# Do you do better in competitions or at home?



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

A lot of people say that they don't do as well in competitions because they get nervous. However, I've always gotten good times at competitions. For instance:

UIUC Spring 2013: Expected AVG: 29-30s Competition AVG: 27.34 R1, 26.75 R2
Indiana 2014: Expected AVG: 22-24s Competition AVG: 20.68 R1
Lawrence Open 2014: Expected AVG: 18-20s Competition AVG: 18.76 R1, 16.98 R2
Lawrence Spring 2015: Expected AVG: 17-18s Competition AVG: 16.23 R1, 15.03 R2

This is partially because I don't really get nervous at competitions, and if I do, it is only for my first solve overall and maybe my first solve in 3x3 R1.

Does anyone else have this happen to them? Or do you do significantly worse in competitions? Or maybe you don't really have any significant difference?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 23, 2015)

My first comp, I got a 28 average when I averaged 33 at home. In my second comp, I got a 31 average when I averaged 27 at home. In my third comp, I got a 25 average when I averaged 25 at home...

So basically, my answer to your question is that it varies.


----------



## LucidCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

The obvious answer would be better at home, but in reality sometimes it's not always like that. Look what happened with Ciaran's 7x7 solve of 2:54 in competition, despite never having a sub-3 at home.

I've also gotten a few overall PB's in competition too like a PLL skip megaminx solve.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Apr 23, 2015)

In competition, 100%.

My official 3x3 average has been ~1 second faster than my personal best avg100 at home for about 3 years now.


----------



## Hssandwich (Apr 23, 2015)

It depends, sometimes I get averages that break really significant barriers for me that I weren't expecting to break, like my 3.86 Pyraminx average, however... My home skewb average is so much better than my official average 1.5s, which is a lot when you get fast, and every time I try to beat it, I fail horribly.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 23, 2015)

I usually do better at BLD at home than in comp, with a couple of exceptions, I especially struggle with the focus needed for multiBLD. Quite a few times for other events I've set overall PBs by a considerable margin in comp. I think that a combination of now being fairly relaxed in comp combined with just enough pressure to make me fully focused on solving helps a lot, and sometimes it comes together nicely. I remember taking about 25s off my 7x7 single in comp once, haven't came close to that time again.


----------



## Chree (Apr 23, 2015)

I do better at events that don't rely very heavily on inspection time... I'm always afraid of getting a +2 or DNFing because of over inspection, so I barely inspect at all. Because of that, my 2x2 and 3x3 times suffer in competition. 

But for big cubes, it's easier for me to find a good start during inspection, so I actually do really well in competition with those. At my first comp, I set my PB single in 4x4... it took me months to beat it at home.

Also, competition settings/conditions really help me focus. At home I can be pretty easily distracted. So there's that too.


----------



## TDM (Apr 23, 2015)

I tend to do better, since it's pretty much the only time I fully concentrate on solving as fast as possible. Most of the time I'm not too bothered about what I get. The exception is 2x2 and 3x3 where pressure makes me do a lot worse.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 23, 2015)

anyone who voted for either of the first 2 options..

a) is wrong
b) is lying 
c) is comparing their "competition PBs" to "much larger at-home averages" (apples to oranges)
or d) does the majority of their solves in competition.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> anyone who voted for either of the first 2 options..
> 
> a) is wrong
> b) is lying
> ...



or e) actually does better in competitions. I got 4 sub-15s at Lawrence Spring 2015 out of 10 solves, which normally I would hardly ever get.

Don't just tell people that they are wrong or lying based on minimal evidence.

Edit: At the same competition, I got an 11.90, which was my 3rd best time EVER, even though I only had 10 chances to get that good of a solve. Besides, look at my original post. It happens at all four of my comps, and I only got a sort-of normal average for one round of one competition.


----------



## TDM (Apr 23, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> anyone who voted for either of the first 2 options..
> 
> a) is wrong
> b) is lying
> ...


e) is different to you

Isn't people being different the whole point of polls?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

TDM said:


> e) is different to you
> 
> Isn't people being different the whole point of polls?



Well said.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 23, 2015)

Anytime someone uses that s-word, I have to bring statistics into this to make sure that what you're saying _actually_ has significance. 

I'll compare your individual times in competition against your reported at-home averages:

Data:

```
Expected ActualTime
1      29.5      27.69
2      29.5      32.41
3      29.5      24.80
4      29.5      26.66
5      29.5      27.66
6      29.5      25.41
7      29.5      29.22
8      29.5      26.19
9      29.5      28.66
10     29.5      24.86
11     23.0      24.13
12     23.0      19.93
13     23.0      19.56
14     23.0      22.53
15     23.0      19.58
16     19.0      17.21
17     19.0      23.05
18     19.0      22.52
19     19.0      16.55
20     19.0      15.93
21     19.0      15.48
22     19.0      22.44
23     19.0      17.74
24     19.0      15.60
25     19.0      17.59
26     17.5      16.26
27     17.5      14.40
28     17.5      16.90
29     17.5      15.52
30     17.5      17.97
31     17.5      13.62
32     17.5      14.83
33     17.5      16.64
34     17.5      17.40
35     17.5      11.90
```

Paired t-test results:

```
Paired t-test

data:  Expected and ActualTime
t = 3.9502, df = 34, p-value = 0.0001867
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.9177164       Inf
sample estimates:
mean of the differences 
               1.604571
```

What we can gather from this is that if it were really true that you did just as well in competition as at home, there is a 0.019% chance that you obtained these good times by pure coincidence. Pretty strong evidence to say that you perform well in competitions. However, this does make a strong assumption in the fact that you are reporting what you _truly_ averaged at the time.

