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

[OregonTrail]

I've been cubing for about 3 months now, and something always struck me as odd when I read someone's "non-lucky" and "lucky" best.

This concept completely limits speed cubing to the world of CFOP. It's method-ist (lol) if you see what I mean.

When one decides to learn a method, they know that there will be cases where they skip one of the steps involved. Part of the effort that went into learning the method is the notion that it will sometimes work better than other times.

In this case the solve may be lucky in the eyes of the CFOP world, but everyone else just has to deal with it. I propose that there no longer be this concept of a "lucky solve".

Even Erik got a PLL skip with his world record. How many of you say to yourself, "oh that was just luck"?

 

[Muesli]

If there is a 1 in X chance of something happening, and X is a large number then it is luck. You miss a step in a solve that you normally would have performed you will have a solve that is faster than your average by chance.

 

[Innocence]

A PLL skip isn't lucky. It's accidental one-look last layer.

 

[OregonTrail]

A PLL skip isn't lucky. It's accidental one-look last layer.

First of all, by using the word accidental you imply that a PLL skip is a bad thing. Second of all, the reason that there are the terms "two-look last layer" and "four-look last layer" etc. is because there are documented methods for achieving these scenarios as worst case. There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer", therefore your post doesn't make sense.

However, I garnered that you agree with me, which is good

 

[Innocence]

There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer", therefore your post doesn't make sense.

Makes no sense. 1 Look last layer: Doing the last layer after only looking at the cube 1 time.

Also, accidental: 'happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: ' (Dictionary.com, result 1)

Seriously, it was a spur of the moment jest.

 

[qqwref]

This concept completely limits speed cubing to the world of CFOP. It's method-ist (lol) if you see what I mean.

Nope. A lucky solve is any solve in which a step is skipped (although if you forced the skip or the skip happens 20%+ of the time it doesn't count). This applies for whatever method you are using, i.e. if you do roux and the corners are solved after you make the second block then it is CMLL skip and thus lucky.

Even Erik got a PLL skip with his world record. How many of you say to yourself, "oh that was just luck"?

Lots of people do, but as Erik says "being lucky is not a crime". Do you think he can just do sub8s all the time, though? It's not so easy. He has had about 25 comps since then and the best time was 8.33 - not that that's a bad time, but it's quite far from 7.08. It's not like no skill is required to get a great time like that, but not all solves are created equal, and that's where luck comes in.

 

[Innocence]

Having reviewed my comment after even I forgot it was a joke, I realize that accidental implies lucky, so nobody listen to me. Ever.

 

[hr.mohr]

The idea of this thread is ridiculous.

Doing a fast non-lucky time is more impressive than a fast lucky. But a really fast time is still a really fast time regardless of luck.

 

[Innocence]

The idea of this thread is ridiculous.

Doing a fast non-lucky time is more impressive than a fast lucky. But a really fast time is still a really fast time regardless of luck.

...right. That was pretty obvious. Anyhow, I get what you're saying, but what we're trying to get at is that non-lucky and lucky are pretty general, and maybe we should get more specific(Or just abolish the terms and stick with PB). At least I think that's what we're talking about.

 

[blade740]

If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL. 1 in 12 is a pretty good chance, and I consider it part of my strategy.

I feel the same way about square-1, where "easy" scrambles are much faster than some technically "lucky" scrambles. I usually get one or two significantly easy/lucky solves in every average of 12. I know it happens, and I just consider it part of the game.

To be honest, I've stopped caring about singles much at all. They don't really show much. Most cubers' fastest non-lucky is usually as close to lucky as possible without fulfilling the specific definition of lucky.

 

[nathanajah]

"Getting lucky is not a crime"....

 

[Lucas Garron]

When one decides to learn a method, they know that there will be cases where they skip one of the steps involved. Part of the effort that went into learning the method is the notion that it will sometimes work better than other times.

MGLS is all about the ELS skip. Yeah.


But really, the idea is not ridiculous. It's a very simple concept: If something happened that you didn't work for, it came to you by luck. How lucky "lucky" is is the only issue.

Anyhow, I fail to see how this is at all restricted to CFOP. You can call the term "lucky" useless and restrictive once you find a way to solve the cube without a method.

 

[Erik]

Luck IS a stupid undefinable thing. For the OLL case I had on my world record for example I use 2 different algorithms depending on how the corners are permuted. Therefore I have double the chance of getting a PLL skip after it. Same with last F2L pairs and stuff. People sometimes complain about the fact that I get skips so often but hey, I just know some tricks. It's also the reason why I can find pretty easily a 2 step solution at FMC's for the last pair + LL.
Also, for most people an F2L with only 3 move pairs don't count as lucky and a PLL skip does.. I think I'd rather have 3 move pairs all the time than a PLL skip...

 

[Zane_C]

I would probably consider a F2l pair skip, OLL skip and PLL skip lucky and the very rare cross skip, but if that was the case it would probably be rescrambled.

 

[Zubon]

It is true that some methods have been made in order to increase your "lucky" solves. Edge control and other tricks are great for this.

However, I can manage to get a 19.xx only once or so per cubing session. The other day I got a PLL skip and got 16.xx. I am not as happy getting fast times with lucky solves as I am with full step solves.

No matter who you are, if you use CFOP and you cube long enough, you will get a last layer skip. Cubers who get this and proudly display that time are not showing how fast they really are.

That is why I think that single times are not nearly important as averages.

 

[Stefan]

If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.

Your COLL considers the edge permutation?

 

[Muesli]

If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.

Your COLL considers the edge permutation?

Yeah. I was wondering that...

 

[cmhardw]

If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.

*cough* This means you use at least some ZBLL *cough*

 

[4Chan]

There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer",

D:

 

[amostay2004]

If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.

Your COLL considers the edge permutation?

Yeah. I was wondering that...

He probably meant that he worked for the higher chance at a PLL skip by permuting the corners as well.