#### porkynator

##### Member

*I have original posted this on github a couple of weeks ago. Please read the whole Pros/Cons list before voting, especially if you would like to pick "Other".*

I would like to propose the following new format for 3x3 Blindfolded rounds in WCA competitions:

**combined Best of 3/Best of 5**.

- After the first 3 solves, competitors meeting a specified cutoff time can procede and do two more attempts.
- In competitions, the final ranking is still based on best single.
- "Average of 5" would replace "Mean of 3" in the average rankings for 3BLD, as has happened recently for 3x3 With Feet and for other events in the past. For 3BLD, this has no effect during the competition itself.
- The ideal cutoff should be somewhat low, like 1:30 or 1:00, to prevent the round from lasting too long.

**Reasons**

At high level, 3BLD times are comparable to 4x4 and 3x3 with feet. These events are already held in "Average of 5" format (the latter having been changed lately), and even longer events (5x5 and Megaminx) get 5 solves per round. Thus, it seems reasonable to allow 5 solves for 3BLD as well. This means more fun and more chances of setting new records.

**Pros**

**More attempts = more fun!****Bigger chances of setting new records**

There is quite a big gap between the the best known unofficial results and the official world records. This is true for any event and I think the main reason for this is that people can do many more solves at home than in competition. This is in particular true for 3BLD, according to the speedsolving UWR page: in the original post on github you can see a table showing this gap for 3x3 Cube, 3x3 Blindfolded and events with solving time comparable to the latter (4x4 Cube and 3x3 With Feet). I think this new format can help reducing this gap.**It's easier to get a succesful Average of 5 than a succesful Mean of 3**

If one's success rate is better than 25%, see attachment. This is a matter of basic probability computations, assuming the success rate is the same for all attempts. This doesn't take into account the fact that one might get tired after some solves, or that one can influence their own success rate at will.**The competition strategy doesn't change**

In a Best of 3 round one has to get at least one good solve out of 3, so the "minimum success rate" is 1/3. In a Bo5 round this is 1/5, but using the combined Bo3/Bo5 format we can allow for more solves, while keeping this minimum success rate at 1/3. The only thing that changes is how to get an average, but this doesn't matter for the competition, and in any case it would become easier (see previous point).

**Cons**

**Slower cubers might not get an average**

This is true for any "combined" round. Since the ranking would still be based on single, this is less revelant with the proposed format. There may be a bigger disproportion between beginners' and world-class times than what we have in other events, but it doesn't take an insane amount of practice to get down to, say, 1:30 average.**It is more tiring to do 5 solves**

I believe for anyone faster than, say, 1 minute, doing 5 solves in a row is not a problem. This is consistent with the cutoff time suggested above. Moreover, if one finds it tiring to complete the last two solves, they can always DNS them and have no big disadvantage (the format is still "Best of X").**It will slow competitions down**

That's what cutoffs and time limits are for. If they are low enough, this will be no problem. And in many cases faster competitors can complete 5 solves faster than slower competitors doing 3 solves, so the extra solves for them would not be the bottleneck. It is also possible to have a cutoff time hardwired in the regulations, but I would rather specify it in the guidelines or in some other way. Moreover, it is still possbile to use cumulative time limits to ensure the round doesn't last too long.**With low cutoffs, very few competitors may be able to complete the round**

This is true, but as I mentioned before it is not as bad as in the case of Bo2/Avg5 or Bo1/Mo3 combined rounds: competitors are ranked by single in any case. Missing the average doesn't change anything from the point of view of the competition. Even if nobody meets the cutoff it shouldn't be a problem.**Inconsistency: there is no other event with such a format**

Personally, I don't think this is a good reason to keep things like this. The point of the regulations is to make competitors have fun and compete under fair conditions, not to give a satisfactory sense of order when read.

**Conclusions**

I think this new format has the advantage of giving more opportunities for records and more fun to faster solves, while not giving any true disadvantage and not changing anything about the event competition-wise.