# Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked? (Read the first post)



## Noahaha (Nov 15, 2012)

I think that *singles should still be what win competitions*, but I think that in 3BLD there should also be rankings for means of 3. 

Here are my reasons:
1. The WR single has basically gotten to the point that anyone who wants to beat it would need a fairly lucky scramble (Marcell included).
2. It is often very disappointing for people who put a lot of effort into 3BLD to have everything depend on the single. If you don't get lucky on a nice scramble, you won't ever get a good time, and if you do, you lose hope of beating that time. A mo3 ranking will better represent how good you are at BLD, and not just how good you are at a particular scramble.
3. A good mean of 3 is a significantly bigger accomplishment than a good single, just like in every other event.
4. Marcell's 29.63 official mo3 deserves huge recognition.
5. Most importantly, less BLDers would quit (I know I would be less likely to).

Tell me what you think.

*UPDATE* (December 10, 2013)

Here is a more complete argument for the proposed change to the regulations:

I would like to propose adding an official ranking for 3BLD means of 3.

I am not asking that competitions be determined any differently (they would still be determined by single), but only that there be official rankings for 3x3 blindfolded averages, just as there are rankings for singles in other events where averages determine who wins a competition.

Here are my arguments:

1. The world record single is at the point where even one of the fastest solvers would need a fairly lucky scramble in order to beat it. I know that this is true of many events (pyraminx, 2x2, 3x3 etc.), but in those events the WR average is generally considered to be more important. 3x3 Blindfolded does not have an average to fall back on, so the only record/ranking is quite based on luck.

2. Because of the luck element described above, competing in 3x3 blindfolded is often extremely frustrating for serious competitors. I go into every competition knowing that my ability to set a personal record has a lot to do with how easy the scrambles are for the event. Adding rankings for means would allow blindfolded solvers to have something to hope for other than a lucky scramble.

3. A mean of 3 is a better reflection of how fast a solver is than a good single. Although most of the 3x3 blindfolded single rankings are well deserved, there are plenty of examples of slower people overtaking faster people due to a lucky scramble. Again, this is not a problem in events that also have ranked averages, and would not be as much of a problem if 3x3 blindfolded averages were ranked.

4. It would add strategy and excitement to the 3x3 blindfolded event without removing any that is already there. Solvers would still be encouraged to go for fast times in order to win competitions, but they would also be encouraged get successes on scrambles that they can't get their best time on. I have had plenty of times where I have given up on a scramble or gone way faster than I should have because I knew that it didn't matter unless I beat the time that preceded it. For someone who has a PB single that they can't possibly beat due to a lucky scramble, ranked means would give them something new to go for.

5. In this, a few people argued that a reason for not ranking means is because not enough people have completed one successfully. I think most people can agree that this is not a valid argument to begin with, but I bring it up in order to point out one thing: one reason why not many people have gotten means is because of the lack of ranking for means. The current system encourages people to go for fast singles rather than averages, and so often times even fast people do not complete all three solves.


Honestly I cannot think of any reason why not to rank 3BLD means, and although it would be the only "best of" event to have ranked means, I don't think it would fundamentally change anything about competitions or the WCA. I find the luck-based elements of 3x3 blindfolded extremely frustrating, and I know that I am not the only blindsolver to feel this. I think that making this decision would make many people very happy, and would not have a negative effect on anyone.


----------



## AustinReed (Nov 16, 2012)

I don't see a problem with it, besides maybe that too few people would actually get all 3 solves.


----------



## Ollie (Nov 16, 2012)

AustinReed said:


> I don't see a problem with it, besides maybe that too few people would actually get all 3 solves.



Which would make having a Mo3 3BLD score on your rankings even more prestigious!

A Mo3 could still be heavily affected by a lucky scramble (or two - it can happen.) But I can't think of any way around this (average of 5, hmmm.) Also being able to perform under the pressure of being gifted with a good scramble is part of being a good BLD solver I guess.

Other than that I agree


----------



## brandbest1 (Nov 16, 2012)

Yeah the only problem I see with it is that many people wouldn't be able to rank because DNF's are way too common.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 16, 2012)

Not many people rank in 5BLD, and that's ok. The way I feel and probably many other BLDers feel right now is the same kind of frustration that someone very into 5x5 would feel if only their best single counted.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 16, 2012)

Mean of best 2 perhaps? This would get rid of a single DNF, but still requires at least 2 successes (plus it makes it easier to get an average)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2012)

best of 5 plz


----------



## Escher (Nov 16, 2012)

Not sure if the 'DNFs are common' argument is relevant since the nature of the event changes when ranking is also based on mo3. Would bring into question which system we use to rank in competition, I don't like the idea of 39.99 beating 40.00*3, but then again, the inability to rank at all if you get one DNF seems somewhat unfair. It would also lead to people solving a lot slower and taking up more time in competition in order to qualify for a mean. I don't mean to sound elitist but the time taken for the event (which is already a decent chunk) would increase, and thus decrease the number of competitions that can afford to run it...


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 16, 2012)

Escher said:


> Not sure if the 'DNFs are common' argument is relevant since the nature of the event changes when ranking is also based on mo3. Would bring into question which system we use to rank in competition, I don't like the idea of 39.99 beating 40.00*3, but then again, the inability to rank at all if you get one DNF seems somewhat unfair. It would also lead to people solving a lot slower and taking up more time in competition in order to qualify for a mean. I don't mean to sound elitist but the time taken for the event (which is already a decent chunk) would increase, and thus decrease the number of competitions that can afford to run it...



I really don't want anything to change other than the WCA website. Competitions should still base things on singles, I just think people should get recognition for means of three. In response to the time problem, competitions could just cut people off from finishing their average just like in any other event.


----------



## NevinsCPH (Nov 16, 2012)

that is actually a very great idea, it somehow also able to show one's consistency. I liked how having a mo3 ranking in WCA can be an achievement to a slow bld-er like me.


----------



## Mikel (Nov 16, 2012)

I think its a good idea. We are ranked in 3x3 single, but you have to have the best average to win a competition. This would be the same thing just flip-flopped.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Nov 16, 2012)

I would have one result for mean of 3 over 30 rounds of competing in BLD. No thanks.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 16, 2012)

*Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked?*



Swordsman Kirby said:


> I would have one result for mean of 3 over 30 rounds of competing in BLD. No thanks.



