# When can you consider yourself sub-x?



## LostGent (Oct 13, 2015)

I'm pretty sure there was a thread on this at one point but I couldn't find it in the search.

What makes you sub-x? You can see my PBs in my signature. Should I consider myself sub-14 (I don't think so...) or perhaps sub-16 (more likely though I'd understand people who would disagree).

In essence which average should I take as a best measure? 

Thanks in advance for your comments and ideas


----------



## penguinz7 (Oct 13, 2015)

LostGent said:


> I'm pretty sure there was a thread on this at one point but I couldn't find it in the search.
> 
> What makes you sub-x? You can see my PBs in my signature. Should I consider myself sub-14 (I don't think so...) or perhaps sub-16 (more likely though I'd understand people who would disagree).
> 
> ...



I usually wait until I have 2-3 Sub-x Ao100's in a row.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 13, 2015)

For 3x3, its ao 1000. Period.


----------



## TDM (Oct 13, 2015)

I use my global average: what I think I'd average if I were to do a normal session. Unless an Ao100 is something you do rarely, I don't think it's sensible to use a PB Ao100 since they can be lucky, or you could just be having a good day; however, if you do one Ao100 every few months, and there's very little chance of getting a better-than-average average, then that should be fine.

However I think using your global average isn't hard and is, in my opinion, a good definition.


----------



## youSurname (Oct 13, 2015)

I do Ao100s every ... 6 months. You can consider yourself sub X, when you can tell someone random I can solve the cube in X, and be confident enough to do it in that time. I average 17 at home, but I tell people I am sub 20.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 13, 2015)

I don't do ao100s. 1000 is wayyyy too many. When I get a sub-x average of 50, usually I just use that, because honestly I can't get more than 25 or so good solves in a row.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 13, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I don't do ao100s. 1000 is wayyyy too many. When I get a sub-x average of 50, usually I just use that, *because honestly I can't get more than 25 or so good solves in a row.*



same, but by that logic I'm almost sub 8. (which I definitely am not)

ao100s dont take that long. For me its about 45 minutes.


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I don't do ao100s. 1000 is wayyyy too many. When I get a sub-x average of 50, usually I just use that, because honestly I can't get more than 25 or so good solves in a row.



Use something like qqtimer.net or prismatimer that saves your times so you can accumulate them instead of doing all in one sitting.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 14, 2015)

Ao 1000 is what is use, meaning my average is ~16.8


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 14, 2015)

