# next WR lucky - probability ?



## Stefan (Oct 21, 2007)

What's the probability that the next world record for 3x3, beating the current 9.77 seconds, will be a lucky solve?


----------



## pjk (Oct 21, 2007)

I'd definitely say the next WR solve will be a lucky solve. People get a little over 10.xx second non-luckly solves... one lucky of those will break it by a good second, at least I think so. Or maybe someone who solves with another method will break it, that would be something.


----------



## masterofthebass (Oct 21, 2007)

I would say, eventually people will be able to perform the same as they do at home at competitions. There are a few people who can solve sub-10 non-lucky somewhat consistently, and just haven't been able to do it in competition. Like Erik said, he had a faster non-lucky solve later that day. The next WR will probably be lucky, but there's a possibility it will be broken by a non-lucky solve.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Oct 21, 2007)

I think it will be the result of an easy scramble. Seeing a double extended cross, for example, ending with something like a Sune and a U or an H.

As for probability, I don't think we can actually get an actual number; too many factors involved. Who can do solves in under 9.77, how many competitions they will go to in the future, competitions in the future having a lucky/easy scramble, etc...

It does seem high, though intuitively and whatever this number turns out to.


----------



## Joël (Oct 21, 2007)

Of course, we could try to use all the stats we have to produce an actual number (averages, propability distributions of the times of the fastest cubers, etc). But common sense tells me that it's definately more likely that the next WR will be a lucky case as well.

Time will tell. The WR will be broken again, that is for sure!


----------



## Pedro (Oct 21, 2007)

well...I had a lucky 8.81 the other day 

but I don't think I can do that well on competition...at least not now

I think there's a chance that someone gets a non-lucky WR...but those are small, compared to the chance of the new WR being lucky

I'd say something like...hmmm...maybe 70% for lucky? or 75%


----------



## Erik (Oct 21, 2007)

Thx Joel...........
But I'm not sure if it will be lucky. I think not, as for me: I have had more non-lucky sub-10's than I had lucky sub-10's.....


----------



## hdskull (Oct 21, 2007)

Joël said:


> Of course, we could try to use all the stats we have to produce an actual number (averages, propability distributions of the times of the fastest cubers, etc). But common sense tells me that it's definately more likely that the next WR will be a lucky case as well.
> 
> Time will tell. The WR will be broken again, that is for sure!



didn't Erik say that you've been getting lots of sub 10s ? how' that coming ?


----------



## Stefan (Oct 23, 2007)

I'd say Joel and Erik are going in the direction I intended. I do not want to hear about people's gut feelings, that's what I've seen mentioned in other threads. Here I'd like to get an educated estimation, a number between 0 and 1 and some justification for it.

Erik said he had more nonlucky than lucky sub10s. Human memory is flawed, though, particularly it's selective. Maybe he just remembers the nonlucky ones better because he likes them better.

My suggestion would be that some of the fast people (those who have a chance to beat 9.77) count the number of lucky and nonlucky sub9.77s they get. They must be decide this in advance, though. If they decide to add to the statistic once they get their first (for example) nonlucky sub9.77, this is already biased.

Or, if people have sufficiently detailed statistics already, e.g., averages of 100 with all the lucky solves correctly marked as such, this could maybe be used if the cuber doesn't know anymore about the number of (non)lucky sub9.77 solves in it (again to prevent bias).


----------



## Kenneth (Oct 23, 2007)

It's possible to have an non lucky solve of about 40 turns. It is also possible to have a lucky solve of 50+ turns (bad cross/pairs, OLL-skip + Y-PLL for example).

Is it not better to say: "will the next WR be an easy solve?"

And the answer to that is "of corse"


----------



## masterofthebass (Oct 23, 2007)

Well, I don't know if you can consider it anything under 9.77 an easy solve. I've never been close to being sub 10, but in my experience, the best solves are not always the easiest. My best solves usually entail me being able to execute the f2l quickly because of lookahead. Granted an easy f2l and OLL definantly helps that speed, but the top guys are able of doing any scramble that fast, if they just see it the right way. That's the main difference between the really top guys and everyone else. It's not all about the speed of your algorithms.


----------



## Eazoon (May 19, 2012)

*New record*

This is the first thread I'm intentionally bumping, so I hope I'm doing this right.
In the probability thread I asked the world record isn't faster, and I thought this needed its own thread, but I found this old one.

Feliks can do 9-20 TPS, and the world record fewest moves was 23 I believe, and fridrich averages at 60 turns, so say he gets a pll skip, thats only 50 moves, and easy cross, that's 45, and maybe 1 f2l pair skip, that's 40. The majority of a solve is algorithms, in which feliks can do 15-20, and the cross f2l is 9-15. And if someone who knows full zb (which from what I've heard averages at 40 turns) can do at least 10 tps, that's 4 seconds, plus maybe 0.5 recognition time. So why hasn't anyone gotten a sub-5 solve? out of the hundred if not thousands of competition solves each year SOMEONE who can do 10+ tps must have gotten a LL skip and maybe an f2l pair skip.

Someone please explain.


----------



## aronpm (May 19, 2012)

Eazoon said:


> This is the first thread I'm intentionally bumping, so I hope I'm doing this right.
> In the probability thread I asked the world record isn't faster, and I thought this needed its own thread, but I found this old one.
> 
> Feliks can do 9-20 TPS, and the world record fewest moves was 23 I believe, and fridrich averages at 60 turns, so say he gets a pll skip, thats only 50 moves, and easy cross, that's 45, and maybe 1 f2l pair skip, that's 40. The majority of a solve is algorithms, in which feliks can do 15-20, and the cross f2l is 9-15. And if someone who knows full zb (which from what I've heard averages at 40 turns) can do at least 10 tps, that's 4 seconds, plus maybe 0.5 recognition time. So why hasn't anyone gotten a sub-5 solve? out of the hundred if not thousands of competition solves each year SOMEONE who can do 10+ tps must have gotten a LL skip and maybe an f2l pair skip.
> ...