You would have more from actually trying to get them.


----------



## Petro Leum (Nov 16, 2012)

what i am definately against are "best of x" formats. i would welcome a Mo3/Average of 5-Format for BLD. what is the point in being fast in blindsolving, when you get 1 success in 10 solves anyway?  "i can solve the cube blind in 1 Minute! ...sometimes :/"


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2012)

Petro Leum said:


> what i am definately against are "best of x" formats. i would welcome a Mo3/Average of 5-Format for BLD. what is the point in being fast in blindsolving, when you get 1 success in 10 solves anyway?  "i can solve the cube blind in 1 Minute! ...sometimes :/"



No fast blindsolver has a success rate like that.


----------



## kinch2002 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> No fast blindsolver has a success rate like that.



Indeed. Marcell has an extremely good success rate. He also has the best single and mean of 3. Can someone provide evidence where somebody has shot up the world rankings 'unfairly' because of a lucky scramble?

Joey would have UK NR with his only mean of 3 ever


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 16, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> Indeed. Marcell has an extremely good success rate. He also has the best single and mean of 3. Can someone provide evidence where somebody has shot up the world rankings 'unfairly' because of a lucky scramble?
> 
> Joey would have UK NR with his only mean of 3 ever



Christian Kaserer 2x2 single? #1 for single, #229 for average.

Which brings me to an unrelated question: what is the worst average ranking for a WR single holder (in the same event)?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Christian Kaserer 2x2 single? #1 for single, #229 for average.



He's talking about 3BLD. This thread is about 3BLD.


----------



## Dacuba (Nov 16, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Christian Kaserer 2x2 single? #1 for single, #229 for average.
> 
> Which brings me to an unrelated question: what is the worst average ranking for a WR single holder (in the same event)?



It's indeed 2x2. No crazy coding but general knowledge and a look at some rankings 
Now please /OT stuff I wanna follow the 3bld discussion. Thanks


----------



## tim (Nov 16, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> Can someone provide evidence where somebody has shot up the world rankings 'unfairly' because of a lucky scramble?



Kai. Not by much, though.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 16, 2012)

*Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked?*



kinch2002 said:


> Indeed. Marcell has an extremely good success rate. He also has the best single and mean of 3. Can someone provide evidence where somebody has shot up the world rankings 'unfairly' because of a lucky scramble?
> 
> Joey would have UK NR with his only mean of 3 ever



Euro 2012 had two unbelievably easy scrambles. I'm not saying that the people who got good times on those scrambles don't deserve to have the rankings they do. I'm just saying that it's pretty disappointing for me to think that every competition I'm just hoping for a scramble like that and there's nothing I can control about that.

I also don't see how it could possibly hurt just to add another page of rankings to the WCA site and another WR. Very little would actually change about how the event is run.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 16, 2012)

If you're doing it for 3BLD, why not all the other events? I don't see why 4BLD or 5BLD should be different - they work identically. Fewest moves would certainly work as well (for the few competitions that have 3 attempts). And for that matter, you could average the points for multi (again, for rare occasions where you have 3 attempts).

(Okay, so I'm proud of having gotten a 4BLD mean of 3, and a couple of times I almost got a mean of 3 in 5BLD, so I'd love to work for that.)


----------



## cubernya (Nov 16, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> If you're doing it for 3BLD, why not all the other events? I don't see why 4BLD or 5BLD should be different - they work identically. Fewest moves would certainly work as well (for the few competitions that have 3 attempts). And for that matter, you could average the points for multi (again, for rare occasions where you have 3 attempts).
> 
> (Okay, so I'm proud of having gotten a 4BLD mean of 3, and a couple of times I almost got a mean of 3 in 5BLD, so I'd love to work for that.)



Has anybody ever gotten a mean of 3 in 5BLD?
And for Multi, has any competition ever had 3 attempts? Even Worlds only had 2 attempts


----------



## tx789 (Nov 16, 2012)

If you allowed 3x3 mean what about 4BLD and 5BLD like mike said 

Also I see nothing wrong with adding 3bld mean of 3x3 good blind solvers has good success rate.

Didn't Maslow get 3 attempts once

No one has every got a 3x3 mean of 3 in 5bld but there are 2/2's and a guy with 2 2/3's and a one person with a 100% success rate


----------



## acohen527 (Nov 16, 2012)

Sorry if this sounds stupid or doesn't make any sense but-

What if it was just the average of your 3 or 5 best successes in competition ever? It would eliminate the one lucky solve people who have a high ranking, but also wouldn't be really hard to achieve, especially because of the high DNF rate even trying to get successes to post a mo3. What I'm trying to say is, that you can still try and go your fastest without doing safety solves to get a mo3.


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 17, 2012)

acohen527 said:


> Sorry if this sounds stupid or doesn't make any sense but-
> 
> What if it was just the average of your 3 or 5 best successes in competition ever? It would eliminate the one lucky solve people who have a high ranking, but also wouldn't be really hard to achieve, especially because of the high DNF rate even trying to get successes to post a mo3. What I'm trying to say is, that you can still try and go your fastest without doing safety solves to get a mo3.



what if you have 4 lucky scrambles?
if the winner of 3bld was based on the mo3 at competitions, someone could get a 3 minute solve and 2 dnfs and beat someone who got a 30 second solve if that was their first success.
if you dnf solves, too bad. no mean for you.

its a stupid idea.


----------



## acohen527 (Nov 17, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> what if you have 4 lucky scrambles?
> if the winner of 3bld was based on the mo3 at competitions, someone could get a 3 minute solve and 2 dnfs and beat someone who got a 30 second solve if that was their first success.
> if you dnf solves, too bad. no mean for you.
> 
> its a stupid idea.



Could you rephrase that? The whole 3 minute vs. 30 seconds thing... it doesn't really make sense to me. You'd still be keeping single solves as what wins the competitions, but the mo3's or avg.5's could be another WCA stat that shows how good you are at BLD, not just if you get a lucky scramble. And if someone gets 4 lucky scrambles, then being able to convert them into successes is proof of being a good BLDer.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> in 3BLD there should also be rankings for means of 3.



http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/


----------



## tim (Nov 17, 2012)

Stefan said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/



Did you just hack that together or did it already exist? Anyway: THANKS!