My reasoning:
-ao100s in one sitting can easily wear out your fingers. Especially if you aren't super fast and it takes longer.
-I don't like doing "averages" when they are spread out over several days. I don't know why exactly, it just doesn't appeal to me.
-When I'm warmed up and not failing, I can get low 12 and sub 12 averages of 5 pretty easily. When I do more solves (I do 50) then after anywhere from 12 to 30 solves (usually closer to 25) I have a period of getting pretty sucky times. Look at this (my PB ao50):
1. 10.12 B2 F2 U' F2 U' L2 D2 L2 F2 U F2 R F L' D L U R2 B U R2 
2. 10.98 F2 D' B2 U F2 D F2 D2 F2 D L2 B' F2 R' U L2 U2 B' L R F' *//Nice start, with two 10s.*
3. 12.47 B2 R2 U2 R2 B' L2 B2 F' D2 L2 B' R' F' D B' L F2 L B R' 
4. 13.82 L2 F2 U' B2 F2 U' L2 D B2 F2 L' B' D2 L D U F2 D' R' 
5. 11.85 R U B2 D F' D F' L D2 R F2 U2 F2 L2 D2 F2 R F2 D *//First ao5 is 11.77, which is almost a second faster than this ao50. This is partly because it was a good average, but also partly because I usually goof up long averages.*
6. 13.55 L' D2 F2 U F2 R2 U R2 U' L2 R2 D R' B' L' U' R B L2 B2 L' 
7. 11.51 L2 D' L2 U' R2 F2 R2 D' B2 D R2 B L B D R' F D' L' R F2 
8. 13.44 D2 L2 D2 L2 B2 U2 B2 R B2 U F L' B L U L2 B2 F2 
9. 9.94 B2 R2 B2 D2 L2 D2 L2 F2 U R2 D F D2 F' U L' R' F' R2 D' B2 *//The sub-10 is real...*
10. 12.00 L' R2 D' L2 R2 B2 D F2 D' F2 R2 U F' U B R' B D L B2 D 
11. 11.66 L D L2 U D2 R' F B L' D' B R2 B2 R2 L2 B' R2 F2 U2 D2 R2 
12. 14.30 U2 R B2 L' B2 L2 U2 R2 U2 R B' L2 U B' L' R' B R' *//First ao12 is 12.14, which is also pretty good but not as far below my expected average as it appears.*
13. 14.58 D' F2 U2 B2 U F2 U2 R2 U L2 B2 F R2 U' B2 U' L' F D2 L' R' 
14. 12.54 U D L F B' D' L' F' D2 F2 D2 B2 L' D2 R2 U2 L' F2 R2 U' 
15. 13.04 L U2 D L2 B' R' F2 L2 U2 L D2 L F2 L2 D' 
16. 12.85 D' L2 U' L2 B2 D L2 U R2 D2 U' L' R' B U L D' U2 R' F 
17. 12.73 F2 U' D' F' D' F L U L2 B' L2 U2 F' U2 L2 B' U2 F' U2 
18. 11.77 F2 U2 L' D2 F2 L' D2 F2 L2 R2 F2 U F2 D' L' F U2 R F D' F' 
19. 12.33 U B2 D2 F2 R F2 U2 R2 B2 R' D2 F2 U L R' F R' U B' U R2 
20. 12.21 U2 B2 R' F2 D2 R F2 L D2 L2 R B U' L2 R U2 B' L' U2 B 
21. 12.83 U2 F2 U' R2 F2 L2 D F2 L2 D' U' L U L R' U2 R2 B' F2 D' F2 
22. 13.85 D2 L2 U L2 D' R2 D' F2 U2 F2 U' R' B' F' U' F L D2 B2 R B 
23. 12.62 D2 B' R D2 R B2 D F2 R' F' L2 D B2 U L2 U' L2 D' F2 D B2 
24. 12.66 F U B D F2 R' U' F D2 R2 L D2 R F2 R B2 L2 B2 D *//12.77 ao12.*
25. 15.73 L2 U2 R2 U2 R2 F2 D L U B D F' U' R' B L2 B' 
26. 14.10 R' F L U' F L B2 R' B' R2 B2 U B2 R2 B2 L2 D2 F2 D L2 
27. 17.14+ B' R B2 F2 L U2 L U2 B2 L' F2 L' F' U L' R' F D' B' L2 D2 
28. 14.75 L2 D2 R2 F D2 R2 F D2 U2 F' D' B' U2 B F' R' U F' D2 
29. 13.94 R2 U2 B2 U' L2 U F2 L2 B2 L2 B D2 L F L2 U B2 F R2 U *//14.86 ao5. Very fail. Much bad.*
30. 13.09 U L2 U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R2 F2 D F2 R' U' B' F' L F D' L' D' F 
31. 15.78 F L2 B' R2 D2 B' D2 R2 D2 F2 D B' D2 R2 B' D2 F R D2 
32. 10.99 F2 D2 L2 F2 U B2 U2 R2 F2 D' R2 L D F' L2 R' U' F2 U B' L 
33. 10.40 F' L2 R2 U' F2 R2 D F2 U' R2 F2 D2 L' U2 F' L2 R' F2 U L D 
34. 12.39 B' U2 L' F' U L' F D2 R' F2 L2 B2 U R2 U' B2 R2 D' L2 D2 
35. 12.92 F2 D L' B R2 F U D2 L U L2 F2 D L2 D' B2 R2 U2 L2 U' 
36. 11.46 B R F' L' B' R' U' F2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 L2 B2 L2 U R *//And that is up to a 13.52 ao12. The inconsistency is real.*
37. 12.42 B' U2 R' F2 R2 U F R D' B' F2 U2 F2 U2 D2 R D2 R2 F2 L B2 
38. 12.83 B D' L2 B' L2 F' L U F2 R' B2 L2 B2 D2 F2 R' B2 R2 F' 
39. 12.49 L2 D2 F L2 B L D F' R U2 F L2 F' U2 F U2 D2 F' B' L2 
40. 11.05 L2 F2 D2 F' D2 U2 F2 D2 F' D2 F2 L B' L U' R2 B2 R' D2 L 
41. 12.44  L D B L' F' R D' F U' B2 U R2 U2 L2 U2 L2 D' B2 L2 
42. 10.98 U F2 R U R' D F' D F2 B2 R F2 D2 F2 R' U2 L' U2 R B 
43. 13.76 R2 B L2 D' F2 B' U' B' R' F' R2 U2 R' D2 R L' D2 L' B2 L' F2 
44. 13.61 L2 R2 F2 L2 D' R2 U2 F2 D L F2 L2 U B' F' R' D' U' F' 
45. 13.44 R2 B2 R2 D2 F' L2 R2 B U2 F R2 L' D' F L' F D2 L' U' B2 R2 
46. 11.66 R2 B2 D F2 U R2 D' L2 B2 D' U2 F' R' D' L2 F' L D' R U' R2 
47. 13.02 L2 R2 B' D2 L2 F2 L2 R2 D2 B R' F L' U F' L' F2 L2 R' F2 
48. 14.52 L2 B2 L2 F' L2 B R2 B L2 U2 F U F R' F' D U R' F L2 F 
49. 12.91 L2 R2 U' B2 U B2 L2 R2 D' R2 U' L' U F2 L2 D2 L' R2 F' U' R2 
50. 12.38 B' L2 U' L2 F2 L' B U L' B2 R' F2 R' F2 R U2 B2 L' B' *//I end the session around average. It was a 12.74 ao50. Also note that this happened 6 weeks ago (9/1), and I still can't beat it because I never have time to cube anymore. Tomorrow is a half day at school so maybe I'll try then.*


