# [WR]Mats Valk 4.74 3x3 single

#### TheSilverBeluga

##### Member
I don't quite understand your reasoning. What if someone with 12s average gets a 6.84 single (I also don't understand why exactly 6.84)? Do you also think, that he's capable of getting sub4.75? Because for example I have official 6.87 and I am 100% sure that I won't ever get sub5 solve, even at home. It's much more convenient to say, that everyone with let's say low8 average is able to get WR-like time.
The ratio of his previous PB to his next PB was 7.21 / 4.94 = 1.46. Assuming this is an accurate ratio for an extremely lucky solve, someone whose best time is 6.84 could get 4.69 on an extremely lucky scramble. Granted, this assumes a linear correlation with no offset, but the numbers are close enough that I'm comfortable saying the margin of error isn't enormous.
Also, you can never be 100% sure you'll never get sub-5. How long ago did sub-7 seem impossible to you?
If you say that someone with a low 8 average could get a WR time, that's still 60 people, if you define "low 8" to be "8.25 or lower".

#### DGCubes

##### Member
The ratio of his previous PB to his next PB was 7.21 / 4.94 = 1.46. Assuming this is an accurate ratio for an extremely lucky solve, someone whose best time is 6.84 could get 4.69 on an extremely lucky scramble. Granted, this assumes a linear correlation with no offset, but the numbers are close enough that I'm comfortable saying the margin of error isn't enormous.
Also, you can never be 100% sure you'll never get sub-5. How long ago did sub-7 seem impossible to you?
If you say that someone with a low 8 average could get a WR time, that's still 60 people, if you define "low 8" to be "8.25 or lower".
I disagree with your logic. What if I got my theoretical 6.84 on an extremely lucky scramble already? It would have to be significantly luckier for me to get a 4.69. I personally average 13 and have a 6.87 single at home (XX-cross, PLL-skip; extremely lucky). A 4 is practically impossible for me at this point. On the other hand, there may be some 9-second solver whose PB is a 6.xx on a somewhat lucky scramble, and in that case, I agree that a 4.xx is much more possible (although still unlikely). You're basically assuming that the 6.87 PB is not lucky to begin with.

I agree that many people have the potential to get a 4.6x, but I disagree with the fact that you can define it by former PBs (especially official ones, which vary so much based on the amount of official solves one has done). Global averages seem to be the best way to define WR potential in my opinion.

#### gateway cuber

##### Member
You can't be serious... There are at least like 50 people who could do that.
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.

#### AlphaSheep

##### Member
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.
Bill averages mid to high 6s from what he's posted in the accomplishments thread... There are also plenty of people you've left out who have 4.xx PBs at home, and even some people who are really fast officially like Seung Hyuk Nahm.

#### PenguinsDontFly

##### Member
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.
Your reasoning makes no sense. Anyone sub 8 can get a 4. Trying to quantify probabilities is useless. Obviously the faster people have a higher chance of breaking WR single because they will not need as lucky a scramble as someone slightly slower.

#### Xtremecubing

##### Member
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.
From what I recall, Bill averages low 7, he has a 6.68 average of 100, and he also has a 3.86 single.

#### Sajwo

##### Member
feliks 65% chance at WR
that's funny, because the last time Feliks has set a new WR single was in 2011. I would rather say that it's less than 1%

#### turtwig

##### Member
Yeah. I think Feliks has the highest chance out of any cuber, but there are at least 50 other cubers that have a reasonable shot, so his chances are pretty slim.

#### FastCubeMaster

##### Member
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.

#### DGCubes

##### Member
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.
Why include Hyo Min Seo without including every other person with a sub-9 global average? Just because of his lucky comp single? You really can't base it on competition singles at all; it's all about global average. And where do those percentages come from? They seem like random guesses to me.