People don't average that many TPS in solves. That's why.


----------



## Dene (May 19, 2012)

It is a lot easier said than done.

Unrelated: those old posts are lolcake


----------



## jonlin (May 19, 2012)

Eazoon said:


> This is the first thread I'm intentionally bumping, so I hope I'm doing this right.
> In the probability thread I asked the world record isn't faster, and I thought this needed its own thread, but I found this old one.
> 
> Feliks can do 9-20 TPS, and the world record fewest moves was 23 I believe, and fridrich averages at 60 turns, so say he gets a pll skip, thats only 50 moves, and easy cross, that's 45, and maybe 1 f2l pair skip, that's 40. The majority of a solve is algorithms, in which feliks can do 15-20, and the cross f2l is 9-15. And if someone who knows full zb (which from what I've heard averages at 40 turns) can do at least 10 tps, that's 4 seconds, plus maybe 0.5 recognition time. So why hasn't anyone gotten a sub-5 solve? out of the hundred if not thousands of competition solves each year SOMEONE who can do 10+ tps must have gotten a LL skip and maybe an f2l pair skip.
> ...


 
Nobody can 1-look a solve.
You'll probably have about 1 or 2 seconds of recognition time.
Feliks:
Pause between transition of F2L and OLL.

Oh yeah, Feliks uses ZB only for OH.
EDIT: PLLs are usually 13-15 moves.


----------



## Mollerz (May 19, 2012)

jonlin said:


> Nobody can 1-look a solve.
> You'll probably have about 1 or 2 seconds of recognition time.
> Feliks:
> Pause between transition of F2L and OLL.
> ...


 
No, Faz just gets lucky. He knows half of ZBLL-T and then some random other cases here and there.


----------



## Meep (May 19, 2012)

jonlin said:


> Nobody can 1-look a solve.


 
People do it all the time in BLD lol (With sub-15 'inspection' too)


----------



## jonlin (May 19, 2012)

Meep said:


> People do it all the time in BLD lol (With sub-15 'inspection' too)


 
Besides BLD.


----------



## Ágoston Török (May 20, 2012)

"Feliks can do 9-20 TPS"?
The current WR is around 9 TPS and it is absolutely extraordinary in a normal solve!


----------



## Andrew Ricci (May 20, 2012)

Eazoon said:


> This is the first thread I'm intentionally bumping, so I hope I'm doing this right.
> In the probability thread I asked the world record isn't faster, and I thought this needed its own thread, but I found this old one.
> 
> Feliks can do *9-20 TPS*, and the world record fewest moves was 23 I believe, and fridrich averages at 60 turns, so say he gets a pll skip, thats only 50 moves, and easy cross, that's 45, and maybe 1 f2l pair skip, that's 40. The majority of a solve is algorithms, in which feliks can do *15-20*, and the cross f2l is *9-15*. And if someone who knows full zb (which from what I've heard averages at 40 turns) can do at least *10 tps*, that's *4 seconds*, plus maybe *0.5 recognition time*. So why hasn't anyone gotten a sub-5 solve? out of the hundred if not thousands of competition solves each year _*SOMEONE who can do 10+ tps must have gotten a LL skip and maybe an f2l pair skip.*_
> ...


 
Don't pull numbers out of your ass. It just makes you look silly. Besides, even if any of this were even close to legitimate, nobody can do 10+ tps right now, not even close when it comes to something like ZB. And do you know how rare LL skips are? Give me a break.


----------



## MalusDB (May 20, 2012)

Dene said:


> Unrelated: those old posts are lolcake


 Indeed. The talk about the sub 10 barrier just seems so... silly now lol. 

Just goes to show HOW quickly cubing is still growing. Maybe with an optimised version of the new LL that Kir is proposing there might be even faster times possible than we could imagine. Feliks is awesome and stuff but it feels we have yet to have a true cubing "genius" really take speedoslving seriously enough to get down that far. Theres a chance there's be someone who can no-life it and get rediculous times (like sub 6 average) between now and the next 50 years. Then again, maybe not. It's an exciting time to be alive and cubing


----------



## Stefan (May 20, 2012)

Dene said:


> Unrelated: those old posts are lolcake





MalusDB said:


> Indeed. The talk about the sub 10 barrier just seems so... silly now lol.


 
I don't quite see why, though. So why? 

Nobody was like _"ZOMG 9.77 !!1!11"_. Was a serious attempt to estimate the probability that the next world record will be lucky, and the same question and can be asked and the same solutions might be applicable to today's world record(s). Lucky solves are more likely to be records, but non-lucky solves are more likely. Which wins? I'm still interested in the question, and maybe today with probably way more training statistics than back then, we can find a good answer.

So, does anybody have some useful statistics for this lying around, number of recent sub-5.66 solves and what percentage were lucky? Or a different idea of how to estimate this?


----------



## Dene (May 20, 2012)

A selection of pretty funny quotes (whether accurate or not) given how things have changed in 5 years:



pjk said:


> People get a little over 10.xx second non-luckly solves... one lucky of those will break it by a good second, at least I think so. Or maybe someone who solves with another method will break it, that would be something.





masterofthebass said:


> There are a few people who can solve sub-10 non-lucky somewhat consistently... The next WR will probably be lucky, but there's a possibility it will be broken by a non-lucky solve.





masterofthebass said:


> I've never been close to being sub 10



And also this one 


Joël said:


> The WR will be broken again, that is for sure!



<3 Joel


----------

