# Full OLL time gain



## Rudinie (Aug 25, 2010)

I've read quite often in these forums that learning full OLL will speed up your averages with as little as 1.5 to 2 seconds and i have to say: i really doubt that this is true.
When for example you stumble upon a case (nr3 with the only correct corner on the left back) where 2Look OLL would have you do: F(RUR'U')F' f(RUR'U')f' and then OLL 23 (headlights) i'm looking at a OLL of about 6.5 seconds. (i know, my fps is not very high)
If however i would do U2 f(RUR'U')f' U' F(RUR'U')F' the OLL would be done in 3 to 3.5 seconds. 
That's a big difference.
So when people here say you only need full OLL when you are close to sub 15 averages is a little weird imho. Sure when you are close to sub 15, your fps will probably be high. So the difference in 2LookOLL and full OLL can be small. But when your average is somewhere in between 25 and 30 (like mine) full OLL might have a much greater impact on my averages then the 1.5 to 2 seconds i thought it would.
I'm currently trying to learn fullOLL and i have so far learned about 20 of them.


----------



## Forte (Aug 25, 2010)

For that OLL, if you do your EO from a different angle, you can get a Sune 
Anyway, that's for that OLL, but for many OLLs, EO is pretty fast and needs almost no lookahead to do, so it doesn't affect times that much.


----------



## Faz (Aug 25, 2010)

It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.

To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL

9.63, 8.81, 9.34, 8.43, 8.83, 8.47, 10.77, 8.43, 8.72, 7.66, 11.71, 8.19

8.96 avg. 4/12 solves, the edges were already oriented. 2/12 were corner skips after orienting edges.


----------



## onionhoney (Aug 25, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.
> 
> To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL
> 
> ...



I think it should be *'the edges were already oriented'*?


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 25, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.
> 
> To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL
> 
> ...





Sub 9 a12 with 2-look OLL? That's insane


----------



## koreancuber (Aug 25, 2010)

isn't it Full OLL time loss?

OT: just practice PLL recognition and your F2L and cross. Then when you get sub-20.. start learning full OLL


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 25, 2010)

Ok, so here is my view. Even though 1LOLL is only slightly faster, you'll want to learn it in the long run. If you already know 1LPLL, you might as well start learning, to get them out of the way


----------



## Rudinie (Aug 25, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> To prove this here's a sub 9 avg12 with 2 look OLL



Ok, that's like more then a second slower then YOUR average with 1lookOLL. Given the fact that i need about 3 times as much time in total as you do, for me that would mean 3 seconds slower, right?

My whole point here is that ultragurus like yourself will only notice a slight drop in time when they do 2look oll instead of the 1lookoll they use normally, but for us, normal people (;-)) the difference will be bigger (in absolute terms, not relatively speaking).


----------



## Faz (Aug 25, 2010)

Say wat I average about 9 on the dot normally. I'm sure if I did full OLL the average would have been about 8.5ish.


----------



## gavnasty (Aug 25, 2010)

The reason people say you don't need to learn full OLL unless you're around 15-20 seconds is because you don't need full OLL to be that fast. Go ahead and learn it, but you don't need to know OLLs to get sub-20 averages.


----------



## Rudinie (Aug 25, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> Say wat I average about 9 on the dot normally. I'm sure if I did full OLL the average would have been about 8.5ish.



What? You're telling me you don't use fullOLL normally? (English is not my first or even my second language so i might have misunderstood)


----------



## Rudinie (Aug 25, 2010)

gavnasty said:


> The reason people say you don't need to learn full OLL unless you're around 15-20 seconds is because you don't need full OLL to be that fast. Go ahead and learn it, but you don't need to know OLLs to get sub-20 averages.



I'm sure you don't NEED it, but why is started this thread is because i have the feeling that it might help more than 1.5 to 2 seconds. Maybe this is just my wishfull thinking, because i'm having a hard time believing that i can get anywhere close to sub-20 average with my current toolset.

One doesn't NEED good tools but it makes the job hell of a lot easier.


----------



## Forte (Aug 25, 2010)

Rudinie said:


> gavnasty said:
> 
> 
> > The reason people say you don't need to learn full OLL unless you're around 15-20 seconds is because you don't need full OLL to be that fast. Go ahead and learn it, but you don't need to know OLLs to get sub-20 averages.
> ...



with a 25-30 average, full OLL won't really make the job a hell of a lot easier >_>

also feliks was saying that if he had done those solves using full OLL (like he normally does), then the average would have been around 8.5


----------



## ariasamie (Aug 25, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't make that much of a difference, but on most cases, the OLL case is faster. Recognition is often better on 2 look OLL.
> ...


that's something I know I will never achieve even with 1LLL!


