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



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

[video=youtube_share;0_Bd3pNAN6o]http://youtu.be/0_Bd3pNAN6o[/video]



> In which I go over the steps and algorithms for the Ortega 2x2 method, and talk about common mistakes, and some tips and techniques that will help you to improve, and ultimately to reach sub-3 averages.
> 
> If you are confused or have any questions or comments on the workings of the method, or how to improve at it, please leave a comment or video response. I am also absolutely willing to critique video of your solves.
> 
> Thanks for watching!



[The video will be up soon, be patient]


----------



## cxinlee (Mar 28, 2013)

I am so excited for the upload! I really need help for ortega.


----------



## cannon4747 (Mar 28, 2013)

Thank God someone finally did this!!! There are way too many vids about 3x3, especially CFOP, I'm glad I finally found something to teach me things other than basics for this method. I've picked up some techniques on my own though (I'm not sure whats on the video, it hasn't finished uploading yet). Some things I've done is making it so that if I have an adjacent edge swap on bottom, I always put the solved pieces towards the front of the cube after finishing first side so that all I need to do for any LL case is AUF. I still need to find a bottom layer adjacent rear edge swap though for this to be effective...


----------



## Username (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm excited about this. Can't wait. After this video I will decide if I will learn CLL or practice ortega.


----------



## Veerexx (Mar 28, 2013)

cannon4747 said:


> Thank God someone finally did this!!! There are way too many vids about 3x3, especially CFOP, I'm glad I finally found something to teach me things other than basics for this method. I've picked up some techniques on my own though (I'm not sure whats on the video, it hasn't finished uploading yet). Some things I've done is making it so that if I have an adjacent edge swap on bottom, I always put the solved pieces towards the front of the cube after finishing first side so that all I need to do for any LL case is AUF. I still need to find a bottom layer adjacent rear edge swap though for this to be effective...



I see you think that this is for 3x3. Just a heads up, this is for 2x2 using Ortega...
(It says up the top in the quote)


----------



## ottozing (Mar 28, 2013)

He said "There are way too many vids about 3x3" :fp

OT: Cool vid. Will deffs watch.

EDIT: Not to nag, but when do you think it'll be up?


----------



## arvind1999 (Mar 28, 2013)

Still waiting. 
Really excited for this!


----------



## Maccoboy (Mar 28, 2013)

Maybe now i will actually learn a proper 2x2 method and get below my 8 second best


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 28, 2013)

Is it just me or is the video not working? Want to watch this later.


----------



## cxinlee (Mar 28, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Is it just me or is the video not working? Want to watch this later.


The video isn't up yet.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 28, 2013)

Or you could just use Petrus.


----------



## emolover (Mar 28, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Or you could just use Petrus.



Or you just learn OSPA.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

So... The video was suppose to be up by now, I just accidentally hit sleep on my computer last night, and so it's probably not going to be up for a couple more hours. Sorry guys -.-


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> So... The video was suppose to be up by now, I just accidentally hit sleep on my computer last night, and so it's probably not going to be up for a couple more hours. Sorry guys -.-



I hope it is up by the end of the day. Thanks.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> I hope it is up by the end of the day. Thanks.



I'm not sure what timezone you're in, I just woke up =) Anyway, the video will be up within a couple of hours (I hope).


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> I'm not sure what timezone you're in, I just woke up =) Anyway, the video will be up within a couple of hours (I hope).



I am in EDT. Thanks. I want to see the how to get faster since I avg like 6-7.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

Okay, I went and did some stuff to the original video to make it upload faster. It's gonna be about 90 minutes. Thank for be so excited guys, I hope I don't disappoint you!


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

"The video has been removed by the user." lol?


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> "The video has been removed by the user." lol?



I had the wrong link, it is correct now, and the video will be up in about 10 minutes. I hope you all like it!


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> I had the wrong link, it is correct now, and the video will be up in about 10 minutes. I hope you all like it!


Neat, thanks!


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

Woo! Finally finished uploading!