Thing is, that individual times don't represent how well you performed, your averages do. So we can also treat the averages as a single result and see if those are significantly different.


```
Expected ActualAvg
1     29.5     27.34
2     29.5     26.75
3     23.0     20.68
4     19.0     18.76
5     19.0     16.98
6     17.5     16.23
7     17.5     15.03
```

And the results of the paired t-test here:


```
Paired t-test

data:  Expected and ActualAvg
t = 5.8014, df = 6, p-value = 0.000575
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 1.256949      Inf
sample estimates:
mean of the differences 
                   1.89
```

So not quite as overwhelming -- 0.05%, but that's still convincing. So yeah, if you are reporting what your real global averages were at the time, it would seem that you are performing significantly better than you do at home.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> <A whole bunch of statistics stuff here>



I'm pretty sure that what I said for what I got at home was pretty accurate. My 16.23 Ao5 may have partially been effected by the fact that I think Chris Olson didn't give me a +2 when I'm pretty sure the layer was off by ~47 degrees. That was still below my expected average, though.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 23, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> or e) actually does better in competitions. I got 4 sub-15s at Lawrence Spring 2015 out of 10 solves, which normally I would hardly ever get.
> 
> Don't just tell people that they are wrong or lying based on minimal evidence.
> 
> Edit: At the same competition, I got an 11.90, which was my 3rd best time EVER, even though I only had 10 chances to get that good of a solve. Besides, look at my original post. It happens at all four of my comps, and I only got a sort-of normal average for one round of one competition.



So you got your 3rd best time ever at a competition. That means you're faster at home.
You got these averages in competition: 16.23 R1, 15.03 R2. Your PB average is 14.16. That means you're faster at home.

Where is your evidence that you're faster in competition, again?

You may FEEL that you're faster, but the stats don't show it, nor (I argue) will they show that for most people (especially not on the order of 10% improvement). You may point to the fact that your competition avg5 is less than your at-home avg100. But did you know that around half of the 'avg5's in your PB avg100 are faster than your PB avg100? That's usually how averages work.

Here is what you said before the competition:



JustinTimeCuber said:


> My goals:
> 2x2: Sub 5 single, Sub 7 average, make the second round?
> 3x3: Sub 15 single, Sub 17 average, make the second round.
> 4x4: Wait... there is no 4x4.
> ...



The fact that you achieved all of these goals by a large margin can mean 1 of 2 things:

1) You set goals for yourself that were really quite hard, and you ACTUALLY perform better in competition than at home, and miraculously beat all 10 goals by a large margin (unlikely, especially considering the large positive difference between your goals and actual at-home averages).
2) You set somewhat EASY goals for yourself, met them all, and are now psychologically convinced that because you beat your low expectations that you perform better at competition than at home.


I'd be interested to know the amount of people with official times in competition that are 10% less than their at-home equivalent PBs (not counting events that people do more often at competitions than at home).


----------



## TDM (Apr 23, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I'm pretty sure that what I said for what I got at home was pretty accurate. My 16.23 Ao5 may have partially been effected by the fact that I think Chris Olson didn't give me a +2 when I'm pretty sure the layer was off by ~47 degrees. That was still below my expected average, though.


If you think it's a +2, why not argue that it was a +2? You're allowed to disagree with the judge's decision.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 23, 2015)

TDM said:


> e) is different to you
> 
> Isn't people being different the whole point of polls?



...

Allow me to translate the first poll option:

Is your competition PB >10% faster than your at-home PB?

Allow me to translate the second option:

Is your competition PB 2-10% faster than your at-home PB?


I seriously doubt that half of cubers have official PBs by such a large margin, as this poll suggests.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 23, 2015)

I would consider a day where I perform well in competition would be if I perform better than my at-home (or global) average. Comparing my competition results to the best I've ever done at home is just unreasonable.


----------



## TDM (Apr 23, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> ...
> 
> Allow me to translate the first poll option:
> 
> ...


I'll admit I didn't fully read the poll before answering in it, but I don't think the numbers he gave were reasonable anyway - 10% is a huge difference, and I even though I do think I do significantly better in competitions, I don't think I'm 10% better. Imo the numbers aren't important.

I don't know where you got the idea of competition times being faster than overall PBs from though. It doesn't say anything about that in the OP or the poll.


----------



## NewCuber000 (Apr 23, 2015)

I'd say it varies greatly for me, and depends on the event. I'll show you what I mean.
At the time of my last comp:
2x2 - Global average: Sub-5.5
- official average: 5.02
-single: 2.28 (Not lol scramble)
- official Single 4.38 (Bad)
3x3: -Global: Sub-15
-Average of 5: 13.09 (0.2 from old PB ao5 with a DNF... I was in the zone)
-Single: 8.54
-official Single: 12.05 
4x4: Global: Sub-1:12ish?
Average:1:01.xx (7 seconds better than at home Ao5)
Single: 59.xx
Official single: 48.52 (It's been a month after comp and my best home is 52 and i can't beat it!! 48 wasn't lucky besides no parity either..)
3x3BLD: -Mo3: 6:20.46
- Official Mo3: DNF XD
-Single: 4:50.89
-Official Single: DNF (Couldnt seem to concentrate!)
3x3OH: -Global: Sub-30
-Avg: 26.6x (Almost beat home Ao5)
-Single: 18.69 (PLL skip)
-Single: 24.97 (No skips) 
Pyraminx: -Global: Sub-7.5
-Ao5:7.46 (I think? Roughly. Don't feel like checking 
-Single: 2.31 (Like 7 moves, way too lucky)
- Official Single: 7.0x
Skewb: Lets just say I did badly... I was nervous on this one and because the way the skewb turns I could hardly turn it for some reason.


----------



## NewCuber000 (Apr 23, 2015)

I'd say it varies greatly for me, and depends on the event. I'll show you what I mean.
At the time of my last comp:
2x2 - Global average: Sub-5.5
- official average: 5.02
-single: 2.28 (Not lol scramble)
- official Single 4.38 (Bad)
3x3: -Global: Sub-15
-Average of 5: 13.09 (0.2 from old PB ao5 with a DNF... I was in the zone)
-Single: 8.54
-official Single: 12.05 
4x4: Global: Sub-1:12ish?
Average:1:01.xx (7 seconds better than at home Ao5)
Single: 59.xx
Official single: 48.52 (It's been a month after comp and my best home is 52 and i can't beat it!! 48 wasn't lucky besides no parity either..)
3x3BLD: -Mo3: 6:20.46
- Official Mo3: DNF XD
-Single: 4:50.89
-Official Single: DNF (Couldnt seem to concentrate!)
3x3OH: -Global: Sub-30
-Avg: 26.6x (Almost beat home Ao5)
-Single: 18.69 (PLL skip)
-Single: 24.97 (No skips) 
Pyraminx: -Global: Sub-7.5
-Ao5:7.46 (I think? Roughly. Don't feel like checking 
-Single: 2.31 (Like 7 moves, way too lucky)
- Official Single: 7.0x
Skewb: Lets just say I did badly... I was nervous on this one and because the way the skewb turns I could hardly turn it for some reason.