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 17, 2012)

Stefan said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/



Clément Gallet 50 3BLD means
wat


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 17, 2012)

*Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked?*



Stefan said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/



Cool stuff! It would be great to see this on profiles, but this is wonderful as well.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2012)

tim said:


> Did you just hack that together or did it already exist?



I made it a while ago but didn't quite finish/publish it until now (can still be improved, but at least it's decent).



Noahaha said:


> It would be great to see this on profiles



Maybe. Being a special page allows me to do special stuff, like showing mean-of-2 in addition to mean-of-3. In any case, I wouldn't put this on the main pages without permission of the board, as it would kinda conflict with the regulations.


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 17, 2012)

*Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked?*



Stefan said:


> Maybe. Being a special page allows me to do special stuff, like showing mean-of-2 in addition to mean-of-3. In any case, I wouldn't put this on the main pages without permission of the board, as it would kinda conflict with the regulations.



Maybe you could have a separate page or section attached to each person's profile that could have rankings in things like sum of ranks, sum of BLD ranks, most podiums, most solves, and basically anything else on the stats section. I think that would be really cool.


----------



## Mikel (Nov 17, 2012)

tim said:


> Did you just hack that together or did it already exist? Anyway: THANKS!



By the looks of it, he just put it together. It said is was last updated today.


----------



## tim (Nov 17, 2012)

Mikel said:


> By the looks of it, he just put it together. It said is was last updated today.



It says "generated" which refers to the data being calculated.


----------



## Petro Leum (Nov 17, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> No fast blindsolver has a success rate like that.




so, what hinders us from getting averages for 3BLD? thats just my point.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Nov 17, 2012)

People are still gonna rank if they get say 2 DNFs, just not in the mo3 ranking. (on an unrelated note: I have never had all successes in a BLD round )
As for competitions, the format wouldn't have to change, it could still remain best of 3. The only difference would be that you could break official mo3 records, which imo is not that bad of an idea because consistence (success-wise) would get acknowledged.

On the other hand, the focus of many competitors might get drawn away from the idea of winning the competition (by getting a good single) to the want to get a better mean of 3, regardless of the ranking in the competition itself. Not sure if that's "in the spirit" of the WCA.


----------



## arcio1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes said:


> it could still remain best of 3. The only difference would be that you could break official mo3 records, which imo is not that bad of an idea because consistence (success-wise) would get acknowledged.


You are the only one around here who has good idea.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2012)

arcio1 said:


> You are the only one around here who has good idea.



Uh... yeah... except that several others had it before, including the original poster in the original post.

Sigh.


----------



## DrKorbin (Nov 17, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Uh... yeah... except that several others had it before, including the original poster in the original post.



Irony.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2012)

Could be, but I doubt it. And it would be unjustified, as that was only part of Cornelius' overall thoughts.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes said:


> People are still gonna rank if they get say 2 DNFs, just not in the mo3 ranking. (on an unrelated note: *I have never had all successes in a BLD round* )
> As for competitions, the format wouldn't have to change, it could still remain best of 3. The only difference would be that you could break official mo3 records, which imo is not that bad of an idea because consistence (success-wise) would get acknowledged.
> 
> On the other hand, the focus of many competitors might get drawn away from the idea of winning the competition (by getting a good single) to the want to get a better mean of 3, regardless of the ranking in the competition itself. Not sure if that's "in the spirit" of the WCA.



Wrong. Berlin Open 2012.


----------



## arcio1 (Nov 17, 2012)

It wasn't, sorry, I misunderstood Noahaha. Sorry


----------



## Noahaha (Nov 17, 2012)

*Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked?*

Some people (Ben Whitmore) Really need to learn how to read (it's kinda frustrating). Anyway, I made the OP a little more comprehensive.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Nov 17, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> You would have more from actually trying to get them.



I wouldn't try to get them even if such a ranking were official.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 19, 2012)

Stefan said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/



Sorry to be so late saying this, but thanks - I appreciate it!

(Now I really need to get to a competition with 3 fewest moves attempts. And I need moar competitions with 3 attempts at 5x5x5 BLD!)


----------



## jonlin (Nov 20, 2012)

At the last competition I had 2 successes, and I failed the last one by 3 edges.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


----------



## TMOY (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes said:


> On the other hand, the focus of many competitors might get drawn away from the idea of winning the competition (by getting a good single) to the want to get a better mean of 3, regardless of the ranking in the competition itself. Not sure if that's "in the spirit" of the WCA.



IMHO the spirit of the WCA is to have fun. You are allowed to do whatever you want with your official attempts, as long as it complies with the rules and you don't disturb or slow down too much the competition. And look at Clément and Tim: they clearly already focus more on accuracy than on speed (both could be faster if they took more risks).

And there's also a situation I always find a little annoying: when you get a really good time on your first or second attempt, and then, well, what am I gonna do now ? I probably won't beat that, so my remaining attempts are useless. The possibility to get a good mo3 would at least give an interest to these solves.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 10, 2013)

Hello everyone!

I have talked to Lucas about this issue, and he told me that there needed to be more of a response from the community about it. 

For that reason a poll has been added to the top of this thread, so please use it to express your opinion on this issue.

I have updated the first post in this thread with more detailed arguments about why 3BLD mo3 rankings should be added to the WCA site. Just so that everyone knows, the proposed regulation would not change BLD to a mo3 event. It would simply add rankings for 3BLD means of 3, and maybe add mo3 as a format for 3BLD.

Please also make a post explaining why you are voting for the option you have chosen, especially if you take part in blindfolded solving. I have discussed this issue with quite a few people, and I have not heard a good argument against adding this ranking, so I am especially interested in what you have to say if you vote "no".


----------



## antoineccantin (Dec 10, 2013)

BLD mo3 is already ranked on the WCA site, so basically what this thread is proposing it to make the rankings more accessible by putting it in the "Rankings" section along with the other official rankings?

(https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/)


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 10, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> BLD mo3 is already ranked on the WCA site, so basically what this thread is proposing it to make the rankings more accessible by putting it in the "Rankings" section along with the other official rankings?
> 
> (https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/)



Yes. The goal is simply to make those rankings official, and have another set of NRs, CRs and WR.


----------



## antoineccantin (Dec 10, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Yes. The goal is simply to make those rankings official, and have another set of NRs, CRs and WR.



Would the mo3s be listed on your WCA profile?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 10, 2013)

Here is the github post about it: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/111



antoineccantin said:


> Would the mo3s be listed on your WCA profile?