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

For the y-perm why don't you get rid of that D move and do R U' R' U' F2 U' R U R' U F2?

Plus if you had solved-diag you could do R U' R' U' F2 U' R U R' U R2 F2

without having to do an x2 and do the alg.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> For the y-perm why don't you get rid of that D move and do R U' R' U' F2 U' R U R' U F2?
> 
> Plus if you had solved-diag you could do R U' R' U' F2 U' R U R' U R2 F2
> 
> without having to do an x2 and do the alg.



I find doing the D move faster, although your alg for solved-diag is tots awesome.


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> I find doing the D move faster, although your alg for solved-diag is tots awesome.


Also I just am watching the walkthrough solve part now and tips, and when you had diag-solved you did an x2 and did your alg, it might be faster to do R2 U' R2' U R2 U' R2' U R2 just a thought lol


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> Also I just am watching the walkthrough solve part now and tips, and when you had diag-solved you did an x2 and did your alg, it might be faster to do R2 U' R2' U R2 U' R2' U R2 just a thought lol



I find it more effective to influence your PBL rather than learn more algs in order to avoid rotations. I think that influencing and getting better cases better than just making crappy cases kinda fast with more algs. Although your way certainly also works.


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> I find it more effective to influence your PBL rather than learn more algs in order to avoid rotations. I think that influencing and getting better cases better than just making crappy cases kinda fast with more algs. Although your way certainly also works.



Right but even if you influence, lets say that you still end up with it, wouldn't you waste more time rotating and doing the alg then doing an easily sub .8 2gen alg?


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> Right but even if you influence, lets say that you still end up with it, wouldn't you waste more time rotating and doing the alg then doing an easily sub .8 2gen alg?



You're right. My point is just that if you had to pick between learning alternate OLL algs and alternate PBL algs, I think the former would be more effective, although the best thing to do would be do to both.


----------



## MarcelP (Mar 28, 2013)

Awesome video. Thanks!


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> You're right. My point is just that if you had to pick between learning alternate OLL algs and alternate PBL algs, I think the former would be more effective, although the best thing to do would be do to both.



Alternate OLL algs can sometimes influence a bad pbl however. Like an alternate Pi case: (U')R' F R2 U' R2 F R swaps the front two pieces, which if you have a bar in back, can give you a diag-solved or adj-solved, or if you have a diag on the bottom it can mess up your pbl recog by giving you a bar instead.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> Alternate OLL algs can sometimes influence a bad pbl however. Like an alternate Pi case: (U')R' F R2 U' R2 F R swaps the front two pieces, which if you have a bar in back, can give you a diag-solved or adj-solved, or if you have a diag on the bottom it can mess up your pbl recog by giving you a bar instead.



yeah... that's why you should learn 3 or 4 algs for each OLL, so that you can always get a good PBL... What's your point?


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> yeah... that's why you should learn 3 or 4 algs for each OLL, so that you can always get a good PBL... What's your point?



I don't really have a point... just sharing some thoughts I have.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> I don't really have a point... just sharing some thoughts I have.



Sorry, you're right. Learning alternate algs for PBL is useful, and I probably should have included that in the video. My thought process behind not putting that in the vid in the first place is that I think that it's more important to learn more OLL algs. Yeah?


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 28, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> Sorry, you're right. Learning alternate algs for PBL is useful, and I probably should have included that in the video. My thought process behind not putting that in the vid in the first place is that I think that it's more important to learn more OLL algs. Yeah?


Well in my opinion learning both oll and pbl algs is useful, I wouldn't really say learn more for influencing pbls though, more for angle purposes. In their own sense both new OLL and PBL algs are useful and important.


----------



## Iggy (Mar 28, 2013)

Great vid!


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

Iggy said:


> Great vid!



Thanks!


----------



## ajayd (Mar 29, 2013)

Do you use an alg for Diagonal on the 2nd layer, and the Bar on the 1st Layer, or do you do a z2 and execute the other alg?


