Thoughts on Lau Method

[Ralph Laurence]

Hi guyss! So I developed a method that considers the weaknesses of other speedcubing method and try to integrate them.

Essentially this method (Lau or PseudoFOP) intends to make inspection easier for predicting and look ahead—made in such a way that it is rotationless while not doing EO, relatively moderate move count and smooth transition for the last layer positioning the cube since the first step intended for rotationless first to final step. While I am sure this method can be use for speedcubing, I am also aware of the weakness of the design of this method but I do want to know your thoughts on this.

You may read the whole guide here: Lau Method (PseudoFOP).

Essentially the steps of the Method is:
1. IB-1 (Inverted Base-1/Cross-1)
2. I-F2L (Phase 1 Inverted-F2L, Phase 2 F2L)
3. VHLL (VHLS -> COLL -> EPLL) or ZB (ZBLS + ZBLL)

I have already developed the algorithms for both the Corners and especially Edge I-F2L and as I see it, the algorithms are 3-5 Moves, corners 3-8. While I haven’t put it in the document yet because I want decent diagrams (which you can recommend me a site that would br a BIG help) for it before uploading it and planning for my next upload to have the full algorithm set From I-F2L to EPLL.

Overall the move count average is around 56. But I have to reexamine that given that I have recently found better ways to do I-F2L due to playing around with wide U moves.

What’s your thoughts on this, and maybe I can also consider possible versions of this.

I posted my method on reddit and while there were some critics, it was received well by the majority of the community, but here, I’m not really sure but I’d take any comprehensive feedbackk.

Thank you!

 

[acrystal]

it is more different than what they explain it abt

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

wait…
i saw this thread like a month ago and i tried to understand it but i couldn’t
apparently there’s a video about it now

 

[Michael Wimberly]

apparently there’s a video about it now

 

[abunickabhi]

I am sorry to ask this stupid question,

Why is the method called Lau method?

 

[CrossPetrus]

I am sorry to ask this stupid question,

Why is the method called Lau method?

I think it’s named after Ralph Laurence.

 

[ebwzz]

Hi guyss! So I developed a method that considers the weaknesses of other speedcubing method and try to integrate them.

Essentially this method (Lau or PseudoFOP) intends to make inspection easier for predicting and look ahead—made in such a way that it is rotationless while not doing EO, relatively moderate move count and smooth transition for the last layer positioning the cube since the first step intended for rotationless first to final step. While I am sure this method can be use for speedcubing, I am also aware of the weakness of the design of this method but I do want to know your thoughts on this.

You may read the whole guide here: Lau Method (PseudoFOP) or see the Wiki Page of it that I made for a concise explanation.

Essentially the steps of the Method is:
1. Base Edge Orientation (BEO/Cross-1)
2. I-F2L (Phase 1 Inverted-F2L, Phase 2 F2L Proper)
3. FLL (VHSL/VLS + COLL)
4. EPLL

I have already developed the algorithms for both the Corners and especially Edge I-F2L and as I see it, the algorithms are 3-5 Moves, corners 3-8. While I haven’t put it in the document yet because I want decent diagrams (which you can recommend me a site that would br a BIG help) for it before uploading it and planning for my next upload to have the full algorithm set From I-F2L to EPLL.

Overall the move count average is around 56. But I have to reexamine that given that I have recently found better ways to do I-F2L due to playing around with wide U moves.

What’s your thoughts on this, and maybe I can also consider possible versions of this.

I posted my method on reddit and while there were some critics, it was received well by the majority of the community, but here, I’m not really sure but I’d take any comprehensive feedbackk.

Thank you!

how long did it take you to make this??

 

[ruffleduck]

I'm sorry, but isn't this just yet another crappy approach to using Petrus. Method theorycrafters try not to reinvent Petrus challenge. It's been well-established for many years that 222 -> 223 or 123 (FB) -> 223 are the best blockbuilding approaches. I can see this approach being possible for certain scrambles but it's kind of an obvious approach anyway to anyone with any cursory exposure to keyholing. And why are we wasting time inserting the last cross edge after 223.

 

[Martyt7777]

There’s a tutorial now

 

[That0newe1rdo]

I think it has potential to go further then current "meta" methods on paper (CFOP, ROUX, etc), maybe ZB but I have no experience with that so couldn't say.

I feel like the first steps (where you make a 2x2x3) less efficient then other methods that build a 2x2x3 first (such as petrus or APB) but i reckon it makes up for this as it has FAR less pauses and better ergonomics then methods that start the same-ish way (no EO, little to no B/F moves, more alg spam like APB).

Will definitely be trying this method some more to see how much I like it and to draw up a conclusion on whether I think it has potential etc etc.

 

[Ralph Laurence]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I forgot my password so I wasn’t able to respond immediately. I want to say that the video for the Lau Method that was popular has made a lot of mistakes, that I asked the youtuber to pin the corrections.

1. First the full method does not have 1.6k algs,

2. The LL can be changed, for intermediate
solvers I prefer that they learn first VHLL then transition to ZB or LXS ZB.

3. Steps after the I-F2L like EO, LXS, are permissible

4. Never claimed it’s the best method nor comparable to CFOP, what I only claimed is its a method that considers speedsolving, whether it is close, better than other method requires more study. I pointed out it’s inspired by the 5 known methods as well as niche ideas.

5. Inserting the last pair doesn’t take 13 algs, it’s really just 3-5 algs.

6. I have changed the name of the steps even on my video tutorial as “EO” seems confusing admittedly.

and last, I saw people having fun with the method, even having sub 6, 7 second single, sub 12, sub 10 and so on, to me, it already serve its goal. To cube for me after all, is to explore and have fun solving it.

 

[Ralph Laurence]

Final Updates with The Lau Method

Since I’ll be busy with life and I won’t be able to interact here as much

Data Analysis of The Lau Method for Speedcubing_ Move Count, TPS. Times (1).pdf

Now that every feedback has been said with it, as well as having a number of cubers both experienced and inexperienced cubers have tried it. I was able to gather proper data analysis of it due to those people who helped contribute to it. A few questions were answered hastily such as “How Fast is this Under such conditions”. I decided to do the math and statistics of it.

And as I found mechanically (that is irrespective of ergonomics plus recognition, hesitation)

It (Advance Lau) can be solved on average within 3.85-5.09s for Top Solvers (4.58-6.04 for standard Lau), 6.25-12.52s for Intermediate to Advance solver.

Ergonomically (considering penalties with awkward face turne, r, u, d, M, F, etc) 3.96-5.22s for top 10-300 solvers tps (7.13-12.87 for Intermediate to advance solvers), 6.62-5.02 for standard lau.

Lastly when considering recognition and hesitation delays (which I made it have higher cost than it should as I made sure that the cognitive delays are repeating in my calculation) is 5.65-7.97 for top solvers, 10.88-17.11s for intermediate to advance conservatively, realistically it is 1-1.25s faster for Top Cubers and 2-3 second faster for intermediate to advance cubers.

Of course there will always be limitations regarding calculations, which I acknowledged while making it, that’s why as much as possible I made sure my criteria for calculating is in accordance with cubing data, resources. You may check the math in the spreadsheet for transparency.

I like to thank everyone who tried out this method, this would not be possible in the first place if it wasn’t for the feedback of either sides!