I didnt read the percentages of the poll so I choose the 2%-10% better range at THAT comp for the majority of the events.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

Let me clarify some things:

Yes, the numbers aren't important.

No. If you get your third best time in a competition, then you are best in competition, unless you hardly ever solve at home. If I do 4990 solves at home, then do 10 at a comp, and my 3rd best one is in those 10, then you did better at the comp. Seriously, if out of, say, 0.02% of your recent solves, one was your third best ever, then...

This is not talking about single times. This is talking about averages. It is somewhat uncommon for people to beat their PB at a comp.

Kit understands my point.

Those goals that I set were not exactly HARD, but they were a little bit better than what might be my expected times. Especially for 3x3. For 5x5 was closer to me not making my goal (the soft cutoff).

I didn't say that I thought it might be a +2 for three reasons: The first one was that it was close, and I couldn't really tell. The second one is because I don't like +2s. The third was because it was Chris Olson and I know he is very experienced.

Now, I have a question. mDiPalma, what exactly is wrong with this thread because it seems that you are very strongly rejecting it.


----------



## antoineccantin (Apr 23, 2015)

I used to be terrible in competition. Now I tend to be about the same as at home. Some events are usually worse (such as pyraminx), some I do much better (like 5x5).

And yes, I am sure that at 5x5 I am much better in competitions.

During my past 10 rounds in competition, my overall average for them was of 1:21.60. At home, I have never overall averaged under 1:22.
That may seem like a small difference, but 1:22 was at my peak, and the 1:21.60 average is over the course of 10 rounds, almost 2 years.

A more flagrant example is my last competition. A week before the competition, I was determined to improve at 5x5, so did a few hundred solves. The overall average of these was about 1:27, with a best avg12 of about 1:23-1:24. Right before competing, I was still bad, and couldn't get better solves than about 1:25. However, I ended up getting an official 1:16 average, with a 1:10 single. If that isn't doing better in competition, I don't know what is.


----------



## Berd (Apr 23, 2015)

I got my best ever 5x5 solve my first competition. Beat it soon after tho.


----------



## Wylie28 (Apr 23, 2015)

For the first 2 or 3 events (always the ones i want to do the best in at that particular comp) i do way worse than at home, but after those events i do better than at home


----------



## adimare (Apr 23, 2015)

Only went to one comp years ago, was already sub-20 at the time but best I could manage was 20.72 (still holds as the Costa Rican national record tho, so I got that going for me, which is nice).


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 23, 2015)

adimare said:


> Only went to one comp years ago, was already sub-20 at the time but best I could manage was 20.72 (still holds as the Costa Rican national record tho, so I got that going for me, which is nice).



You hold the Costa Rican NR, but... There is only one member of the WCA from Costa Rica.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 23, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> No. If you get your third best time in a competition, then you are best in competition, unless you hardly ever solve at home. If I do 4990 solves at home, then do 10 at a comp, and my 3rd best one is in those 10, then you did better at the comp. Seriously, if out of, say, 0.02% of your recent solves, one was your third best ever, then...



I'm not sure where you're from. But where I live, "better" is a strict comparative word. That means the item before the "is better than" is objectively superior to the item after the "is better than."

11 seconds is not better than 10 seconds. You are not better at a competition, because your BETTER times are at home. 

You say that you got your 3rd best time ever at a competition. 3 is an arbitrary number. What if I said I got my 12th best time ever at a competition. Or what about 150th best time? What about 2000th? According to your logic, as long as the ranking of my fastest solve at a competition is less than half the total solves that I've ever done, then I'm faster at a competition. *If that's the case, I'm sure everyone is faster at competitions. Because we all have nonzero standard deviations to our averages.*

*What about in the exact opposite case? What if I get a DNF at a competition? That's my absolute worst time EVER. Does that mean I'm objectively worse at a competition? According to your logic, I am.
*



JustinTimeCuber said:


> This is not talking about single times. This is talking about averages. It is somewhat uncommon for people to beat their PB at a comp.



OK, then consider the only other WCA measurement of 3x3 performance: avg5. Unless your competition avg5 is less than your at-home avg5, then you are NOT faster in competition. If you're comparing avg5s to global averages, you're not doing the whole "comparing" thing on level playing fields. It's not a valid comparison.



JustinTimeCuber said:


> Now, I have a question. mDiPalma, what exactly is wrong with this thread because it seems that you are very strongly rejecting it.



Well if you want valuable information, the poll should read, "What is the (signed) percent difference between your official 3x3 PR avg5 (in comp) and your unofficial 3x3 PB avg5 (at home)?"

And don't expect more than a few "negatives".


----------



## Mollerz (Apr 23, 2015)

I do better at competitions. I'll tell you why.

At competitions, the lighting is good, I'm generally well rested, my focus ALL DAY is cubing, so my brain is prepared for it, also for the most part the height of the chair and desk is consistent throughout the competition, so I get comfortable with that.

At home, my lighting is pretty mediocre, I cube whenever, first thing in the morning, last thing before I sleep etc. Cubing at home I generally pick up the cube and just solve, time a few maybe, whatever. My chair is very relaxing, so I'm slouched or perhaps not in an optimal seating configuration, my chair height varies a little bit too.

A lot of my overall PBs come from comps. 4x4 average, 5x5 single, OH single, megaminx single, square-1 single, clock single, 6x6 single, 7x7 single. Yes admittedly they are all single bar one, but if I'm doing big averages at home of course my home PB will be faster than what I get at competition, I'm doing hundreds more solves. If I sat down right now and did a big 4x4 average, I would expect to get around a 46-47 average globally. At my last competition I got two 46 averages, I would say I performed on par with how I did at home, and I also got a 42 average. I would say this exceeds what I expect to get at home, hence I am performing better at a competition than at home.

mDiPalma: When people say they are faster at competition, they generally mean that they consistently perform slightly better than their at-home global average. Which I think is fair enough if they can perform averages consistently better than their global at home, which I personally do.