Of course! It would be just like any other official ranking.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 10, 2013)

I think this is a good idea, because if I get a scramble with 3+ edge cycles in competition I would probably give up during the memo because I know my time would suck anyway. 

But if mo3 was a thing I would definitely try to get a success, even if I knew it would be slightly slower one in hopes of getting two more good solves and a good mo3.
It also wouldn't add any extra work for organizers or anyone. You could just change that unofficial mo3 list to official. Easy...

I still think that singles should be the ones that determine the winner of the competitions for obvious reason...
Even for very good/fast BLDers mo3 wouldn't be easy to get if they tried to maintain their speed and DNFing is still a part of BLD.


----------



## Angel Lim (Dec 10, 2013)

So far I've competed in 10 competitions, all of them with 3BLD as my primary focus. I currently have a 32.19 single, so I think I have some experience on this matter. I believe that mo3s should be officially ranked. Noah is completely right about getting a fast single at this level is *at least partly luck*: At home I have gotten a single like 26.xx followed by a 40.xx. Why? Because scrambles can really affect my times by that much. 

Recognition should be awarded to people who can 1. consistently get successes under pressure 2. fast times under all different "types" of scrambles. People with some experience in BLD would know what I'm talking about when I say "types". Pushing yourself to get a fast single in comp and staying clear-minded enough to get a mo3 are two different skills in themselves, and by making mo3s official, it helps to differentiate the two.
*
Of course singles should be still what win competitions*, because a 2 minute mean of 3 should not win against someone who got, say, a sub-40 single follwed by two DNFs. Just some of my thoughts.


----------



## Mikel (Dec 10, 2013)

I do BLD.

Mean of 3's are hard.

So I voted No.

Edit:

I also feel that it would drastically change the event game play to try to slow me down in order to achieve better accuracy. I don't really think this is a good idea, unless Mo3 becomes a format for 333bf, 444bf, 555bf, and 333mbf. If you argue against 333mbf mo3, the time limit is an hour, which should not be a problem since FMC is also looking at mo3.


----------



## Mollerz (Dec 10, 2013)

Angel Lim said:


> So far I've competed in 10 competitions, all of them with 3BLD as my primary focus. I currently have a 32.19 single, so I think I have some experience on this matter. I believe that mo3s should be officially ranked. Noah is completely right about getting a fast single at this level is *at least partly luck*: At home I have gotten a single like 26.xx followed by a 40.xx. Why? Because scrambles can really affect my times by that much.
> 
> Recognition should be awarded to people who can 1. consistently get successes under pressure 2. fast times under all different "types" of scrambles. People with some experience in BLD would know what I'm talking about when I say "types". Pushing yourself to get a fast single in comp and staying clear-minded enough to get a mo3 are two different skills in themselves, and by making mo3s official, it helps to differentiate the two.
> *
> Of course singles should be still what win competitions*, because a 2 minute mean of 3 should not win against someone who got, say, a sub-40 second single. Just some of my thoughts.



This follows my point of view as well, 3BLD can have ranked official times for the mean of 3, however, the single should be what competitions are ranked by.


----------



## Tim Wong (Dec 10, 2013)

I agree with Noah and Angel. As a cuber who focuses on BLD events, adding an official MO3 is very reasonable. I've been competing in BLD for a little bit less than a year now and have a 32.44 Single and 39.xx MO3 within that round. It is fair to determine the winners of the competition based on the single, since everyone in that competition gets the same scrambles. However, the single is not very representative of the cuber's overall ability in blind solving. For elite blind solvers, the time is very dependent on the scramble. I had 12 edge targets and 6 corner targets and a corner twist in my 32 official single which is a pretty decent scramble. If I had parity and more twists/flips, it would have taken me 5-10 seconds longer to solve it. This is why a MO3 would be a more accurate representation of a cuber's ability in blind solving. An average of 5 would take too long and that would change the whole format of the BLD event. Although some would argue that it is difficult to achieve a MO3 officially in BLD, I would say that it encourages cubers to work harder in the BLD event.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 10, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> This follows my point of view as well, 3BLD can have ranked official times for the mean of 3, however, the single should be what competitions are ranked by.



That is exactly what the proposal is.


----------



## Renslay (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> That is exactly what the proposal is.



Then I think it's okay... Otherwise I would say no. The number of DNFs on a competition is too damn high!


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

Renslay said:


> Then I think it's okay... Otherwise I would say no. The number of DNFs on a competition is too damn high!



Of course. Having competitions determined by mo3 would be a total DNF-fest.

I hope that people aren't still confused about that.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

I disagree with the single being what wins the competition. I think that your first priority should be to actually solve the cube whereas speed comes afterwards. So yes, a person with a "2 minute mean of 3" should be placed ahead of someone with a sub 40 single and 2 DNFs. I would not go so far as to say one DNF automatically ruins your place, because mistakes can happen. So I think having a single DNF should average your 2 times you completed and add some portion of time (kind of like the +2 rule).


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> I disagree with the single being what wins the competition. I think that your first priority should be to actually solve the cube whereas speed comes afterwards. So yes, a person with a "2 minute mean of 3" should be placed ahead of someone with a sub 40 single and 2 DNFs. I would not go so far as to say one DNF automatically ruins your place, because mistakes can happen. So I think having a single DNF should average your 2 times you completed and add some portion of time (kind of like the +2 rule).



That would be a very extreme change to the regulations, and also a system that could be taken advantage of pretty easily. For example, if you're going to get a bad time on your third solve after getting two good solves, you could DNF on purpose, and that would be counterproductive. It is also very easy to DNF, especially if you're going for your fastest times, so it would basically punish people for trying to get good times.


----------



## uvafan (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> That would be a very extreme change to the regulations, and also a system that could be taken advantage of pretty easily. For example, if you're going to get a bad time on your third solve after getting two good solves, you could DNF on purpose, and that would be counterproductive. It is also very easy to DNF, especially if you're going for your fastest times, so it would basically punish people for trying to get good times.



I'm anticipating that the rebuttal to this would be that you should be able to get really fast times without DNFing after lots of practice - however, no matter what level you are at, if you are pushing yourself in an event like 3BLD as far as you can go, you will DNF a fair amount. Elrog's proposal would discourage people from pushing themselves as hard as they could, which would lead to slower times being achieved. 