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2013)

ajayd said:


> Do you use an alg for Diagonal on the 2nd layer, and the Bar on the 1st Layer, or do you do a z2 and execute the other alg?



I do both, it depends on my mood I guess.


----------



## redbeat0222 (Mar 29, 2013)

Nice tutorials and stikcers


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2013)

redbeat0222 said:


> Nice tutorials and stikcers



Thanks


----------



## ottozing (Mar 29, 2013)

What was that alternative pi OLL you showed? It looks like it could be a nice CLL


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2013)

ottozing said:


> What was that alternative pi OLL you showed? It looks like it could be a nice CLL



R' F R F' R U' R' U' R U' R' It's just a regular CLL alg


----------



## arvind1999 (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanks for this amazing video! You have shown some wonderful algs! All this time I had used bad algs but now, thanks to you, I have got better ones!


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2013)

arvind1999 said:


> Thanks for this amazing video! You have shown some wonderful algs! All this time I had used bad algs but now, thanks to you, I have got better ones!



Thank you and you're welcome!


----------



## ajayd (Mar 29, 2013)

Oh sorry, but what alg do you use for the bar on the bottom, diagonal on top? mine is the L D' L F2 L' D L' but i really don't like it. do you have a better one?


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2013)

ajayd said:


> Oh sorry, but what alg do you use for the bar on the bottom, diagonal on top? mine is the L D' L F2 L' D L' but i really don't like it. do you have a better one?



You can put the bar on bottom left and do R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 29, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> You can put the bar on bottom left and do R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2



I do that sometimes. Square-1! Or just z2 then the alg. Learned the one from this vid.


----------



## Escher (Mar 29, 2013)

ajayd said:


> Oh sorry, but what alg do you use for the bar on the bottom, diagonal on top? mine is the L D' L F2 L' D L' but i really don't like it. do you have a better one?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cUlE1zZbSM

My god, this video is OLD. I feel old.


----------



## JustinJ (Mar 29, 2013)

Escher said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cUlE1zZbSM
> 
> My god, this video is OLD. I feel old.



that's from 2009? D:

I still use the other one you gave me, R U' R' U' R' F2 U' R U R and I love it.

wrt the video, I'm not really sure I understand why you'd use Ortega for this. I mean you admit it's easier to use CLL/EG, so why bother with Ortega at that point? Perhaps if you don't like learning algs particularly, but I don't really think that's that bad.

It seems to me kinda like trying to get sub-15 3x3 with LBL, yeah I'm sure it's possible, but it's more effort for not really any gain.

edit:
After watching the rest of the video, it's all pretty solid advice though, good job!


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2013)

JustinJ said:


> wrt the video, I'm not really sure I understand why you'd use Ortega for this. I mean you admit it's easier to use CLL/EG, so why bother with Ortega at that point? Perhaps if you don't like learning algs particularly, but I don't really think that's that bad.
> 
> It seems to me kinda like trying to get sub-15 3x3 with LBL, yeah I'm sure it's possible, but it's more effort for not really any gain.
> 
> ...



Thank you! The main reason for the video is to a) help people improve at ortega and b) refute the idea that it's impossible to get sub-3 with Ortega. I'll admit that it is probably easy to get sub-3 with CLL (which I can sort of attest to from experience), but getting sub-3 with Ortega is hardly more difficult. I think that a lot of people bash Ortega and think that it's a crappy method, which is absolutely not true. That is the point of the video. 

On top of that, getting sub-3 with Ortega teaches you a lot of skills that are going to be incredibly useful for when you start using EG, and to a lesser extent, CLL.


----------



## Jaycee (Mar 30, 2013)

Wow, Ortega can be a lot faster than I used to think it could :O


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 30, 2013)

Jaycee said:


> Wow, Ortega can be a lot faster than I used to think it could :O



Woo hoo! The video was a success =D


----------



## Escher (Mar 30, 2013)

JustinJ said:


> that's from 2009? D:
> 
> I still use the other one you gave me, R U' R' U' R' F2 U' R U R and I love it.