----------



## cashis (Apr 23, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> words



He's saying he has gotten better times at competition relative to how many solves he does. Clearly, the times aren't literally better, but they are objectively better compared to the amount of solves. If I do 100 solves and get a 5.56 and do 10 solves at the competition and get th same time, i would say that i am better at a competition because, out of the ten solves, I got a solve that took me 100 to do at home. The title of the thread is "better", not "faster". Usually this is the same, but what the OP means is that he's better because he gets a fast solve in 10 or 15 comp solves wheras, out of the tons of solves he does at home, he can only get 2 that are faster. 
I guess this is just subjective to how you interpret "better", though. But its up to the individual, lets not argue too much


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2015)

Ok. Then if I get a DNF at a competition because the new timers suck, then I'm officially worse at competitions. I got an infinitely bad time for 20% of my solves. That would never happen at home!

Thanks for setting things straight. :tu


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> I'm not sure where you're from. But where I live, "better" is a strict comparative word. That means the item before the "is better than" is objectively superior to the item after the "is better than."
> 
> 11 seconds is not better than 10 seconds. You are not better at a competition, because your BETTER times are at home.
> 
> ...



You are missing my point. I thought it should have been obvious what I meant. I am asking this:
On average, are your times in competitions better or worse than a "normal" or "expected" average for you.

You are acting like I'm talking about PBs. This has nothing to do with PBs, except for the one round which contains your competition PB. I'm not talking about your PB at home AT ALL. So, you can argue, but you are missing the whole point of this thread. The answer to the question is not this (c = competition PB, h = non-comp PB):

100*(c-h)/h

Instead, c should be your competition AVERAGE and h is your EXPECTED AVERAGE.

Sorry about the caps, it's just that I'm getting a little bit frustrated.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> ...
> 
> Allow me to translate the first poll option:
> 
> ...



This is NOT the intention of the poll. The intention of the poll is comparing your competition PBs vs your at home averages. You don't get nearly as many chances at competition, so it would be unfair to compare PBs to PBs, and if your comp PB Ao5 matches your at home PB Ao100, I would say you do the same, if it's worse, then you do worse and if it's better you do better.



mDiPalma said:


> OK, then consider the only other WCA measurement of 3x3 performance: avg5. Unless your competition avg5 is less than your at-home avg5, then you are NOT faster in competition. If you're comparing avg5s to global averages, you're not doing the whole "comparing" thing on level playing fields. It's not a valid comparison.




How is it a level playing field to compare PBs among thousands and thousands of solves at home vs the PBs you get among the 20-100 solves you might get a year as an active competitor (depending on where you live, how many rounds you usually make it to, etc...)?


----------



## adimare (Apr 24, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> You hold the Costa Rican NR, but... There is only one member of the WCA from Costa Rica.



I avoid saying that part when I brag 

It's a shame really, there's a bunch of really fast kids here but I'm still the only costa rican to have attended a competition.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

adimare said:


> *I avoid saying that part when I brag*
> 
> It's a shame really, there's a bunch of really fast kids here but I'm still the only costa rican to have attended a competition.



I would too


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> This is NOT the intention of the poll. The intention of the poll is comparing your competition PBs vs your at home averages. You don't get nearly as many chances at competition, so it would be unfair to compare PBs to PBs, and if your comp PB Ao5 matches your at home PB Ao100, I would say you do the same, if it's worse, then you do worse and if it's better you do better.



Let's say I play a weird version of darts. Each round is me throwing 5 darts at a dartboard, and I tally up the amount of bulls-eyes (BEs) I get, and only BEs count for points. For example, if I hit 2 BEs in a single round, my score is 2.

Let's say I do 100 rounds. Here are my stats:

Personal Record of BEs in a single round: 3
Mode of BEs in 100 rounds: 1


Now let's say I go to my friend's house to use his dartboard. On the first round I play, I get 2 BEs. 

Which of the following two reactions is reasonable?



Spoiler



1) WOW OMG HIS DARTBOARD IS SO MUCH BETTER. I JUST GOT DOUBLE WHAT I EXPECTED ON MY FIRST TRY. OMG WE SHOULD CLONE THIS DARTBOARD AND SELL THEM FOR CASH MONEY ON THE INTERNET. WOW

2) Hmm. I seem to have gotten 2 BEs in a single round. That is interesting. As an intelligent individual, I will note that this is more than the mode of BEs that I have gotten in the past 100 rounds I have played at my own house. But at my house, I have gotten 3 BEs in a single round before, so I do not have definitive evidence that my friend's dartboard is better than mine. Nor do I have definitive evidence that I have even performed better than average. In fact, until I have done 100 rounds at my friend's house, I really cannot make a valid comparison between these two dart venues.






DeeDubb said:


> How is it a level playing field to compare PBs among thousands and thousands of solves at home vs the PBs you get among the 20-100 solves you might get a year as an active competitor (depending on where you live, how many rounds you usually make it to, etc...)?



How is it a level playing field to compare 3 counting solves at a competition to thousands of counting solves in a global average?

Let's say you are a dietitian. You are testing the nutritional contents of various types fruits, namely apples and oranges.

You are interested in checking 2 types of apples from a 2 different orchards, and a single type of orange from a grove.

The first orchard lets you have 5 apples, but wants you to not count the nutrition of the best and worst apples during your analysis. The second orchard sends you 1000 apples, and requires that you group them in sets of 5 and follow the same procedure as orchard 1.

The orange grove sends you 1000 oranges. They require that you average them *all* together before you submit your analysis.


Does it make more sense to compare the first orchards avg5 to the second orchard's avg5? Or to compare the apple's avg5 to the orange's avg1000?


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> I'm not sure where you're from. But where I live, "better" is a strict comparative word. That means the item before the "is better than" is objectively superior to the item after the "is better than."
> 
> 11 seconds is not better than 10 seconds. You are not better at a competition, because your BETTER times are at home.
> 
> ...


http://i.stack.imgur.com/RdTEU.png

Here are two histograms of cubing times, ignore the x-axis labels. You have the choice to be the red cuber or the blue cuber. Which do you choose, and why?