I agree with your proposal, Noah.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 11, 2013)

I initially voted no, tried writing down a reason to match my first intuition, and have now changed my mind. As long as the competitions are ranked by singles, I don't see why we cannot add the "missing" means to profiles.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> BLD mo3 is already ranked on the WCA site, so basically what this thread is proposing it to make the rankings more accessible by putting it in the "Rankings" section along with the other official rankings?
> 
> (https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/)



BLD is probably the event I practise most apart from Pyra/Skewb. I suck at it, sure, but I generally try to do a few solves each day, so I actually care from a personal point of view, not just an outside view. I average about 2:10 with a PB of 1:18.

I think rankings and competition wins should still be single based. Are you suggesting adding means to the rankings sites exactly like.... 6x6/7x7? So extra records are added? If so, as long as it doesn't effect competition standings or replace single in the rankings I think that's fine. But I definitely feel single should be the way a podium is decided at competitions.

Edit: I voted no before posting this, but now I'd vote "I support this" or "I think this is reasonable". I DEFINITELY think no to "Yes, and I *also* think competitions should be able to rank BLD using mean of 3."


----------



## Akiro (Dec 11, 2013)

I totally agree with Noah, and I think that this proposition would only bring benefits. 

Also, 2032 different competitors have competed in 3BLD, while only 1515 have competed in 7x7 and 1597 in 6x6 (and I could go on, feet, ...) but there are Mo3 for 7x7 and 6x6 but not for 3BLD... 
And since it takes even less time for world class cubers to solve 3BLD than 7x7 and 6x6, I think that this is another argument that should be taken in consideration for why 3BLD should have its Mo3.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> BLD is probably the event I practise most apart from Pyra/Skewb. I suck at it, sure, but I generally try to do a few solves each day.
> 
> I think rankings and competition wins should still be single based. Are you suggesting adding means to the rankings sites exactly like.... 6x6/7x7? So extra records are added? If so, as long as it doesn't effect competition standings or replace single in the rankings I think that's fine. But I definitely feel single should be the way a podium is decided at competitions.



Omg... people need to read the proposal before voting! I say more than once that competitions would still be based on single. I don't know how I could be more clear about that.



*This would ONLY add one official ranking. This would not change how competitions are won.*


Maybe that will help.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Omg... people need to read the proposal before voting! I say more than once that competitions would still be based on single. I don't know how I could be more clear about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry Noah, did you edit in the bold text in the original post when you edited your post? I opened this thread about an hour ago so maybe I missed that. Sorry for skimming if you didn't make that change.


----------



## Ollie (Dec 11, 2013)

If this has been raised already, then I'm only <10% sorry. But 3BLD is becoming much more scramble dependent, as interest in the event increased. Plus Mo3 adds an extra element of accuracy and consistency. I'm all for it.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> Sorry Noah, did you edit in the bold text in the original post when you edited your post? I opened this thread about an hour ago so maybe I missed that. Sorry for skimming if you didn't make that change.



The bold text has been there since a few days after I first made the thread. I understand why there is so much confusion. It just frustrates me because I worry that it will affect the outcome of the situation :/


----------



## A Leman (Dec 11, 2013)

I think this should be done. A lot of people would be happy to scale back the pressure/stress of NEEDING to go all out all the time and just hope that you get a good scramble, especially if they are competing for podium against very close competition. 

This will also be a better measure of who the better BLD solver is and will take some of the luck out of the world rankings list.

Also, all of the data from previous competitions is already available so the WCA can easily acknowledge previous means.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 11, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> I initially voted no, tried writing down a reason to match my first intuition, and have now changed my mind. As long as the competitions are ranked by singles, I don't see why we cannot add the "missing" means to profiles.





Tim Major said:


> Edit: I voted no before posting this, but now I'd vote "I support this" or "I think this is reasonable". I DEFINITELY think no to "Yes, and I *also* think competitions should be able to rank BLD using mean of 3."



As far as I know, your votes cannot be changed -- poll settings are weird here. 

Both your names will still appear under "No", but I decreased "No" by 2 votes and increased "I think this is reasonable" by 2 votes to compensate for both of you changing your mind.


----------



## Torch (Dec 11, 2013)

Currently, if a Mean of 3 event is run as Best of 3, there is no official average, even though the times for a mean are there (e.g. here).

Why should BLD be an exception to the current standard?


----------



## uvafan (Dec 11, 2013)

Torch said:


> Currently, if a Mean of 3 event is run as Best of 3, there is no official average, even though the times for a mean are there (e.g. here).
> 
> Why should BLD be an exception to the current standard?


The proposal isn't to make it a mo3 event, for reasons already stated by many people in this thread... There will be rankings, but competitions will not be able to rank by mo3.

A summary of the reasons for this is that someone who DNFs one of his/her three solves but is much faster than someone who gets three successes but is much slower should not be ranked behind him/her.

Please read the posts above you.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

uvafan, you have misunderstood Torch.



Torch said:


> Currently, if a Mean of 3 event is run as Best of 3, there is no official average, even though the times for a mean are there (e.g. here).
> 
> Why should BLD be an exception to the current standard?



For the reasons I listed in the original post.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 11, 2013)

Yes. All but bld are ranked by avg and 3bkd is quick and the success rate is high enough for this to happen.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> As far as I know, your votes cannot be changed -- poll settings are weird here.
> 
> Both your names will still appear under "No", but I decreased "No" by 2 votes and increased "I think this is reasonable" by 2 votes to compensate for both of you changing your mind.



So it lets you arbitrarily change the number of votes in the poll but won't let you move the names? That's kinda dumb


Anyway, I voted yes, because I like rankings, and adding this one to the profiles can't hurt if we aren't changing how individual competitions are ranked.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Dec 11, 2013)

I think it is reasonable, BUT there are several people that can destroy averages. 2DNF or even 3. Also, what if you have a really really good time, (29 seconds) then get a 58 and a 42. Then someone gets a 32,33,34. Why not rank the best time instead of the average?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

strakerak said:


> I think it is reasonable, BUT there are several people that can destroy averages. 2DNF or even 3. Also, what if you have a really really good time, (29 seconds) then get a 58 and a 42. Then someone gets a 32,33,34. Why not rank the best time instead of the average?



The idea is to rank both, of course. Competitions would still be decided by single, but there would be a mean of 3 ranking as well.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> The idea is to rank both, of course. Competitions would still be decided by single, but there would be a mean of 3 ranking as well.