#### ottozing

##### Platinum Member
Ok, maybe I was being a little too harsh there but, honestly, I don't think very many people can...
here's (in my opinion) the small list of people that could, in order of likelihood.
Feliks, Best in comp (BIC): 5.32 actual PB: 3.72 avg: mid-6
Lucas, BIC: 4.90 actual PB: somewhere in the low 4's avg: mid-7
Mats, BIC: 4.74 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-high 7's
Bill, BIC: 5.72 actual PB: 4.15 Avg: mid-high 7's
Hyo min seo, BIC: 4.94 actual PB: unknown Avg: mid-8's
Drew Brads, BIC: 5.50 actual PB: 3.72 Avg: mid-high 7's
Keaton Ellis, BIC: 5.09 Actual PB: Unknown Avg: mid-8s

so I would equate that to...

feliks 65% chance at WR
Lucas 10% chance at WR
Mats 9% chance at WR
Bill 5% chance at WR
Other 11% chance at WR

But I still do think that the next WR is going to be mid-4 by feliks.
Interesting that you didn't include Seung Hyuk Nahm, Philipp Weyer, or Cornelius Dieckmann. 3 people who have fast comp PB singles that all have global averages to back up the real possibility of them getting WR single. It's almost as if you're a fanboy trying to use math on some of the highest ranked/your favorite cubers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#### 4Chan

Interesting that you didn't include Seung Hyuk Nahm, Philipp Weyer, or Cornelius Dieckmann. 3 people who have fast comp PB singles that all have global averages to back up the real possibility of them getting WR single. It's almost as if you're a fanboy trying to use math on some of the highest ranked/your favorite cubers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jayden McNeill = 3000% chance

#### Kit Clement

Global averages seem to be the best way to define WR potential in my opinion.
I just want to add that I think this cannot be the only thing that is examined when considering WR chances -- variability in times should be too. In his heyday, Alex Lau was among the best in terms of his global average, but I always thought his chances at WR single were low because he was too consistent. Mats seems to achieve a much wider range of times than the typical cuber, likely in part to his knowledge of many last slot cases, and his ability to recognize and execute them quickly.

#### PenguinsDontFly

##### Member
I just want to add that I think this cannot be the only thing that is examined when considering WR chances -- variability in times should be too. In his heyday, Alex Lau was among the best in terms of his global average, but I always thought his chances at WR single were low because he was too consistent. Mats seems to achieve a much wider range of times than the typical cuber, likely in part to his knowledge of many last slot cases, and his ability to recognize and execute them quickly.
Roux is worse for lucky singles than CFOP. CFOP has so many opportunities for skips in OLL, PLL, and F2L slots can end up being 3 movers. In roux, I usually finish first 2 blocks at around 3.7 seconds. A lucky/fast first 2 blocks would be low 3 or sub 3, but then I would still have CMLL and LSE. The most common skip is CMLL. Looking at my splits and assuming the rest of the solve is decent, the solve would be a high 5 or low 6. An LSE skip has sub 4.7 potential, but those are rarer than LL skips.

#### gateway cuber

##### Member

Interesting that you didn't include Seung Hyuk Nahm, Philipp Weyer, or Cornelius Dieckmann. 3 people who have fast comp PB singles that all have global averages to back up the real possibility of them getting WR single. It's almost as if you're a fanboy trying to use math on some of the highest ranked/your favorite cubers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
look guys, You asked who I thought was going to get the next WR, so I said it. And when I meant feliks is the only one, I meant he gets more 4's than anyone else out there and does the best under pressure. I And I'm not saying guys like you (Jay), Phillip Lewicki and the the like couldn't get it, I'm just saying that IN MY OPINION, feliks has a 65% chance at the next WR. (PS If I were fanboying the person I'd be giving the 65% chance to is Kian.)

#### Kit Clement

look guys, You asked who I thought was going to get the next WR, so I said it. And when I meant feliks is the only one, I meant he gets more 4's than anyone else out there and does the best under pressure. I And I'm not saying guys like you (Jay), Phillip Lewicki and the the like couldn't get it, I'm just saying that IN MY OPINION, feliks has a 65% chance at the next WR. (PS If I were fanboying the person I'd be giving the 65% chance to is Kian.)
And what empirical methods did you use to come to the conclusion of 65%?

#### gateway cuber

##### Member
And what empirical methods did you use to come to the conclusion of 65%?
just guesstimation (rough estimation + guessing)

#### efattah

##### Member
Chris Tran would be more qualified to argue this, but I think the key here is which method has the higher statistical chance for a lucky single. According to the Speedsolving wiki:

VLS average movecount = 9.74
OLLCP average movecount = 11
ZBLL average movecount = 12.08

BUT you need to subtract the last pair insertion move count from these; if you assume 4 moves to insert the last pair then the actual move count would be 5.74, 11, 12.08.