----------



## xchippy (Oct 14, 2015)

When you get frustrated when you get x+1 averages.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 14, 2015)

xchippy said:


> When you *DONT* get x+1 averages.



ftfy.


----------



## obelisk477 (Oct 14, 2015)

After you are sub-19 or so, I would say that you are sub-x once you have a (x-1).70 average of 100


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 14, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ftfy.



I got a 15 average so I'm not sub-15. Let's say Feliks DNFs a solve and messes up two more (badly). He gets an average of
7.18 (DNF) 12.01+ 10.92 (6.10) = 10.04
Feliks isn't sub-10.
It shouldn't be "you don't get sup-x" it should be "you get sub-x significantly more than you get sup-x".


obelisk477 said:


> After you are sub-19 or so, I would say that you are sub-x once you have a *x-0.30* average of 100



mtfy (mathed that for you)
Once you get faster, this changes. I say sub 13 (about where I'm at) is a 12.8 average.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I got a 15 average so I'm not sub-15. Let's say Feliks DNFs a solve and messes up two more (badly). He gets an average of
> 7.18 (DNF) 12.01+ 10.92 (6.10) = 10.04
> Feliks isn't sub-10.
> It shouldn't be "you don't get sup-x" it should be "you get sub-x significantly more than you get sup-x".



by "averages" I interpretted 12 or 50. 

either way, I dont think feliks has had a sup 10 average in years.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 14, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> by "averages" I interpretted 12 or 50.
> 
> either way, I dont think feliks has had a sup 10 average in years.



