never guessed OLL made that big of a difference in my times. I guess its the recognition but now I know what I should be working on.

 

[hdskull]

it shouldn't make THAT big of a difference, 1 extra alg = 9-10 secs ?? FRUR'U'F' and FURU'R'F' doesn't take more than 2 secs and let say recognition is 1 sec or even 2, it still only takes 4 extra seconds...

i still use 2 look OLL, i know like 30 OLLs i avg sub 24 always.

 

[Lotsofsloths]

I can always get my OLL in under 5 seconds.
I always use FRUR'U'F' and FURU'R'F'.

 

[jeff081692]

I guess it might not be the OLL then. Here are my times of 2 solves first one I knew the OLL second one I didn't.

Cross-3.94
F2L-13.02
OLL-3.86
PLL-4.66
25.48

Cross-4.55
F2L-13.92
OLL-5.84
PLL-5.12
29.43

I have brought my F2L times down from 28 seconds to 13 and im not sure if I should still work on that or something else. I guess I will just keep practicing.

 

[hdskull]

cross can be worked on try to get sub 3 consistently (or sub 3.5 first) and PLL if you do one step PLL try to get sub 4.

 

[Todd]

... 2 LLL is always going to be quicker than 3 or 4 look.

My best time was a reasonably average F2L, Sune and then U' perm. Compared to my average...

 

[Lotsofsloths]

when you say know your OLL, do you mean, all 55 or so?
or 7 and the edges?

 

[jeff081692]

I said that when there was a case I knew. I know about 9 of them.

 

[DarkArcher]

Hmm... I think you need a larger sample size to prove that your hypothesis is true. Yes, 2LLL will produce better average timings based on the principle of fewer moves, ceteris paribus. I think for most, it's only a matter of about 5 seconds at the most.

 

[joey]

Hmm... I think you need a larger sample size to prove that your hypothesis is true. Yes, 2LLL will produce better average timings based on the principle of fewer moves, ceteris paribus. I think for most, it's only a matter of about 5 seconds at the most.

All of the fast Fridrich cubers I know of use full OLL. Thats a big sample.

 

[AlexandertheGreat]

Hmm... I think you need a larger sample size to prove that your hypothesis is true. Yes, 2LLL will produce better average timings based on the principle of fewer moves, ceteris paribus. I think for most, it's only a matter of about 5 seconds at the most.

lol, nice way to break out the Latin/economic concept...

I use full OLL and obviously it's better than a 2 or 3 step OLL, and the difference is probably around 4-5 seconds. That doesn't seem like much, but when you're tryin' to get a sub-20 average, knowing all OLL is definitely nice. For cubers learning Fridrich, however, I would highly recommend learning F2L first, then the basic OLLs and PLLs (7 OLLs w/cross and A and U perms), then the rest of PLL, and finally all of the rest of OLL. Refining OLL in my opinion is really only necessary to get sub-20 fast (though I have heard of some cubers doing this w/o knowing all OLL).

 

[Johannes91]

I use full OLL and obviously it's better than a 2 or 3 step OLL, and the difference is probably around 4-5 seconds.

A fast 2 step OLL isn't more than 1-2 seconds slower.

 

[doubleyou]

this is a neverending discussion.
well, I know full OLL and full PLL and it deffnatly gives my average solves another feeling than before. just the thing that you are 100% sure you know the case you are about to get..

working on F2L is something you just CANT avoid! you'll always improve there

I say OLL and PLL is highly recommended

 

[KConny]

I don't know full OLL. I think I got 10-15 cases left to learn. But those are case that can be reduced to like Sune/Antisune with F R U R' U' F' and f R U R' U' f'. So my 2LOLL's are fast. I think I only would gain 1-2 seconds learning full OLL. Btw, I average sub20, with fastet avg of 18.5.

 

[jeff081692]

OLL is a big difference for me because I can't perform algorithms as fast as they can be achieved. Sure it is not suppose to make that big of a difference but if I can't do the algorithm as fast then it would make a difference. I don't want to blame my store cube for this because they can become very good but I will see when my DIY arrives. Also there is something about knowing the first OLL case I run into that makes my PLL so much better.

 

[DarkArcher]

Hmm... I think you need a larger sample size to prove that your hypothesis is true. Yes, 2LLL will produce better average timings based on the principle of fewer moves, ceteris paribus. I think for most, it's only a matter of about 5 seconds at the most.

All of the fast Fridrich cubers I know of use full OLL. Thats a big sample.

Yes indeed, but I was referring specifically to jeff's case. The fast cubers have great F2L timings to start with, so it's unfair to use them for comparison when dealing solely with the difference between 3LLL and 2LLL. I'm totally for full OLL though cause it does in fact speed up averages no matter how minimal the difference may be.

 

[chue.hsien]

learning full OLL is good for wow-ing beginners cubers =D they would go like: wow! what did you do? =D