VLS PLL skip (forced LL skip) 1 in 72 = 1.38%
OLLCP EPLL skip 1 in 12 = 8.3%
ZBLL no edge control needed = 27/216 = 12.5%

All three methods have the same chance of lucky cross and lucky F2L, so the main difference is lucky LL. A VLS user has the advantage that their lucky LL will be 5.74 moves on average (+AUF) but will only happen 1.38% of the time (=Mats 4.74). An OLLCP user will have much more frequent lucky last layers (8.3% = Lucas' 4.90) but way more moves (11). A 'lucky' ZBLL LL could be interpreted as either a solve with no edge control needed (12.5%) or a short ZBLL algorithm. But ZBLL has the disadvantage of slower recognition. Probably of these VLS has the fastest recognition (experts please confirm), AND the fewest moves, so indeed VLS might give the best chance of a lucky solve but it is heavily open to debate. If true then of all the candidates Mats may be the most likely to break the record again and again. I believe he has posted 3.85 second solves on video before?

Clearly Bindedsa's progress on almost finishing 1LLL has the most promise if recognition can be fast. The hard truth is the future of cubing may be 1LLL, although not everyone's brain is wired to be able to memorize, fetch and maintain such a large set... While 1LLL will likely produce the best averages, VLS might still win for singles. An analogy is for the 2x2; CLL/EG1/EG2 are faster than Ortega but have significantly slower recognition. If doing a 1-look solve it is irrevelant, but if you include recognition time an Ortega solve with PLL skip is much faster than any solve with CLL/EG1/EG2; just as a VLS solve (with faster recognition) with PLL skip would be faster than a 1LLL+recog time.

#### PenguinsDontFly

##### Member
look guys, You asked who I thought was going to get the next WR, so I said it. And when I meant feliks is the only one, I meant he gets more 4's than anyone else out there and does the best under pressure. I And I'm not saying guys like you (Jay), Phillip Lewicki and the the like couldn't get it, I'm just saying that IN MY OPINION, feliks has a 65% chance at the next WR. (PS If I were fanboying the person I'd be giving the 65% chance to is Kian.)
I have a 0% chance of getting wr single considering that my at home pb is 4.73 with keyboard, so probably 4.9 if it were stackmatted.
Chris Tran would be more qualified to argue this, but I think the key here is which method has the higher statistical chance for a lucky single. According to the Speedsolving wiki:

VLS average movecount = 9.74
OLLCP average movecount = 11
ZBLL average movecount = 12.08

BUT you need to subtract the last pair insertion move count from these; if you assume 4 moves to insert the last pair then the actual move count would be 5.74, 11, 12.08.

VLS PLL skip (forced LL skip) 1 in 72 = 1.38%
OLLCP EPLL skip 1 in 12 = 8.3%
ZBLL no edge control needed = 27/216 = 12.5%

All three methods have the same chance of lucky cross and lucky F2L, so the main difference is lucky LL. A VLS user has the advantage that their lucky LL will be 5.74 moves on average (+AUF) but will only happen 1.38% of the time (=Mats 4.74). An OLLCP user will have much more frequent lucky last layers (8.3% = Lucas' 4.90) but way more moves (11). A 'lucky' ZBLL LL could be interpreted as either a solve with no edge control needed (12.5%) or a short ZBLL algorithm. But ZBLL has the disadvantage of slower recognition. Probably of these VLS has the fastest recognition (experts please confirm), AND the fewest moves, so indeed VLS might give the best chance of a lucky solve but it is heavily open to debate. If true then of all the candidates Mats may be the most likely to break the record again and again. I believe he has posted 3.85 second solves on video before?

Clearly Bindedsa's progress on almost finishing 1LLL has the most promise if recognition can be fast. The hard truth is the future of cubing may be 1LLL, although not everyone's brain is wired to be able to memorize, fetch and maintain such a large set... While 1LLL will likely produce the best averages, VLS might still win for singles. An analogy is for the 2x2; CLL/EG1/EG2 are faster than Ortega but have significantly slower recognition. If doing a 1-look solve it is irrevelant, but if you include recognition time an Ortega solve with PLL skip is much faster than any solve with CLL/EG1/EG2; just as a VLS solve (with faster recognition) with PLL skip would be faster than a 1LLL+recog time.
This is a lot of speculation. The fastest method at any given point will be whatever the most dedicated people decide to use.