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> Comparing apples to oranges.



Yeah, that's clever...

It doesn't make sense for orchard A to pick the best 5 out of 1000 randomly chosen apples and orchard B to select it's best 5 out of a randomly selected 20 apples, which is exactly what comparing your home solves (orchard A) to competition solves (orchard B) is.

Sure the question should be more clear and say "Is your competition PB ao5 better or worse than your global average at home." I felt like that was the intention, so I gave the original poster the benefit of the doubt, and answered it with that interpretation, rather than accusing everyone of being liars, backing myself into a corner and creating ridiculous analogies to try to bail myself out.


----------



## Rocky0701 (Apr 24, 2015)

I usually do better in competitions because I am more focused since the times actually are more important to me than home times. Not that I'm unfocused at home, I'm just more focused in comp. Plus I am super warmed up in comps since the whole day is just hanging out and cubing.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

I just noticed what mDiPalma changed his signature to and it cracked me up XD

Not entirely worded correctly, but...

Yes, that is very likely to be true. Out of 10 solves, one of them was my third best. Out of tens of thousands of solves, hardly any of them at a comp, only 2 of them beat it.

So, by the fact that your signature is supposed to be mocking me (because it sure looks like it) then it really is making you look stupid in several ways. For one, it is very likely right. Even given 1000 total solves, 10 of which are in competition:
The chance that one of the top 3 solves occurs in that subset of 10 is very close to 3/100 or 3%. That is a pretty low probability. So, it probably wouldn't have happened if it were completely random. Therefore, I must do better in competition. Does that somehow offend you, that I'm better at competitions than at home? My overall observation is that I am 5 to 10 percent better at competitions in most events. The reason that my best solve isn't in competition is that it is a much smaller sample of data. Before my next competition, maybe I should do 10 solves. I will look at my average and best 3 times, and compare those to my overall average and best 3 at the competition. Chances are that my best will be at the comp, probably the second best, and maybe even the third best (of all 20). My (mean) average will also probably be less. Again, what is wrong with the fact that I do better in competitions? If you can't be constructive, then quit posting on the thread.
Oh, and the other way that it makes you look stupid. It shows that you are disrespectful of people (specifically, in this case, me) and that never makes you look good. _Why did my simple thread turn into a pointless argument?_


----------



## WayneMigraine (Apr 24, 2015)

I'm surprised to see how many people have faster averages in competition than they do at home. I'm not sure personally whether I do better in competitions or at home since I've only been to one competition but I think my times at home are about the same or maybe a small bit slower than my current competition best. I have definitely noticed though that my solving times improve throughout the day. If I do some solves in the morning and my hands are cold, it seems like I can barely get sub 16, but once I've done about 60 or 70 solves and my hands are warm getting sub 15 or even sub 14.5 seems a lot easier.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> http://i.stack.imgur.com/RdTEU.png
> 
> Here are two histograms of cubing times, ignore the x-axis labels. You have the choice to be the red cuber or the blue cuber. Which do you choose, and why?



assuming the stat of interest is avg500, the blue one. it's further to the left.

which would you rather be, the red cuber or the black cuber, and why?

http://s23.postimg.org/txiwhdesb/histo.png


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 24, 2015)

Honestly, I will say this.

Taking out nerves, "rising to the occassion", or any other intangible, and just assuming everything is identical, it makes sense for your PB ao5 at competition to be better than your global average, if you are competing enough to keep up with your progression. It's your BEST ao5 at comp, so it should be at least a little better. If you compare the average of ALL of your comp solves at a given competition to your global average at the time, it should be similar, but the best Ao5 should be a little better.

The only reasons it could be worse are random bad luck, nerves, or if you don't compete enough to keep up with your progression.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> assuming the stat of interest is avg500, the blue one. it's further to the left.
> 
> which would you rather be, the red cuber or the black cuber, and why?
> 
> http://s23.postimg.org/txiwhdesb/histo.png



I would rather be the black cuber, because the solves are centered farther left of the red cuber's average. The black cuber represents how I am in competition and the red one represents my times overall. I used your own argument against you. QED.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I would rather be the black cuber, because the solves are centered farther left of the red cuber's average. The black cuber represents how I am in competition and the red one represents my times overall. I used your own argument against you. QED.



http://s30.postimg.org/txop6mqhd/histo2.png

I added the rest of the black histogram.

Those 5 solves were near the tip. Whoops!


----------



## SpiderFingers (Apr 24, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I would rather be the black cuber, because the solves are centered farther left of the red cuber's average. The black cuber represents how I am in competition and the red one represents my times overall. I used your own argument against you. QED.



Reading this comment gives me a strange sense of deja vu.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> assuming the stat of interest is avg500, the blue one. it's further to the left.
> 
> which would you rather be, the red cuber or the black cuber, and why?
> 
> http://s23.postimg.org/txiwhdesb/histo.png



I see the point you're trying to get at -- the question you're asking is kind of weird given the picture since the density curve indicates a model for the distribution of solving times while a histogram is just a sample of times. A more sensible question is "Would you be happy with the times represented by the histogram if the red density curve represents your population distribution of solves?" If so, then I would feel happy about those times -- they're better than what I would expect at home, especially considering the pressure of a competition.


----------



## Aussie (Apr 24, 2015)

I do better in competitions rather than at home. I think the competition pressure helps me a lot. At Lawrence Spring 2015, I was expecting a best of 3:45 and a mean of 4:00 for 6x6, just because of nerves, but I did a LOT better. Also, at the 2014 Nationals, I was expecting a 6:00 - 7:50 6x6 single, but I got a 5:53 which was awesome.  The only times I do bad are when I am not nervous. ( All 3x3 solves and last Lawrence Spring 6x6 solve. )


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> http://s30.postimg.org/txop6mqhd/histo2.png
> 
> I added the rest of the black histogram.
> 
> Those 5 solves were near the tip. Whoops!