Same idea, you can get unlucky. I get sup 13 averages of 12 or 50 sometimes. Here is how to decide what your average is:
Ask yourself "What would I expect if I did a solve?"
Me? 12.6ish

he probably hasn't, but you get the point


----------



## Xtremecubing (Oct 14, 2015)

I don't do large averages (1000), but occasionally do 100's and those are always from 11-11.8 and that's is what I say I average currently. Averages of 1000 would take way too long for me anyway, and I'm not someone who puts a lot of time into practicing anyway, so I just base my averages off of the occasional averages of 100 that I do.


----------



## TMarshall (Oct 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> My reasoning:
> -When I'm warmed up and not failing, I can get low 12 and sub 12 averages of 5 pretty easily. When I do more solves (I do 50) then after anywhere from 12 to 30 solves (usually closer to 25) I have a period of getting pretty sucky times.[/B]



This seems really stupid to me, because by that logic, I'm sub 10, which is laughable to me (I average 10.5-ish)
Also, those bad solves *are* part of your average, because everyone gets good and bad solves. Personally, about 6 months ago, I fell into the bad habit of deleting my bad times because I was frustrated with them, but then my "averages" didn't reflect my global average because the times were just my good times. This seems almost exactly like this.


----------



## puzzl3add1ct (Oct 14, 2015)

TMarshall said:


> This seems really stupid to me, because by that logic, I'm sub 10, which is laughable to me (I average 10.5-ish)
> Also, those bad solves *are* part of your average, because everyone gets good and bad solves. Personally, about 6 months ago, I fell into the bad habit of deleting my bad times because I was frustrated with them, but then my "averages" didn't reflect my global average because the times were just my good times. This seems almost exactly like this.


Now this is my problem.


----------



## nvpendsey (Oct 14, 2015)

For me sub-x would be the mode of times of 50+ solves (rounded to 0.5 seconds).


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Oct 14, 2015)

Don't reset your timers. Ao1000 builds up over time. That is your true global average because it show good and bad times over a long period of time.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Same idea, you can get unlucky. I get sup 13 averages of 12 or 50 sometimes. Here is how to decide what your average is:
> Ask yourself "What would I expect if I did a solve?"
> Me? 12.6ish
> 
> he probably hasn't, but you get the point



the occasional bad ao12 is fine, but if you're getting sup 13 ao 50s, you're probably not sub 13. For example, I still get bad 9.3 ish ao 12s about once a week, but the worst ao 50 I will get is about 8.8.


----------



## ender9994 (Oct 14, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> the occasional bad ao12 is fine, but if you're getting sup 13 ao 50s, you're probably not sub 13. For example, I still get bad 9.3 ish ao 12s about once a week, but the worst ao 50 I will get is about 8.8.



One interpretation could also be that you are not sub-x until you have officially achieved it in competition (a major factor as to why many people keep cubing). So you would still not be sub-12, and I (although it pains me to say), would not be sub-4 minutes for 3x3 blind

-Doug


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 14, 2015)

TMarshall said:


> This seems really stupid to me, because by that logic, I'm sub 10, which is laughable to me (I average 10.5-ish)
> Also, those bad solves *are* part of your average, because everyone gets good and bad solves. Personally, about 6 months ago, I fell into the bad habit of deleting my bad times because I was frustrated with them, but then my "averages" didn't reflect my global average because the times were just my good times. This seems almost exactly like this.



That's true, everyone gets good and bad times, but if I do an average of 5 not in an average of 50 I will basically never fail that much. When I do 50, some of my solves are super terrible. I get 25 good solves (it isn't like they are all great) and then around 15 terrible solves that I would almost never get if I weren't doing an ao50, and then I finish off the average with decent solves. I think what causes it is that after around 25 I am halfway finished, so I want to continue the streak of good solves, but then I mess one up, I get frustrated, mess 10 more up, and then finish up the average decently (sometimes).

by deleting your bad solves do you mean just deleting them and not resetting your session?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 14, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> the occasional bad ao12 is fine, but if you're getting sup 13 ao 50s, you're probably not sub 13. For example, I still get bad 9.3 ish ao 12s about once a week, but the worst ao 50 I will get is about 8.8.