----------



## radmin (Aug 25, 2010)

My issue with two look oll is that sometimes its actually three. So I learned all the dot olls then stopped. 

Right now I average 32. I've realized that of I start the timer at f2l I get low 20s so I'm working on the cross to get to sub 30. I guess I'm only planning the first 2 then looking around for the other two cross edges.


----------



## Johan444 (Aug 25, 2010)

I did not stand the inconsistency that comes with 2-look-and-sometimes-1-look, that's the reason I learned them. It also makes the 3x3 way more fun, or less boring to solve.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 25, 2010)

The problem I have with 2 look is this: 
2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
1Look- 6 to 14 moves


----------



## cyoubx (Aug 25, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> The problem I have with 2 look is this:
> 2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
> 1Look- 6 to 14 moves



After awhile, you begin to recognize all the OLL cases, so even if you use two look, you'll know which of the 7 algorithms to use after the edge orientation.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 25, 2010)

cyoubx said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I have with 2 look is this:
> ...



I have, but I still find myself pausing a bit between looks. Either way, I've already started learning full OLL.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 25, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> The problem I have with 2 look is this:
> 2Look- 6 moves *pause* 7-12 moves
> 1Look- 6 to 14 moves


Ahem.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Aug 25, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I have with 2 look is this:
> ...


That's pretty cool. Your website really has a lot of good stuff on it.


----------



## rubiknewbie (Aug 26, 2010)

There's not much argument against learning full OLL since it is:
1. so easy to learn 
2. so easy to recognise therefore little pause
3. you get to use them so often in actual solves. 

The effort to learn them is worth it. 

There's more argument against whether you need stuff like COLL (recognition not as easy and not as fast, doesn't show up as frequently in actual solves) and even more extreme ZBLL (even worse recognition, even worse algorithms, and show up even less frequently).

But for something as basic as OLLs, just go learn it man.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 26, 2010)

In all reality, if your PLL recognition *and* recall is pretty good, I suggest learning full OLL (starting with the 6 dot cases). With the dot cases, you have to do both EO algs then whatever OCLL you end up with (without learning the alg for these cases), which means you'd benefit most by learning these 6 algs. The problem is when you learn OLL too fast, your recognition and recall become horrible, and you end up freezing (like I do). I'm on the verge of sub20 but I know for a fact I wouldn't end up with a lot of the 25/26 solves I get due to OLL pause (my slow N and G perms don't help either).

My advice to OLL (I'm no guru or anything remember, this is just how I wish i could have done it):

Learn what simple tricks you can gain from Sune/Anti-Sune in random OLL shapes (might end up with an easier case, such as OLL 41 and 42). Learn what fat sune / anti sune will do to random OLL shapes. Learn what the EO algs will do, etc. You should know things like the two T shapes (45 is just the F RUR'U' F') and OLL 33 is just Sexy Move + Sledge Hammer (RUR'U' R'FRF'). There are a lot of nifty tricks like this that can help your OLL randomly.

I suggest learning the hardest OLL cases first. This is because these are the cases that you need to be stuck into your muscle memory (since they're the hardest they take the most work). When you learn the harder cases, it's all downhill from there. Most OLLs are setup moves trigger of some sort anti setup move. I have an OLL spreadsheet that lets you know if you have learned the case or not, it's sort of like a trainer. This sheet gives you the probability of each case, and I suggest learning the 1/218 cases first since they are the rarest of cases.

Most people will probably tell you to learn the easy cases first since there are so many of them. The difficulty with that is that you might end up being overwhelmed by recog if you do that, since so many easy cases end up being easy to recall but recog ends up getting fuzzy if you learn too many too soon.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Aug 26, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> In all reality, if your PLL recognition *and* recall is pretty good, I suggest learning full OLL (starting with the 6 dot cases). With the dot cases, you have to do both EO algs then whatever OCLL you end up with (without learning the alg for these cases), which means you'd benefit most by learning these 6 algs. The problem is when you learn OLL too fast, your recognition and recall become horrible, and you end up freezing (like I do). I'm on the verge of sub20 but I know for a fact I wouldn't end up with a lot of the 25/26 solves I get due to OLL pause (my slow N and G perms don't help either).
> 
> My advice to OLL (I'm no guru or anything remember, this is just how I wish i could have done it):
> 
> ...