Then I would rather be the red cuber, except that argument isn't valid to begin with because that DOES NOT accurately show my preformance at competitions. I have never gotten a really bad time at a competition. My worst time has been just a couple seconds above my average. So, I would rather be the red cuber, but that is because it doesn't represent me accurately, assuming the black cuber is at competition.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

Aussie said:


> I do better in competitions rather than at home. I think the competition pressure helps me a lot. At Lawrence Spring 2015, I was expecting a best of 3:45 and a mean of 4:00 for 6x6, just because of nerves, but I did a LOT better. Also, at the 2014 Nationals, I was expecting a 6:00 - 7:50 6x6 single, but I got a 5:53 which was awesome.  The only times I do bad are when I am not nervous. ( All 3x3 solves and last Lawrence Spring 6x6 solve. )



I average around 5 minutes on 6x6, but I don't do it all that much. I didn't compete in it at Lawrence, but I did at Indiana 2014 when I averaged ~8 and got a 7:15, and at UIUC Spring 2013 when I averaged ~9:30 and got an 8:31. I find your style of cubing interesting. It is pretty unusual for someone to only do 6x6, but you could get pretty good. I see from your signature that your 6x6 PB is almost sub-3. Mine is barely sub-5


----------



## DavidCip86 (Apr 24, 2015)

for the oklahoma open, i was practicing 7x7 (my main event) and i was doing about 10 solves every day and averaging 5:10. i got a 4:21 average at the comp, destroying my at home pb


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 24, 2015)

DavidCip86 said:


> for the oklahoma open, i was practicing 7x7 (my main event) and i was doing about 10 solves every day and averaging 5:10. i got a 4:21 average at the comp, destroying my at home pb



This reminded me that although for smaller cubes, such as 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, Pyra, and Skewb, I get slightly below my normal average, but for larger cubes like 5x5, 6x6, and Mega, I beat my PBs and sometimes I crush them by a lot.


----------



## Jiayu (May 14, 2015)

Home


----------



## Jiayu (May 14, 2015)

Jiayu said:


> Home



I usually do better at home,but after I went to a lot of competitions,I actually got results that are even better than what I can do at home. It was because of easy scramble or some reasons, if you went to a lot of competitions, you will get the chance.
Like last week in one competition,I BLD an official average of 3.07 min. But at home,I can't even BLD successful always. And the three scrambles were really easy.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 10, 2015)

I would say home even tho I smashed some of my home pbs (single and averages) at a comp that would have took me more time to break at home.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 10, 2015)

At home because I've never been to a comp... ;-P


----------



## Torch (Aug 10, 2015)

I used to do well at comps compared to my global average. Now I average 12.5 on 3x3 and my last 3x3 averages have been 14.11, 13.64, and 15.41. Ugh.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 10, 2015)

3 months bump I guess that's a lot lol
I think I have a theory for what makes people at both ends of the spectrum.

For the people who do better at comps:
You get up to the solving station. You are at a comp, which you have been pretty excited about for the past week or two. You have been having fun with other cubers for a while, and because of that you haven't had much time to think about being nervous. You say you are ready and start inspection. You are very concentrated, and you find the cross (or FB, don't yell at me Roux people) pretty quickly, and get a good idea of where the next pair will be. When you start the solve, and do your planed out moves, you are completely zoned out to everything but the cube. You see the pairs more quickly than normal. Your solve is clean, or at least mostly clean with one or two minor lockups. Such a solve, for me, would normally be a low to mid 12, and my PB ao50 is 13.08, so we can say that is pretty much my global average. (Yeah, time to update my signature.)

For the people who do worse in competitions:
Before getting to the solving station, you have been thinking about your results for the round quite a bit. You are very concerned about the results from that round (like 3x3, or 2x2, or your specialty) and you are pretty nervous. During inspection, you hurriedly look for your first step solution, and when you start the solve you may rush it and lock up. You don't see the next pairs very fast. You don't do too well on OLL/PLL (or CMLL/LSE, or whatever seriously) recognition and/or execution. You may get a +2 on one or two of your solves because you rush your final moves too much and lock up. Such a result for me would probably be a 14-16 or a 16-18+.


----------



## YouCubing (Aug 14, 2015)

Definitely better in competition. Examples:
Peach State 2015: Global Avg of 40.89, official average of 36.16
US Nats 2015: Global Avg of 34.16, official average of 31.51
Atlanta Open 2015: Global Avg of 31.44, official average of 30.13.
So yeah.


----------



## NeilH (Aug 14, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Definitely better in competition. Examples:
> Peach State 2015: Global Avg of 40.89, official average of 36.16
> US Nats 2015: Global Avg of 34.16, official average of 31.51
> Atlanta Open 2015: Global Avg of 31.44, official average of 30.13.
> So yeah.



how do you average 31.44


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 14, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Definitely better in competition. Examples:
> Peach State 2015: Global Avg of 40.89, official average of 36.16
> US Nats 2015: Global Avg of 34.16, official average of 31.51
> Atlanta Open 2015: Global Avg of 31.44, official average of 30.13.
> So yeah.



Just for reference, the idea of an average is to give an average time for your solves. So if taken literally, saying your global average is 31.44 is saying every single time you do an average, you get 31.44 plus or minus a few thousandths. A more reasonable way to say it would be a 31 second average (obviously your offical average is reported in the decimals). If you think about it, reporting a global average to the hundredths place would mean your global average changes _every single solve_. 
Not trying to be mean, just wanted to explain the concept, you're not the only new person who's done that.


----------



## TDM (Aug 14, 2015)

Decided to check global averages vs comp PB averages. I've only been to four comps since getting to the speed I'm at now so I haven't had many opportunities for lucky official averages.

I used averages except for 3BLD, Mega and Multi, where I don't have one.







Most of them seem to be near enough 8% faster in competition, with a couple of exceptions (3BLD is much faster, and 2x2/Mega are slower).


----------



## YouCubing (Aug 15, 2015)

NeilH said:


> how do you average 31.44



Uh... why wouldn't you?


----------



## frogmanson (Aug 15, 2015)

I'm about 3 seconds slower in competition than I am at home.