Ah. I didn't understand that in the first place.

If you are talking about competition being m3, then definite no. But if it is only a rank in the WCA for kinks, then yeah.


----------



## KiwiCuber (Dec 11, 2013)

strakerak said:


> Ah. I didn't understand that in the first place.
> 
> If you are talking about competition being m3, then definite no. But if it is only a rank in the WCA for kinks, then yeah.



How many times can noah possibly say this.

He is proposing the way competition 3bld is determined remains unchanged (fastest single wins), *BUT* there will be a WCA official ranking of 3bld Mo3
I dont know why people are having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept here


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> That would be a very extreme change to the regulations, and also a system that could be taken advantage of pretty easily. For example, if you're going to get a bad time on your third solve after getting two good solves, you could DNF on purpose, and that would be counterproductive. It is also very easy to DNF, especially if you're going for your fastest times, so it would basically punish people for trying to get good times.



I understand that it is easy to DNF, but DNFing more than half of your solves is a bit extreme. Also, If my idea were taken, it wouldn't keep people from trying to go as fast as they could unless they already DNF'd once. I'll bet that there would also be some people who would try going for the single (if they were close to the WR) if they saw they had a good scramble weather it risked the average anyway despite the average winning the competition.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> more than half of your solves is a bit extreme



Not in BLD, especially for beginners. Any situation where you HAVE to get a success should be avoided. No BLDer can 100% guarantee a success on any one solve. There are just too many factors that come into play.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

I think you could probably guarantee 100% success if you didn't go as fast as you could, and I know that me making this statement kind of proves your point. But I still stand where I'm at.


----------



## uvafan (Dec 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> *I think you could probably guarantee 100% success if you didn't go as fast as you could*, and I know that me making this statement kind of proves your point. But I still stand where I'm at.



That is just not true. May I ask how much experience you have with blindsolving?

Even so, you admit that you may need go slightly slower to raise success rate. Why would you ever want to encourage competitors to not perform to their best ability?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> No BLDer can 100% guarantee a success on any one solve.





elrog said:


> I think you could probably guarantee 100% success if you didn't go as fast as you could



No BLDer can 100% guarantee a success on any one solve.


EDIT: Often going slower hurts your accuracy 

EDIT2: ninja'd. I'd also like to know what BLD experience you are drawing this information from, since all of my past experience says otherwise.


----------



## Sebastien (Dec 11, 2013)

While I'd like to see more recognition going to great 3BLD-Means, there is one big thing bothering me:

The proposal includes providing official records for a format, that we do not officially offer for that event. I'm afraid of this being a precedent followed by the demand of recognizing other arbitrary records to be recognized.


----------



## Torch (Dec 11, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> While I'd like to see more recognition going to great 3BLD-Means, there is one big thing bothering me:
> 
> The proposal includes providing official records for a format, that we do not officially offer for that event. I'm afraid of this being a precedent followed by the demand of recognizing other arbitrary records to be recognized.



This is exactly what I was saying in my last post, for anyone who was confused.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

I think a Mean of 3 is an obvious way to go here.
It all depends on who you want to win your competitions: the person who is skillful/lucky/fast on only one solve, regardless of the other two or someone who is a better blind solver and is consistent and completes all attempts in the fastest way.
It's not an easy decision, but some of the 1/2 mbld reasoning can be applied here: how many of the actual DNFs people have in 3BLD are a result of "meh, this scramble is too hard, can never beat my previous one. Sorry for the scrambling time wasting. Let's see if the next one is better. DNF"
I believe the same is currently being thought out for FMC. With the implementation of mean of 3, it will make people actually bother to check that they have a valid solution written down.

It's worth to note that adding "Mean of 3" doesn't necessarily result in "Best of X" being abandoned at all.
Noah can still go and enjoy "Best of X" 3BLD competitions, but there's the possibility to have official ranking for Mean of 3 3BLD, for competition organizers that choose to have it implemented.
For additional information, a note regarding the evolution of Best of X 3BLD events according to the adopted format:


Spoiler: 3BLD Comps by Format














Spoiler: 3BLD Comps Percentage












tl;dr
I think "3x3 blindfolded" should be added to 9b2).
Question: Is ao5 too far fetched?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> While I'd like to see more recognition going to great 3BLD-Means, there is one big thing bothering me:
> 
> The proposal includes providing official records for a format, that we do not officially offer for that event. I'm afraid of this being a precedent followed by the demand of recognizing other arbitrary records to be recognized.



While this would break the precedent of "Best of X" events only having single rankings, I don't think that a slippery slope argument works, because it does not break the larger precedent of only ranking singles, averages of 5 and means of 3. Because of that, the only demand that this could possibly be followed by is a demand for means in 4BLD, 5BLD, MBLD and FMC to be ranked. I'm not going to touch FMC, but for the other three events, single is a much better representation of skill than it is in 3BLD. If 4BLD started having the same problems that 3BLD has right now, I would definitely argue for 4BLD means to be ranked.




cubizh said:


> I think a Mean of 3 is an obvious way to go here.
> It all depends on who you want to win your competitions: the person who is skillful/lucky/fast on only one solve, regardless of the other two or someone who is a better blind solver and is consistent and completes all attempts in the fastest way.
> It's not an easy decision, but some of the 1/2 mbld reasoning can be applied here: how many of the actual DNFs people have in 3BLD are a result of "meh, this scramble is too hard, can never beat my previous one. Sorry for the scrambling time wasting. Let's see if the next one is better. DNF"
> I believe the same is currently being thought out for FMC. With the implementation of mean of 3, it will make people actually bother to check that they have a valid solution written down.
> ...



I think we want the person with the fastest time to win. As I said earlier in this thread, I think it would be a mistake to put BLDers in a position where they would have to get a success. It just won't happen a lot of the time.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 11, 2013)

nobody said that getting wr single is easy. just practise more man..


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

Sajwo said:


> nobody said that getting wr single is easy. just practise more man..



That's not the point. The point is to make BLD better for BLDers, and to have another degree of accuracy in rankings.


----------



## sneze2r (Dec 11, 2013)

I agree that mo3 should be officialy ranked, but there is one point argument it i dont get:


Noahaha said:


> 1. The WR single has basically gotten to the point that anyone who wants to beat it would need a fairly lucky scramble (Marcell included).