this is silly because I get more sub 13 than sup 13 ao50s, and the sup 13 ones are where I'm not warmed up and/or I completely flop. Besides, they are usually like 13.0x averages and then I get more 12.8x and 12.7x averages. Would this person be sub-13 (these 10 ao50s)
12.91
13.05
12.78
12.84
13.01
12.89
13.11
12.83
12.79
12.98

This isn't me, but it is an approximation of me.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 14, 2015)

Lazy Einstein said:


> Don't reset your timers. Ao1000 builds up over time. That is your true global average because it show good and bad times over a long period of time.



agree, I'm curious if CStimer can do Ao5000 or 10000


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 14, 2015)

Lazy Einstein said:


> Don't reset your timers. Ao1000 builds up over time. That is your true global average because it show good and bad times over a long period of time.


If I do 100 solves every other day on average, it will take me 20 days, or around 3 weeks. That can be enough time to see some improvement, so it is imo too long.



Ordway Persyn said:


> agree, I'm curious if CStimer can do Ao5000 or 10000


5000 would take me around 3 months. If I don't improve in 3 months I'll be pretty frustrated.
10000 would take me around 6 months. When you get into such long averages, it isn't gonna just represent how you solve right now, it will be pulled up by solves you got several months ago.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 14, 2015)

It would take me ~40 days for me to get an Ao5000, so ~80 days for a 10000. I was really just curios. Generally when I get an Ao1000 I keep on rolling it.

also for any event that takes longer than 3x3, Ao100 is good enough.


----------



## mafergut (Oct 15, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If I do 100 solves every other day on average, it will take me 20 days, or around 3 weeks. That can be enough time to see some improvement, so it is imo too long.
> 
> 
> 5000 would take me around 3 months. If I don't improve in 3 months I'll be pretty frustrated.
> 10000 would take me around 6 months. When you get into such long averages, it isn't gonna just represent how you solve right now, it will be pulled up by solves you got several months ago.



Another good thing of long averages like those is that you can plot them and see the trend lines, which mark your improvement over time. I'd say the trend line of an Ao10000 would give a more than good sub-X approximation but I'm too lazy to keep track of such long averages, I just keep an excel file with Ao100 (which I usually do in 1-2 days). If I see that I have less and less sup-20 Ao100 I would start considering myself sub-20 which has not quite happened to me yet. So I would be globally sub-21 

I need to warm up for like 5-10 solves before my fingers start working fine. But just because, after warming up, I usually can easily get an 18.xx Ao5 or even Ao12, I don't consider myself sub-19, even tough I have several sub-19 Ao50s. Anyway, more than sub-X or whatever I consider myself a decent speedcuber than enjoys solving. No need to be Feliks to enjoy cubing.


----------



## LostGent (Oct 15, 2015)

Wow folks I really didn't expect this to stir such a great debate  thanks for all your comments. I'm gonna be open and say I categorise myself as sub-16 but I realise that I can still get sub-17 averages of 1000. I've never done an average of 5000 or 10000 for that matter but it's probably not a bad idea


----------



## DELToS (Oct 15, 2015)

I would do the average of 1000, but I know that when I finish, it will have solves from when I was a little slower so it'll make my average more than it actually was...


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Due to this graph of my last 10,000 plots of my ao12's its safe to say i'm sub 18, this is about my entire speedsolving career, i like to see the improvement over time


----------



## CriticalCubing (Oct 16, 2015)

I may be a little hard on myself but, I see if I have 5 consecutive ao100 first. This qualifies me for next round. Then I compare my ao1000 which usually takes weeks. I usually do 2 ao1000 but these days I do another ao1000 for verification purposes.
So 500 solves where I should have sub-x ao100 consistently and then 2 ao1000 for qualifying myself sub-x and then another ao1000 for verification purposes. But mostly, getting sub-x ao100 consistently is a good sign that you are already sub-x


