# Is a PLL skip lucky when using COLL?



## riffz (Sep 19, 2009)

Is a PLL skip lucky when the correct COLL was knowingly applied?

I placed this in the discussion forum because I thought maybe some would be disagreeing with each other on this.

Part of me says that it isn't lucky because part of the COLL "method" is to increase your odds of getting a PLL skip, but the other part of me still says that its up to chance and is therefore lucky.

Thoughts?


----------



## ErikJ (Sep 19, 2009)

yes it's lucky. but not as lucky as getting a skip after doing regular OLL


----------



## Kxg (Sep 19, 2009)

I wouldn't call it lucky if you force it.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 19, 2009)

Kxg said:


> I wouldn't call it lucky if you force it.


Do you mean that it's not lucky if you knew the ZBLL?

Anyhow, yes, it's lucky. I'm still a fan of the 20% rule.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Sep 20, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> Kxg said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call it lucky if you force it.
> ...



Woudl that be the rule that If you have less than a 1/5 chance of getting it, it is considered lucky?


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Sep 20, 2009)

With COLL you have an ~8% chance of getting a PLL skip, in case anyone was wondering.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Sep 20, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> With COLL you have an ~8% chance of getting a PLL skip, in case anyone was wondering.



Unless you know multiple COLL algs depending on the permutation of the edges.


----------



## blah (Sep 20, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > With COLL you have an ~8% chance of getting a PLL skip, in case anyone was wondering.
> ...


That sounds vaguely familiar.


----------



## Kian (Sep 20, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > With COLL you have an ~8% chance of getting a PLL skip, in case anyone was wondering.
> ...



Does anybody actually do that? I wouldn't call that COLL anymore either, because you are taking into account the permutation of edges, which algs in COLL do not. Even though the algs would work as COLL algs, taking into account permutation of edges, in my view, would not really do justice to the acronym. It would be something altogether different, basically a ZBLL recognition.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Sep 20, 2009)

Kian said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...



Isn't that just ZBLL? Example: although I technically only know 2 look COLL/CMLL and 2 look ELL (I used this for LBL solves) I can do a certain algorithm which takes me to an easy case for the second look. In this way I am effecting the second look without actually solving it.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Sep 20, 2009)

my pb is 11.18 in that solve i encountered one of the few zb cases i knew 
so since i worked for that pll skip it isnt lucky; but if i had a sune and got a pll skip it would have been lucky because i didnt know it was going to happen.
if that made any sense


----------



## Weston (Sep 20, 2009)

It depends. DId you know that case as a ZBLL case or a COLL case?

If you had recognized the COLL case and the edge cycle, then no it would not be lucky.
If you only recognized the COLL case, then it is a little bit lucky.


But of course, you could also say that it's lucky that the case that you knew popped up. 
but thats probably not what you're talking about.


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 20, 2009)

<--- ZBLL user.

Yes, it is lucky.
No, if you fully understand the case.

Simple enough, really.


----------



## dbax0999 (Sep 20, 2009)

I have to disagree with the statements that say its not lucky if you know the coll case will give you a PLL skip. 

For example:
Do R U R' on a solved cube. 

Just because you can see that doing R U' R' will give you an LL skip doesn't make it non-lucky. 


I think you need to apply a different algorithm than you normally would apply for that case in order to make it non lucky


----------



## riffz (Sep 20, 2009)

Weston said:


> It depends. DId you know that case as a ZBLL case or a COLL case?
> 
> If you had recognized the COLL case and the edge cycle, then no it would not be lucky.
> If you only recognized the COLL case, then it is a little bit lucky.
> ...



I knew the case was the correct COLL before I executed it. I'm not asking whether getting a PLL skip because you happened to perform the right COLL is lucky, because that's always the case with a PLL skip.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 20, 2009)

It's lucky if you only know one algorithm for the case. If you know two, and actually took the time to recognize which of the two would be better, I'd consider it "non-lucky"


----------



## Kxg (Sep 20, 2009)

dbax0999 said:


> I have to disagree with the statements that say its not lucky if you know the coll case will give you a PLL skip.
> 
> For example:
> Do R U R' on a solved cube.
> ...



There are multiple ways to solve cases. If you see what's going to happen and INTENTIONALLY do something to force easier finish, it's not that lucky.  For example, if you solve a cross and after that you notice already made F2L pair - you could call that "lucky F2L pair". But, if you, while doing the cross, force that pair to connect and don't get screwed, it's not lucky anymore since you worked for it.

For the case you gave, you could solve it U' R' F R F' which doesn't give you LL skip anymore.

Also, it leaves you with OLL 37. Some algorithms give you PLL skip, while others don't. If you pick the right continuation intentionally, it's not lucky.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Sep 20, 2009)

Even if you know the ZBLL case, it's still lucky, because you're lucky that you know that case. When you know over 20% of ZBLL, getting a case you know is non-lucky, so the solve is non-lucky too. That's my opinion.


----------



## riffz (Sep 20, 2009)

Well, I know 2 different algorithms for the double sune, and I can recognize when to use either one.

I really should learn all 4 double sune COLLs...


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

riffz said:


> part of the COLL "method" is to increase your odds of getting a PLL skip


The step after COLL is not PLL, so how could you skip it?


----------



## Spitfire97 (Sep 20, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> > part of the COLL "method" is to increase your odds of getting a PLL skip
> ...



I think he means EPLL as if that wasnt clear.

No offense Stefan


----------



## Escher (Sep 20, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> > part of the COLL "method" is to increase your odds of getting a PLL skip
> ...



What? I don't see what's wrong with that. 'PLL' is a valid description of that step. It's like somebody saying 'I'm reading this book' and you saying 'No that's wrong, you're reading a novel'. 
Unless I've the wrong end of the stick?


----------



## blah (Sep 20, 2009)

Here's how to make pseudo-COLL + EPLL skip non-lucky: Solve at least one edge along with the corners. I can already think of a couple of ways to achieve this right now, none of them too efficient, but it's feasible anyway.

If you haven't already figured out, with this approach, EPLL skip occurs 33.3% of the time (>20%).



Escher said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > riffz said:
> ...


If you mean permutation of the last layer in the most literal sense, then yes, it is a valid description of that step. But when most, if not all cubers talk about PLL, they are referring to the step with 21 different cases, not 4.

Simply put, EPLL skips occur 1/12 of the time, PLL skips occur 1/72 of the time, hence EPLL != PLL when we're talking about skips here.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 20, 2009)

Spitfire97 said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > riffz said:
> ...


How does COLL increase your odds of getting an EPLL skip?


----------



## blah (Sep 20, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> Spitfire97 said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...


Odds of getting a PLL skip = *a*
Odds of getting an EPLL skip = *b*

COLL alters neither value. It merely increases the odds of getting a last step skip from *a* to *b*.


----------