----------



## TDM (Aug 15, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Uh... why wouldn't you?


That's a very specific time to say that you average.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 30, 2016)

bumpy
I can has more datums:
KCubbng 2015: Global avg around 13, comp averages 12.82, 12.10, 13.88, average difference = -0.5%
Moozik City Winter 2016: Global average around 12.4, comp averages 11.91, 11.20, 13.68, average difference = -1.1%
OKCupid 2016: Global average around 12.2, comp averages 11.88, 10.86, 11.86, average difference = -5.5%
KClappfest 2016 Spring Edition 2016: Global around 12.4, comp averages 11.01, 12.56, 12.54, average difference = -2.3%
US Cats 2016: Global around 11.9, comp averages 12.03, 11.93, average difference = +0.7%

Averagy average = -1.7%, i.e. I am still a bit better at comps but not that much better than at home anymore (would probably be like -1.8% if they DIDN'T HAVE THE NATIONALS VENUE AT 52 DEGREES GOD lol)


----------



## Rcuber123 (Sep 30, 2016)

I'm so bad at comps...


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 30, 2016)

Oh btw I hope there isn't another mDiPalma on the forums


----------



## Matt11111 (Sep 30, 2016)

Wow. Pretty even split so far.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Sep 30, 2016)

I do better at comps because the lighting is much better. At home it's hard to find good lighting where yellow and white stickers don't look the same, I have considered switching to black stickers (I already use them for squan) instead of white just for this reason.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 30, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> I do better at comps because the lighting is much better. At home it's hard to find good lighting where yellow and white stickers don't look the same, I have considered switching to black stickers (I already use them for squan) instead of white just for this reason.


At KCupping competitions the lighting isn't very great I can't even see my cups


----------



## newtonbase (Sep 30, 2016)

I seem to do better in competition in longer events but worse at the short ones. I can't get close to my home tines in 2x2 and Pyraminx but my 5x5 competition single is an overall PB by a huge margin. I haven't voted.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 30, 2016)

I ran a similar test to TDM's, and here are my results:


A couple notes:
I used significant figures for these calculations.
I used single for 3BLD and MBLD (one of which adds to my average quite a bit).
When eliminating the two where I used single and only looking at averages, my average percent difference drops to -4.6%.

This is really surprising to me; I always feel like I do way better in comps than I do at home, which apparently isn't true overall. Although, it is interesting to note that in 2x2, 3x3, Skewb, and Pyraminx, my comp averages are 10% better or more, which is probably because these events are relatively scramble based.


----------



## turtwig (Sep 30, 2016)

I screw up some rounds and get really lucky in others, overall I think I do much better than I expect, especially for longer events, I've gotten 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, and 3BLD PBs in comp, I guess the pressure lets me comcentrate better. I've gotten better than expected in basically every event except maybe 3x3 and 4x4. I placed first in a 2x2 round mostly because I knew some easy EG cases no one else in the competition knew, did much better than I averaged in Megaminx with almost no practice prior, got a Pyra average with 4 PLL skips, got a 6.35 Skewb average, which placed me 3rd at the comp despite averaging just sub-8, and got 2 sub-20s, including a 16 and a 21 average in OH despite averaging 25. So I guess I'm really lucky in comps


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 30, 2016)

turtwig said:


> I screw up some rounds and get really lucky in others, overall I think I do much better than I expect, especially for longer events, I've gotten 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, and 3BLD PBs in comp, I guess the pressure lets me comcentrate better. I've gotten better than expected in basically every event except maybe 3x3 and 4x4. I placed first in a 2x2 round mostly because I knew some easy EG cases no one else in the competition knew, did much better than I averaged in Megaminx with almost no practice prior, got a Pyra average with 4 PLL skips, got a 6.35 Skewb average, which placed me 3rd at the comp despite averaging just sub-8, and got 2 sub-20s, including a 16 and a 21 average in OH despite averaging 25. So I guess I'm really lucky in comps


I've gotten a 5x5 and 6x6 overall PB at the same competition and didn't make the cutoff in either one
that's not even mentioning by 7.21 pyra average which was I think almost a PB (I know you guys are lauging atm)
neither are still PBs lol


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 1, 2016)

Lol I do way worse in comp than at home.
The things that make me think that because I was expecting a normal average
20.62 average when I averaged 17 3x3
26.56 average when I averaged 23 OH
1:24.49 average and a 1:40.86 single (corner twist) when I was sub-1:20 3x3 fw
5.47 average when I was sub-4.8ish 2x2
4.02 2x2 single. 1-move CLL layer that canceled into a sune -> T-Perm+AUF.

idc but it was still bad
5:23.02 single when I averaged 5 on 6x6
45.22 single when I was just around sub-45. soft cutoff was 45. sq-1

Things that shouldn't make me think that:
16 single when I wasn't sub-20 3x3
28 single when I wasn't sub-33 OH
12.96 average when I was idk sub-15? pyra
13.13 average when I was like sub-15 also? skewb
2:29.46 5x5, I was pleasantly surprised because I was just hoping for sub-2:50
2:41.05 mega, I think this was a little good, I was just hoping for sub-3? (But I like mega now)

My conclusion:
I do bad in comp at the things I care about.
If I could[n't] care less, then a result in general is good enough for me.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 1, 2016)

I can do well in comps and have like in 6x6 and 7x7 I have gotten quite a few PBs by significant margins. My last comp I got a 5:19.xx mean my PB single was 5:12.xx before the comp. I might of beaten it slightly. On 2x2 recently I have failed. However I need to work on revising EG-1 very well. Usually I did pretty well in all event but 3x3 in the past.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 1, 2016)

Some events I do better, some worse. For 3BLD at the only competition I've done it, I did significantly worse than home, Probably cos I was trying to make it a safe success.


----------



## Slowto Speedy (Oct 1, 2016)

I get super nervous. My hands shake and I get a it of lock ups. That's why my comp PB average is 18.18 :/


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 1, 2016)

can't say for sure yet cause my first comp is next saturday, but I've always been slower in front of groups...


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 1, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> can't say for sure yet cause my first comp is next saturday, but I've always been slower in front of groups...


the question is which will have the greater effect- My amazing ability to screw up in 2x2, or you probably being under pressure because it's the finals at your first comp?