----------



## Ksh13 (Oct 19, 2015)

I will probably do it more presicesly when I get faster, but atm I'm sub-50, and I haven't ever done an ao100, but I feel confident in that I can sit down and do a solve in under 50 at least 9/10 times. Last time I did a sesion of like 20 solves, my worst solve was 48 something. Although some would say measure in a bigger scale, because lucky scrambles happen, but when I have to mess up OLL or PLL to get over 50 I'm actually not going to bother do an ao100 or ao100 to check if I'm sub-50. Also when I'm this slow an ao100 would take me like over 2 hours, but I'll definetly do ao100s to test when I get under 35.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Oct 19, 2015)

My definition of sub-xx is if I can sit down with my main cube and be guaranteed a sub-xx avg100.

By this definition I'm not sub9 yet, but I'm close.


----------



## giorgi (Oct 19, 2015)

In my opinion, if you can do any average of 5 sub-x time even with not so good scrambles you should consider yourself sub-x


----------



## ViliusRibinskas (Oct 19, 2015)

Too my mind, when you get one or three ao50's that are sub sub-x, then you can consider youself sub-x


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 19, 2015)

I would say you're sub-x if you can get multiple ao100's below a certain boundary. I have gotten a sub-18 ao100, but I haven't gone back and done another one yet. I may be able to say I'm sub-18 now, but I think I should do a few more averages.


----------



## Myachii (Oct 19, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> this is silly because I get more sub 13 than sup 13 ao50s, and the sup 13 ones are where I'm not warmed up and/or I completely flop. Besides, they are usually like 13.0x averages and then I get more 12.8x and 12.7x averages. Would this person be sub-13 (these 10 ao50s)
> 12.91
> 13.05
> 12.78
> ...



You can see from your description what you have done, which is take your best average of 50 and say you are sub x+a little bit more. 
I think it's when you think you are sub-x. Nobody else but you can know how fast solves feel compared to how they are, or how often you pause etc. 
You are the only real judge of what time you are below. However, generally speaking I think sub-x global average would be getting sub-x 4/5 times.
In terms of large averages, it depends. I have a session with approximately 20,000 solves in it, and the mean is low 15. Now, I would say I am globally sub-14, but my large session says otherwise. 
I think an average of 1000 spread out over however long it takes you to solve the cube 1000 times is the best you're gonna get. Ao100 is too small a sample to determine a GLOBAL average imo.


----------



## YouCubing (Oct 19, 2015)

Use ChaoTimer. Start a new session for every event each month. And the end of a month, you will know your global average. Start again.
Seriously though, If your PB ao100 is x*24/25, then you're sub-x.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 20, 2015)

When u can get that average in comp or on the forum comp thread several times in a row


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 20, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> *When u can get that average in comp* or on the forum comp thread several times in a row



well thats an interesting idea


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 20, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> When u can get that average in comp or on the forum comp thread several times in a row



I'm not sub-15? D:
You aren't sub-20 either though...
(this doesn't work at all, you are sub 17-18 I think, and I am sub 13.)


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 20, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I'm not sub-15? D:
> You aren't sub-20 either though...
> (this doesn't work at all, you are sub 17-18 I think, and I am sub 13.)



Forum comp too  basically when u can take any 5-12 solves and avg whatever u avg


----------



## TDM (Oct 20, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> When u can get that average in comp or on the forum comp thread several times in a row



There's still possibility for that to be influenced by luck. My last three official averages were either very low 13 or sub-13, yet I don't average 13.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Oct 20, 2015)

I say when I get an average of 100 of that time. I've gotten an Ao5 in the 13 range, but I say I am sub 17 since my best Ao100 is 16.5


----------



## starcuber (Oct 20, 2015)

the best way to find out u r sub x 
is
1. get continuous pb average
2.win a podium on any event u want to sub x
3.doneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

(i know its tough )


----------



## Berkmann18 (Oct 21, 2015)

I consider myself subX only when I did at least an Ao100 which doesn't end in .95+ but generally when I did have an Ao200+ (doesn't need to be from a single session).