I disagree. At this moment WR is weak, even Zalewski says it can be easilly improved. And i wouldn't say that fairy lucky scramble is nessesary to beat it. I think that even 12/8 with good algs would be enough to beat it.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 11, 2013)

sneze2r said:


> At this moment WR is weak, even Zalewski says it *can be easilly improved*.



Then why hasn't he, in his *57* attempts since then?


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

sneze2r said:


> I agree that mo3 should be officialy ranked, but there is one point argument it i dont get:
> 
> I disagree. At this moment WR is weak, even Zalewski says it can be easilly improved. And i wouldn't say that fairy lucky scramble is nessesary to beat it. I think that even 12/8 with good algs would be enough to beat it.



12/8 with or without good algs is fairly lucky in my opinion. If what you say is true though, then I did overestimate the speed of the WR a bit.


----------



## sneze2r (Dec 11, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Then why hasn't he, in his *57* attempts since then?



1. He's switching from solving corners first to edges first
2. He changed at least 200 algs form that time
3. Learning speed optimal algs for every pairity case


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> That's not the point. The point is to make BLD better for BLDers, and to have another degree of accuracy in rankings.


I don't see anything wrong with promoting accuracy in the outcome of certain blindsolving events. The added pressure can be an interesting difficulty added to that event, but not all.
Again, adding Mo3 official DOES NOT imply Best of X is going to dissapear at all. It doesn't change the current way things are done.
It just adds another degree of freedom for organizers to choose what they want to implement.
I leave here some other facts about 3BLD Best of 3 in competitions:


Spoiler: Number of Solved cubes in "Best of 3"-only events (All Rounds)




* Year/Solved cubes	** 0 solved	** 1 solved	** 2 solved	** All 3 solved	* 2004	 2	 1	 4	 0	 2005	 10	 13	 9	 3	 2006	 40	 35	 24	 11	 2007	 121	 111	 62	 16	 2008	 386	 358	 150	 59	 2009	 579	 446	 230	 55	 2010	 1061	 855	 385	 111	 2011	 1312	 1192	 542	 161	 2012	 1340	 1294	 663	 167	 2013	 1580	 1538	 827	 294	* TOTAL	** 6431	** 5843	** 2896	** 877	*






Spoiler: Number of competitors that have had all 3 successes and in how many competitions that happened




* # of Competitors	** # of Competitions	* 0	 667	 1	 319	 2	 117	 3	 51	 4	 23	 5	 6	 6	 2	 7	 1	 8	 1	 9	 1	 10	 0	 11	 0	 12	 0	 13	 1	
So this reads: in 667 competitions, no one solved all three attempts; in 1 competition, 13 competitors solved all 3 attempts.


----------



## Marcell (Dec 11, 2013)

I voted yes. Accuracy must be recognised in BLD. I agree with Noah and support his arguments.

[off]And I'm also pretty sure it would be better if we changed the way we rank competitions to something like "mean of the best 2 of 3 attempts". We need to change the way we think about BLD - "I can solve the cube blindfolded... sometimes" means you can't really.[/off]


----------



## szalejot (Dec 11, 2013)

Marcell said:


> I voted yes. Accuracy must be recognised in BLD. I agree with Noah and support his arguments.
> 
> [off]And I'm also pretty sure it would be better if we changed the way we rank competitions to something like "mean of the best 2 of 3 attempts". We need to change the way we think about BLD - "I can solve the cube blindfolded... sometimes" means you can't really.[/off]



This. +1, Like, whatever...


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

Marcell said:


> I voted yes. Accuracy must be recognised in BLD. I agree with Noah and support his arguments.
> 
> [off]And I'm also pretty sure it would be better if we changed the way we rank competitions to something like "mean of the best 2 of 3 attempts". We need to change the way we think about BLD - "I can solve the cube blindfolded... sometimes" means you can't really.[/off]


Actually I think your [off] is very much [on]


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

@ cubizch: I fail to see how this helps your case. your first chart shows that only 5-10% of mean of 3s get all 3 solves even as the number of competitors went up. Your second chart also just doesn't make sense. You have 1-13 on the left, but it says competitors and not year. These statistics wouldn't make sense even if you put years to them because it doesn't match up with your first chart. It also can't all be for one year because it would contradict itself. Could you please elaborate what this is?


----------



## cubizh (Dec 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> I fail to see how this helps your case.


The information I posted was not meant to help any case, but provide a more in depth look at the results under the current regulations. Nothing else. More information contributes to better informed decisions, regardless of which one it is.


elrog said:


> Could you please elaborate what this is?


Absolutely! 
Since you talked about the charts, they show the evolution of 3BLD format through the years. You can clearly see that organizers have progressed from doing best of 1 or 2 to a preferred best of 3 since 2007. That has been the case ever since, up to the point of it being very very rare to see a 3BLD event that is not Best of 3. I posted this chart as a way to verify if even thinking about mean of 3 was relevant or not in the global picture. If only 5 or 10 competitions had Mo3's, while all others were best of 1, for instance, it would not be relevant to even discuss this.
Regarding the tables I posted earlier, I focused on all the competitions that had 3BLD with Best of 3 format only.
Out of those, I looked at how many cubes people were actually solving on all their three tries.
So for competitions held in 2004 that had 3BLD Best of 3, no one solved all three.
For competitions held in 2013 so far, that had 3BLD Best of 3, 1580 of people's individual results were total DNFs; 1538 of the results had only one valid solve; 827 results had 2 solved and one DNF/DNS; 294 had completed all three solves accurately.
This gives a total sum that shows that the majority of people out of the 3 attempts they are given didn't have any success in all three of them (6431 results) and so on. 
I tried to see if the accuracy changed through the years, which wasn't the case.

On the second table, I checked of all those competitions that held 3BLD Best of 3, how many competitors had actually completed a mean.
There are 1189 competitions so far that had 3BLD Best of 3.
On 667 of those, no one completed all three solves with 3 successes.
On 319 of those, only one competitor completed all three solves successfully.
.
.
.
On 1 competition (actually, Worlds 2013) 13 competitors completed all three solves.

That's what the table wanted to illustrate: that only a few people are accurate BLD solvers, under the current regulations.
The idea of adding Mean of 3 as a possibility to become official would allow organizers that want to, to promote competitions where speedy accuracy would be taken into account.
I hope that made it a bit more clear. If you want to know/discover any other information about the past competitions regarding this subject please feel free to ask, as always.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

The second table was the one that was confusing me. I get it now though. Thanks.