Wow, this was really helpful.
I'm finishing up my PLLs and F2L, and was going to move into OLLs whenever I was finished, and this answered pretty much all the questions I had. Esepcially the paragraph about the Dot Cases. Those are the ones I want to get rid of first, since they take the most time for me to do. 

I also believe learning the rare/harder ones would be best, so that they are stuck in your brain since the beginning. If you wait until the end, you might had so many algs in your head, that it's harder to remember it lager on. Especially if it's a rare one, which you won't see often. That one time you see it, you might've already forgotten how it goes.


----------



## Rudinie (Aug 26, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> My advice to OLL



Thanks a lot for the eloborate answer, i will have to read it a couple more times i think to fully understand but the basics are clear. The sheet you are talking about, is that this one: http://www.kungfoomanchu.com/guides/andy-klise-3x3x3-oll-new.pdf
The numbers on there are they universal? 
From this sheet i now know the numbers(in order of appearance on the sheet): 27,26,22,21,24,25,23,57,28,44,43,48,37,7,8,45,33,51,1,20

There are a couple more that i know more or less but i need some time to think about it, can't execute them fast yet.


----------



## Akuma (Aug 28, 2010)

If you ask me, learning 51 algorithms just to save 1-2 seconds is a complete waste of time...


----------



## Rudinie (Aug 30, 2010)

Akuma said:


> If you ask me, learning 51 algorithms just to save 1-2 seconds is a complete waste of time...



Well, in that logic, learning any algorithm to get a little bit faster is a complete waste of time. That attitude i think will not get you very far. (yeah, sure there are people doing sub 10 with 2look oll but i'm quite sure they optimised every other step of the solve and that must have taken them more effort then just learning 51 algs)


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 30, 2010)

Akuma, you must not be worried about your times then. 1-2 seconds is a lot of time when you get down to sub12, or sub10. When you're talking 1-2 seconds at sub10, that's 10-20%, that's a huge gap, especially if it makes the difference between 8 seconds and 6 seconds.

Rudinie: Yes, you can visit the speedsolving wiki OLL page to see the numbers as well. There is also a list of algorithms if you don't like the ones on the PDF.


----------



## Joker (Aug 30, 2010)

Lulz I average aroung 22ish but I know full OLL and PLL. Lolz my cross-F2L transition fails and I need to work on lookahead.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Aug 30, 2010)

Akuma said:


> If you ask me, learning 51 algorithms just to save 1-2 seconds is a complete waste of time...



:fp

What do you average? Because a 1-2 seconds difference doesn't matter, when someone is averaging 50 seconds. But, once they are competing at 8 seconds, 2 seconds is a huge difference. In fact, for those who can average 8 seconds, a 2 seconds difference would get them a World Record.


When you're fighting in the decimals of seconds, to win/attain World Records, 1-2 seconds is a lot, and makes a whole lot of difference.


----------



## Rpotts (Aug 30, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Akuma said:
> 
> 
> > If you ask me, learning 51 algorithms just to save 1-2 seconds is a complete waste of time...
> ...



Granted, the few cubers who can sub10 all know OLL (save some Roux-ers) by now, and if they didn't they probably wouldn't shave 2 seconds with OLL, since they're likely turning so fast they can do 2 look sub 2(fazlol)

But yea akuma, your outlook seems poor. I learned OLL because I wanted to get faster and I was sick of getting 24 move OLLs (no edges plus Headlights w/e) 

Now that I know OLL I'm glad I do, it mixes solves up and reduces the repetitive feel of 2look OLL. It also makes what may have been a lucky solve, such as just a sune OLL if you use 4LLL, full step (arguably lucky lol)

The algs get easier and easier as you learn them, and many of them can be solved using combinations of moves you already know, such as sune variants, sexy moves etc. I started learning OLL when I was at ~24 seconds, back in April. I didn't finish learning until early this summer, but I took my time. Theres no rush, and theres nothing wrong with starting to learn some algs, then taking a break and getting used to the ones you know, before you move on and learn too many at once.


----------



## ArcticxWolf (Aug 31, 2010)

Learn algs early so you are already fast at recognizing and executing them when others with similar times will just be learning them and will be slow.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 31, 2010)

I completely agree with ArcticWolf. Learn them while you still 'suck' then by the time you get to where it's 'respectable' you already have the recog and recall for OLL while all the others are learning it. You'll blow them away at that point


----------