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 21, 2015)

when you can get an x+~3 ao5 on a v1 rubik's cube
also doing this helps ALOT with lookahead


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 21, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> when you can get an x+~3 ao5 on a v1 rubik's cube
> also doing this helps ALOT with lookahead



it's pretty hard with roux.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 22, 2015)

When you want to go to a different site but out of habit go to speedsolving.com


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 22, 2015)

Eew that looked so locky. As I said Before Ao1000 is what I would use, I have gotten a 15.81 Ao100 before but have recently been at around 16.5 (likely do to me messing up)

Also @ JTM I think you got the wrong thread


----------



## LostGent (Apr 3, 2016)

Thanks for all the responses on this thread folks. So I listened and have been really working on my solves the last while. Finally got a sub-15 ao1000  thanks for the inspiration!


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 3, 2016)

yesterday I took on 200 solves. Guess how much time. 8 hours. well maybe 7-8 cuz i did do some other stuff


----------



## allanboss131 (Mar 10, 2017)

I see everyone saying "I average around sub 20" or "I average sub 20 to sub 25" 

Can we get back to the original meaning of sub x? 
Sub means you are under something, so you can't be sub "20 to sub 25" that would mean you are under 20 to under 25, (if you are then just say sub 25) the better way to say this would be to say that you average around 20-25. Also, if you are "sub 10" you are also sub 20 and sub 30 and sub 1 min. I'm wondering if anybody else has been seeing this and getting bothered by it. I cant think of a great example so I hope you guys understand what I am saying and why it is bothering me.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Mar 10, 2017)

I see your point but when are you sub x? ao12? ao100? ao1000?


----------



## allanboss131 (Mar 10, 2017)

At least avg of 100, probably more. But that's not the point of the thread.


----------



## One Wheel (Mar 10, 2017)

I move that we table this discussion until all cubers are mature enough to use cliches and figures of speech correctly.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Mar 10, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I move that we table this discussion until all cubers are mature enough to use cliches and figures of speech correctly.


I second the motion.


----------



## biscuit (Mar 11, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I second the motion.


 I half the motion.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Mar 11, 2017)

biscuit said:


> I half the motion.


Where is that exactly in RONR?


----------



## One Wheel (Mar 11, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Where is that exactly in RONR?


It's a footnote on page 9 5/8.


----------



## TreacherousToast (Aug 7, 2018)

How can you tell if you are sub 20 from the CSTimer stats?
Do I need to get a sub 20 ao12 or ao100 before I can say that I'm sub 20?


----------



## Hazel (Aug 7, 2018)

Don't just look at statistics. You are sub-20 if you can consistently solve the cube in under 20 seconds. Think of it this way: Imagine you did a million solves in a csTimer session, and let's assume you do not improve at all by doing those solves. What would you expect the average to be? If you would say 21 seconds, then you're probably not sub-20. Another way to think about it is this: Let's say you're all warmed up. What would you expect your next solve time to be before you see the scramble (WITHOUT being optimistic or pessimistic)? If you say "I'll most likely get an 18" then you probably are sub-20.


----------



## One Wheel (Aug 7, 2018)

I like using a mean of however many of your most recent solves add up to at least 2 hours. So sub-20 is 3 solves/minute, 180/hour, or 360 in 2 hours. If the mean of your most recent 360 solves is less than 20 seconds, then you're sub-20. 2 hours is pretty arbitrary, but it feels about right.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 7, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> I like using a mean of however many of your most recent solves add up to at least 2 hours. So sub-20 is 3 solves/minute, 180/hour, or 360 in 2 hours. If the mean of your most recent 360 solves is less than 20 seconds, then you're sub-20. 2 hours is pretty arbitrary, but it feels about right.


Sub-20 is 3 solves a minute?


----------



## One Wheel (Aug 7, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> Sub-20 is 3 solves a minute?


Just counting solve time, yes.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 7, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> Just counting solve time, yes.


Oh yes I misread sorry

Just ignore me


----------

