The idea of "lucky" and "non-lucky" is ridiculous.

[qqwref]

I've done a bit of math (which I'm bad at, so please, let me know if I'm wrong).

After COLL, the odds of getting an EPLL skip are 1/12. This means the chance of getting at least one EPLL skip in an average of 12 is 1-((11/12)^12), or roughly 65% (or 35% in an average of 5). The probability of getting EXACTLY one skip is ((1/12)*(9/12)^11)*12, or 4.2% (13% in an average of 5).

If I am correct, the probability of getting a skip that affects my average (2 or more skips in an average) is over 60% for an average of 12 or 22% in an average of 5.

The probability of exactly one skip should be ((1/12)*(11/12)^11)*12 = 38.4%, so the probability of a counting skip (assuming a solve with a skip is always faster than a solve without) is 26.4% for an avg12.

 

[OregonTrail]

The reason I said that is that ZBLL requires ZBF2L

It doesn't though...

Is ZBF2L the same thing as "edge control"?

 

[hawkmp4]

Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.

 

[blade740]

The probability of exactly one skip should be ((1/12)*(11/12)^11)*12 = 38.4%, so the probability of a counting skip (assuming a solve with a skip is always faster than a solve without) is 26.4% for an avg12.

Oh, thanks, I have no idea where I got 9/12.

 

[OregonTrail]

Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.

Exactly, so if you didn't know ZBF2L, then you would still have at worst a 2LLL for EO.

 

[fanwuq]

First, can you intuitively understand the idea of "luck"?
If so, you should be able to tell something is lucky without a proper definition.

 

[JLarsen]

I see your point that "lucky scramble" is not universal for all solvers, but its not only restricting the whole term lucky to just CFOP because of it. Coincidence with such insane claims greeted by mass criticism; you have little experience. Fancy that? Boggles my mind. What exactly makes you think you have any merit? At all? I don't get it.

 

[DavidWoner]

Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.

Exactly, so if you didn't know ZBF2L, then you would still have at worst a 2LLL for EO.

Or you could just use Petrus. (or ZZ)

 

[miniGOINGS]

Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.

Exactly, so if you didn't know ZBF2L, then you would still have at worst a 2LLL for EO.

Or you could just use Petrus. (or ZZ)

Mhm, ZB/ZZLL would fit perfectly with Petrus or ZZ once one knows the algorithms and recognition.

 

[4Chan]

I am sub 30 with ZZ.

I can support that statement.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I am sub 30 with ZZ.

I can support that statement.

Haha, I'm sub-30 with 3LLL and sometimes 4LLL. I have to learn some PLL's.

 

[OregonTrail]

I see your point that "lucky scramble" is not universal for all solvers, but its not only restricting the whole term lucky to just CFOP because of it. Coincidence with such insane claims greeted by mass criticism; you have little experience. Fancy that? Boggles my mind. What exactly makes you think you have any merit? At all? I don't get it.

Very poetic.

I realized even when I was writing the first post that "lucky" is not limited to a certain method, but I didn't feel like editing it into general terms.

I'll still stand by the fact that "lucky" solves are part of the advantage of dedicating time to learn a method, and that "lucky" can never be clearly defined. Therefore the concept of reporting a "lucky" solve is flawed.

 

[fanwuq]

I see your point that "lucky scramble" is not universal for all solvers, but its not only restricting the whole term lucky to just CFOP because of it. Coincidence with such insane claims greeted by mass criticism; you have little experience. Fancy that? Boggles my mind. What exactly makes you think you have any merit? At all? I don't get it.

Very poetic.

I realized even when I was writing the first post that "lucky" is not limited to a certain method, but I didn't feel like editing it into general terms.

I'll still stand by the fact that "lucky" solves are part of the advantage of dedicating time to learn a method, and that "lucky" can never be clearly defined. Therefore the concept of reporting a "lucky" solve is flawed.

Why define it? You should be able to few if a solve is lucky without a precise definition.
Luck is when something unexpected and good happens.
"Skipping a step" is not lucky if you saw it coming. Such a solve should be called "easy" because things were flowing well.