Like the really common R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R, I just don't think that alg can be done particularily fast, I think mine is faster, despite the rotation.If you don't like the rotations R2' U' R2 U2' F2 U' R2 is always an option.
Thanks!Some nice tips in the video and some nice algs in the thread, I sometimes use Ortega when I can't find a good layer for CLL.
Do most people use that alg with the y rotation for adj-adj? I've never liked the rotation much. I messed around and found R2 U' R2' [(U' z) L'] U2 L' U2, which is weird but no regrips (the middle bit is a little odd, I've tried to clarify as much as possible with brackets).
With the adj-adj alg, most people use R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2, which I think is pretty slow. I actually execute mine as R2 U' R2' [U' D'] R2 U' R2', with the [U' D'] sort of being done like an R L (I kind of "wrist" it with my thumb), which makes it pretty fast. I can do it in about .75.
I agree that Ortega has more moves overall, and possibly harder lookahead, but I think that it's actually just as easy to 2-look as other PBL methods, with WAY less algs. Obviously it's inferior to something like EG, and to a lesser extent CLL, but it's still a really nice method, and not as hard to sub-3 as people think, which is the point of the video.None of those things are exclusive to using Ortega, though. In fact I would say you learn to do them better when you're going for 3/4 faces that also happen to cancel with an SS alg etc, rather than going for an efficient face that gives you a decent OLL or ensures a nice PBL. Perhaps its just me but I consider the former more difficult and requiring further lookahead than the latter, because the options are wider and more varied.
Honestly, in terms of pure moves, Ortega will always be behind a lot of the other PBL methods, and that's why it's a lot harder to get sub 2.5 with it. That being said, I remember I have gotten a 2.4x avg with Ortega before, so it is possible.