# The Ortega Method- How it works, and how to be world-class with it

#### yoshinator

##### Member
If you don't like the rotations R2' U' R2 U2' F2 U' R2 is always an option.
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.

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).
Thanks!

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.

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.
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.

#### Escher

##### Babby
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.

#### JustinJ

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.
I have to disagree that Ortega is as easy as other PBL methods to 2-look. I would say methods like SS and SOAP are objectively easier since they have the same number of steps with an easier first step.

I also kind of disagree that it's as easy as you guys say it is to be consistently 3/2.5 with Ortega. I think I'm decent at 2x2 and I have a lot of trouble with sub-3 Ortega unless I get pretty easy cases. Could someone post a video? I'd like to see what consistent sub-3 Ortega looks like.

#### yockee

##### Member
I use R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' R instead of T perm, and R U' R' U' F2 U' R U R' D R2 for the Y perm.

#### JustinJ

So top 10 in the world is "decent"?
Well that's with EG, but that's not necessarily relevant to discussing Ortega

#### ottozing

##### Platinum Member
z (or z') U2 R U2' R2' F2 R U2

#### Rubiks560

##### Nub
Nice video. Much better than the one I did.

But honestly, Oretaga isn't worth going for sub 3 imo. You might as well use all that practice on EG. Also, If you're gonna learn algs to make sure you don't get a PLL skip you might as well learn CLL. If somebody is going to take 2x2 seriously, there isn't a point in wasting your time on Oretaga. I never learned it when I first started 2x2 (I can barely sub 4 Oretega currently) and I don't think it's hurt me that I never used it.

#### yoshinator

##### Member
I have to disagree that Ortega is as easy as other PBL methods to 2-look. I would say methods like SS and SOAP are objectively easier since they have the same number of steps with an easier first step.

I also kind of disagree that it's as easy as you guys say it is to be consistently 3/2.5 with Ortega. I think I'm decent at 2x2 and I have a lot of trouble with sub-3 Ortega unless I get pretty easy cases. Could someone post a video? I'd like to see what consistent sub-3 Ortega looks like.
I'll probably post an average once I have more free time, I'm currently filming all my videos for cubing world. I guess it's true that other methods are easier to 2-look, but I don't think that it's nearly as hard as most people think it is, which was the point of the vid.

Nice video. Much better than the one I did.

But honestly, Oretaga isn't worth going for sub 3 imo. You might as well use all that practice on EG. Also, If you're gonna learn algs to make sure you don't get a PLL skip you might as well learn CLL. If somebody is going to take 2x2 seriously, there isn't a point in wasting your time on Oretaga. I never learned it when I first started 2x2 (I can barely sub 4 Oretega currently) and I don't think it's hurt me that I never used it.
Thank you!

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that practicing ortega in order to get sub-3 is wasted practice. All practice is going to make you better, and, again, the point of the video was to point out that getting sub-3 with Ortega is not as hard as people think that it is, and I think that it's a nice way to learn techniques that you are going to use later with EG and CLL. On top of that, if you already know 3 or 4 OLL algs for each OLL, learning all of CLL becomes way less daunting.