----------



## BaMiao (Dec 11, 2013)

As a spectator, I like this proposition because it rewards consistency without overly punishing competitors for DNFs.

Just a quick question to the BLDers: How would this change affect your approach to BLD solving in competition? Would you become more conservative? Should we expect slower times in return for fewer DNFs?

My expectation is that we should, though I'm not an expert.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 11, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> As a spectator, I like this proposition because it rewards consistency without overly punishing competitors for DNFs.
> 
> Just a quick question to the BLDers: How would this change affect your approach to BLD solving in competition? Would you become more conservative? Should we expect slower times in return for fewer DNFs?
> 
> My expectation is that we should, though I'm not an expert.



Now I would solve quickly but not uberfast as long as I get a success, if I get a success on my first or second solve I will crazyfastmemo the remaining solve(s) to possibly get a good single.

If the change was made I would solve my first solve quickly (like I do now for the first solve).

If it was a success I would probably go a little more on the safe side to get the mo3.
Obviously if the second solve is DNF I can just crazyfastmemo my last solve to get a fast single possibly.
And if the first solve would be DNF I would solve quickly the second solve and last solve either normally or crazyfast depending on the result of the second solve.

That's what I would do. I don't know about others


----------



## sneze2r (Dec 11, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> As a spectator, I like this proposition because it rewards consistency without overly punishing competitors for DNFs.
> 
> Just a quick question to the BLDers: How would this change affect your approach to BLD solving in competition? Would you become more conservative? Should we expect slower times in return for fewer DNFs?
> 
> My expectation is that we should, though I'm not an expert.



My aprroach to BLD wouldn't change at all . I knew before there is something like "missing averages ranking", so i was happy i was 2-nd for a while. But priority remains the same-do the best 3bld solve as it is possible, 3 chances


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 11, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> As a spectator, I like this proposition because it rewards consistency without overly punishing competitors for DNFs.
> 
> Just a quick question to the BLDers: How would this change affect your approach to BLD solving in competition? Would you become more conservative? Should we expect slower times in return for fewer DNFs?
> 
> My expectation is that we should, though I'm not an expert.



My normal approach is:

Solve 1 - Get a success i.e. go two or three seconds slower
Solves 2 and 3 - Full speed.

My new approach would be:

Solve 1 - Get a success.
Solve 2 - Full Speed
Solve 3 - If solve two was a fast success, go for a success.

I don't know if there's much of a difference for me though, because I tend to DNF more when I slow myself down too much.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 12, 2013)

Since the proposal to "Remove "Best of 3" for "Mean of 3" events." seems to be going to be a reality next year, I see no point anymore in thinking it would be a good idea to consider having 3BLD Mo3 oficially added to 9b2). 
The idea would be to allow the choice of type of competition to have, giving an extra option and competitive possibility, ("Best of X", fastest wins vs. "Mean of 3", accurately fastest wins) instead of forcing Mo3 and completely changing the spirit of the event in such short notice.
I think people should think about changing this for 2015, and understand Marcell Endrey's thoughts.
As for mixing unofficial Mo3 results with official results, it may be a little weird, but perhaps will allow people to get used to it for when the consideration to change to official will take place, it won't be too much of a change.


----------



## ThomasJE (Dec 21, 2013)

Is this being considered for the 2014 regulations?


----------



## TDM (Dec 21, 2013)

I know I should read through the thread, but it's over 100 posts. Has anyone said anything about average of 3? This still means that you need reasonable accuracy to win (2/3 successes), but you don't have to be 100% accurate and do all safety solves like you would with mean of 3. It also means that you can't win from a lucky scramble: you still have to be fast to win.


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 21, 2013)

ThomasJE said:


> Is this being considered for the 2014 regulations?



I believe it is.



TDM said:


> I know I should read through the thread, but it's over 100 posts. Has anyone said anything about average of 3? This still means that you need reasonable accuracy to win (2/3 successes), but you don't have to be 100% accurate and do all safety solves like you would with mean of 3. It also means that you can't win from a lucky scramble: you still have to be fast to win.



I suspect that you did not read the first post carefully. The suggestion is only to RANK mean of 3s, not to change the format of the event. Singles would still win competitions, and there would be two ranking lists: one for single and one for mean of 3, similar to how for 3x3 averages win competitions, but singles are also ranked.

In case you did not make the mistake that I think you did, I will say that I don't see any reason to encourage accuracy for the sake of encouraging accuracy. It's not like someone who only gets one solve out of three correct is any less deserving to place in the competition than someone who gets two. That's the nature of the event. It's meant to encourage fast times rather than accuracy.

The purpose of my proposal is not to encourage people to be accurate. The purpose is to add more depth to the 3BLD rankings. From my point of view, the current 3BLD ranking system is almost as bad as if 3x3 were just ranked based on single. You would still see the best solvers at the top, but most people's rankings would be based on just one lucky solve, rather than a larger sample of their abilities.


----------



## TDM (Dec 21, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I suspect that you did not read the first post carefully. The suggestion is only to RANK mean of 3s, not to change the format of the event. Singles would still win competitions, and there would be two ranking lists: one for single and one for mean of 3, similar to how for 3x3 averages win competitions, but singles are also ranked.


I know, but I was trying to suggest something different.


> In case you did not make the mistake that I think you did, I will say that I don't see any reason to encourage accuracy for the sake of encouraging accuracy. It's not like someone who only gets one solve out of three correct is any less deserving to place in the competition than someone who gets two. That's the nature of the event. It's meant to encourage fast times rather than accuracy.
> 
> The purpose of my proposal is not to encourage people to be accurate. The purpose is to add more depth to the 3BLD rankings. From my point of view, the current 3BLD ranking system is almost as bad as if 3x3 were just ranked based on single. You would still see the best solvers at the top, but most people's rankings would be based on just one lucky solve, rather than a larger sample of their abilities.


Fair enough. Although BLD can't really be compared to sighted events, as some of the best people may not get many Mo3s in a comp. Most people who do 3x3 have a near-100% success rate. That's why I think that even if comps weren't won by an Ao3, I still think that Ao3 would be better for BLD.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 28, 2013)

It happened. Mo3 will be official since 1st January 2014


----------