Did I give you that one for sure?

I literally have no recollection of it. Nice alg though 

On-topic: Ortega is usable to get sub-3, but tbh if you're going down the PBL road, it's best to start using tricks from Guimond/SS/OFOTA/SNAP to get a 3ish Ortega user to sub 2.5, rather than going 'deeper' into Ortega.


----------



## cxinlee (Mar 30, 2013)

Your algs really helped a lot. I was averaging 9 seconds but now I've cut 2 seconds immediately by watching this. Thanks a lot!


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 30, 2013)

Escher said:


> Ortega is usable to get sub-3, but tbh if you're going down the PBL road, it's best to start using tricks from Guimond/SS/OFOTA/SNAP to get a 3ish Ortega user to sub 2.5, rather than going 'deeper' into Ortega.



I think you're over-estimating how hard it is to get sub-3. Every tip in here, other than OLL prediction, is actually really easy to learn and abuse. On the other hand, I can't really speak about sub-2.5, I've started incorporating more CLL into my solves, which is what has gotten me closer to sub-2.5.



cxinlee said:


> Your algs really helped a lot. I was averaging 9 seconds but now I've cut 2 seconds immediately by watching this. Thanks a lot!



Great! I'm glad to have helped!


----------



## cannon4747 (Mar 30, 2013)

Veerexx said:


> I see you think that this is for 3x3. Just a heads up, this is for 2x2 using Ortega...
> (It says up the top in the quote)



i said that meaning that there aren't enough vids for 2x2... lol I'm not gonna post a comment about something I know nothing about


----------



## Escher (Mar 30, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> I think you're over-estimating how hard it is to get sub-3. Every tip in here, other than OLL prediction, is actually really easy to learn and abuse. On the other hand, I can't really speak about sub-2.5, I've started incorporating more CLL into my solves, which is what has gotten me closer to sub-2.5.



More I mean that it's easier to progress to sub 2.5 using more advanced methods even though they take more learning/work initially. If you only care about getting sub-3, I would advocate doing your route


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 30, 2013)

Escher said:


> More I mean that it's easier to progress to sub 2.5 using more advanced methods even though they take more learning/work initially. If you only care about getting sub-3, I would advocate doing your route



I'm not sure that I agree. The things that you learn about 2x2 by working and getting "deeper" into Ortega (imo) are really valuable when it comes to, as you say, getting sub-2.5. Making really efficient faces, keeping track of your first layer permutation, OLL prediction, are all things that are going to make you better at 2x2 overall.


----------



## Escher (Mar 30, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> I'm not sure that I agree. The things that you learn about 2x2 by working and getting "deeper" into Ortega (imo) are really valuable when it comes to, as you say, getting sub-2.5. Making really efficient faces, keeping track of your first layer permutation, OLL prediction, are all things that are going to make you better at 2x2 overall.



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.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Mar 31, 2013)

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).


----------



## blokpoi (Mar 31, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 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).


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


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 31, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> 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.



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 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.



Escher said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> 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.



Absolutely yeah, I'm glad that you've made something like this


----------



## JustinJ (Mar 31, 2013)

yoshinator said:


> 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.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 31, 2013)

JustinJ said:


> I think I'm decent at 2x2



So top 10 in the world is "decent"?


----------



## yockee (Mar 31, 2013)

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 (Mar 31, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> So top 10 in the world is "decent"?



Well that's with EG, but that's not necessarily relevant to discussing Ortega


----------



## ottozing (Apr 1, 2013)

Another PBL alg for adj-adj with the bars in the back
z (or z') U2 R U2' R2' F2 R U2


----------



## Rubiks560 (Apr 1, 2013)

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 (Apr 5, 2013)

JustinJ said:


> 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.



Rubiks560 said:


> 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. 

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I apparently just forgot about this thread.


----------



## Cuber1 (Jun 17, 2013)

Very helpful! Thank you!


----------