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 1, 2016)

you also have to take into account my extreme inconsistency atm...
Generated By csTimer on 2016-10-1
solves/total: 18/18

single
best: 9.529
worst: 16.789

mean of 3
current: 12.974 (σ = 2.86)
best: 9.830 (σ = 0.36)

avg of 5
current: 11.342 (σ = 2.37)
best: 11.342 (σ = 2.37)

avg of 12
current: 13.302 (σ = 2.28)
best: 12.892 (σ = 2.32)

Average: 12.907 (σ = 2.31)
Mean: 12.935

Time List:
1. 9.700 D R2 D B2 F2 D2 L2 D B2 D' L2 F U L' U R2 F' R2 D2 R D2 
2. 14.517 B2 U2 B U2 F' U2 L2 F2 U2 R2 B U B F' L' F2 L2 D' F' R U' 
3. 14.454 D R2 B' R2 D2 R2 D2 F' R2 B2 L2 D' B' R D R2 U2 R2 U' B' 
4. 9.565 R D U' F2 U2 B2 R2 F2 U B2 R2 D B' R U2 F' U2 R2 F2 R B2 
5. 14.218 L' R2 U2 R2 D2 B R2 B2 D2 B2 D2 B D' F' R' B R2 U' R' D2 F' 
6. 11.034 D' L2 B2 U F2 D U2 F2 L2 F L2 R F2 R F R' U' L F 
7. 10.577 U' L U R' B2 L2 U F2 R' F' U2 B' R2 U2 F R2 B U2 F2 U2 
8. 14.129 B2 F2 R2 U' R2 D B2 U R2 U' F L U' R' F' D' L U R2 B' 
9. 15.298 U' F2 U2 F2 R2 F2 L2 U R2 F U2 R B L' D' L F2 R' B2 D2 
10. 13.501 U2 B F U2 L2 F' D2 R2 U2 L D' L' D2 B' R2 B2 R U' L2 
11. 16.789 B2 L F2 U2 B2 L2 R' F2 L' R' B2 F' U' L B' L2 R' D2 R' D L 
12. 14.332 U2 R2 U R2 F2 L2 D2 F2 D R2 B U2 F' D' B' R U' L2 R2 D2 L 
13. 16.030 D' L2 F L2 U2 R2 U2 B2 L2 R2 U2 F' U' L2 B R2 F L' B U2 R2 
14. 9.529 U D2 R F2 L U' F2 B' R B2 R D2 B2 R' L2 B2 D2 R B2 U' 
15. 10.234 R2 B' U2 R2 F L2 F D2 U2 B F R' F L D2 B2 D' L U F L2 
16. 9.727 F' D2 L2 D2 F' L2 B2 L2 F D2 B' R' D' B2 U' B2 U R2 U' 
17. 15.131 L' D F2 R' B R D R' D R2 U2 B2 R2 B2 L F2 U2 L U2 
18. 14.065 B' U2 F2 U' L2 R2 B2 L2 D' U2 F2 U L D' R2 F L' B2 U'

at least I'm still sub-13ish


----------



## turtwig (Oct 1, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> you also have to take into account my extreme inconsistency atm...
> Generated By csTimer on 2016-10-1
> solves/total: 18/18
> 
> ...



Wow, are you usually this inconsistent? Kind of hard to believe someone could average sub-13 while getting almost 25% sub-10 solves.


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 1, 2016)

no just lately been pretty inconsistent, but this is probably the worst of it.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 1, 2016)

I did an 11.44 ao50. It could have been a PB, but I always get nervous near the end of my ao50s and mess up. Here's my best ao12:
Generated By csTimer on 2016-10-1
avg of 12: 10.62

Time List:
*1. (8.10) D' U2 R2 D' B2 R2 U' L2 B2 L2 F2 R' D' B D2 B D B2 R' B U2 *
2. (13.15) U2 B2 R F D' B' D B2 U R' F2 B2 R' F2 L' U2 R' F2 L2 F2 D' 
3. 10.57 L2 B2 R2 D2 B2 D2 R2 U2 R B2 U R2 B R' B2 F' U L2 R' U 
4. 11.47 U F2 U2 B2 L2 B2 F2 D' U2 F2 L2 R D' L2 B' D2 B2 F R' B' D 
*5. 9.95 U2 R2 B' D2 L2 F' D2 L2 D2 R2 F' U' R2 D2 F D' B' R D2 L' U' 
6. 9.74 L2 U' B2 L2 B2 D' U B2 R2 L' F' D' B' U B2 D U2 B2 R *
7. 11.49 B' D' F2 L2 U' L2 U' B2 D' L2 B2 D R U' L B' R' B2 D' R2 
*8. 9.84 L2 F D2 L F2 U' B R2 L' U2 L2 B2 U2 D F2 R2 F2 U B2 U L' *
9. 10.52 L D2 B D2 U2 F' D2 B2 R2 F' L2 F' U L' D' U' R B' L2 
10. 11.66 L' B2 D' B2 L' U F' D B R U B2 U B2 D2 F2 D2 R2 D' L2 
11. 11.36 L' D2 F' U2 F' L2 D2 L2 D2 B' L2 B' D F R' F2 L F' D' R2 D' 
*12. 9.58 R F' U R2 F2 L' U2 B' D' U2 R2 F2 U2 F U2 B2 D2 R2 B' L2
*
5/12 = 42% sub 10
0 counting sup-12s


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 2, 2016)

turtwig said:


> Wow, are you usually this inconsistent? Kind of hard to believe someone could average sub-13 while getting almost 25% sub-10 solves.


honestly I think it's because I'm not seeing far enough in inspection, I've only been seeing my cross and nothing more but I used to see my cross +1 pair... but yeah I normally don't get that many sub 10's.


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 10, 2016)

Well, it's confirmed, I do significantly worse in competition. I'm taking a break from 3x3 for a month, I'm going to focus on OH 2x2 and pyra.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 10, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> Well, it's confirmed, I do significantly worse in competition. I'm taking a break from 3x3 for a month, I'm going to focus on OH 2x2 and pyra.


as soon as I saw that you replied to this thread I was like, "owwwww this hurts"


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 10, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> as soon as I saw that you replied to this thread I was like, "owwwww this hurts"


 for real tho...


----------

