# OLLs and PLLs: Do you know them?



## Feryll (Mar 14, 2010)

I see how many people struggle with learning all of the OLL's and PLL's, and how many sub-20ers don't know full OLL, but a few 30 seconders (like me) and higher, do. I want a perspective of how many people know their algorithms for the last layer, and we can get a general idea of when it might be a good time to start learning. Most people have serious (t)issues with f2l (like me, again), but then again others still need an improvement on LL. Oh, and if there's already a thread that evaded my searches, please forgive me.


----------



## antoinejobin (Mar 14, 2010)

OLL are hard to learn  I know 13 of them. I'm concentrating on F2L and I have full PLL


----------



## richardzhang (Mar 14, 2010)

I average low 17s and i know full PLL and 41 OLL's


----------



## Zane_C (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm a little over 20 seconds and I use full OLL and PLL.
I was probably around 25-30 when I started learning full OLL. I thought; "what's better? Learn full OLL now and get them out of the way? or do it later and wish I had of learnt it earlier?"


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Mar 14, 2010)

Full OLL for when I accidentally insert an F2L pair. Full PLL for when my corners orient themselves. I'm at about 23 seconds and learning ZBLL.


----------



## vcuber13 (Mar 14, 2010)

im about 22 sec and know full pll and about 20 olls (19 I think)


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 14, 2010)

OLL isn't that hard. There are a lot of inverse/mirror groups that make it really easy to learn. Not to mention the supersune sets.


----------



## moogra (Mar 14, 2010)

I know around 45 OLLs, 21 PLLs, and 19-21 second average.


----------



## Truncator (Mar 14, 2010)

I went ahead and voted full OLL and PLL, since I'll have them all learned by tomorrow.

I didn't find it difficult at all once I overcame my laziness.


----------



## josmil1 (Mar 14, 2010)

I know full OLL and full PLL and I am averaging 30-35 seconds. Now all I have to worry about is executing my OLLs and Plls faster and more efficiently and working a lot on F2L.


----------



## koreancuber (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm on my 2 look OLL and 2 look PLL (4 algs left) and I average 24.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Mar 14, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> OLL isn't that hard. There are a lot of inverse/mirror groups that make it really easy to learn. Not to mention the supersune sets.


Hehehe, supersune


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Mar 14, 2010)

Full PLL, about 20 OLLs, and I average 25.


----------



## Weston (Mar 14, 2010)

I started learning my OLLs when I was trying to average sub 20 and then finished learning it when I was around 15-16 seconds.
I put the last 4 awkward shapes off for a really long time.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 14, 2010)

I knew full OLL and PLL when I was averaging ~28 seconds.


----------



## SuperNerd (Mar 14, 2010)

I know like, 20 something OLL's, but I use an F2L system like VH, but completely intuitive, so I then use one of the corner OLL's which I know all of, and then the PLL's, which I know all of.

15-16 second average.


----------



## Drax (Mar 14, 2010)

very close to sub-20 consistantly and I use 2-look oll and full pll

starting to learn more olls


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Mar 14, 2010)

I average low 17's and I don't know full OLL. I just know something like 30 cases, but I know full PLL. I learned full PLL when I was around 25 seconds. I have a friend who doesn't know full PLL (missing the two N's) and he averages around 16 seconds.


----------



## Faz (Mar 14, 2010)

I don't know dot-sune algs.


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Mar 14, 2010)

I got a sub-20 solve recently (AO5 was 26.xx at that time) with 2-Look OLL and a T-perm, which was really lucky, because the cross was 3/4 done and i just had to insert and adjust. I think that full OLL isn't that hard, if you are willing to devote your time for it.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm wondering who were the 2 persons who clicked full OLL and two look PLL. I just can't imagine that...

David is right. Full OLL is not hard at all. You just need to decide to learn them all and before you realize it, it's done. I remember when I had 13 OLLs left, I learned them one time in an hour or so. It's easier to learn if you print like 6-8 algorithms for one case, so you can pick the best/fastest/most fingertrick friendly/most similar to other OLLs or PLLs.

Ah, I know full OLL and PLL.


----------



## Faz (Mar 14, 2010)

Olivér Perge said:


> I'm wondering who were the 2 persons who clicked full OLL and two look PLL. I just can't imagine that...



My friend Nick nearly knows full OLL, and has 6 or so PLL's to learn. He averages about 14s.


----------



## Dene (Mar 14, 2010)

I put "Full PLL and Full OLL", although this is now technically incorrect, because I have long since forgotten one of the dot cases. I have tried several times to re-memorise it, but it just doesn't stick. I try to use partial edge control so the issue rarely arises.


----------



## Alex DiTuro (Mar 14, 2010)

josmil1 said:


> I know full OLL and full PLL and I am averaging 30-35 seconds. Now all I have to worry about is executing my OLLs and Plls faster and more efficiently and working a lot on F2L.



That's basically the whole solve 

I know Full PLL with about 25 OLLs. I average 20ish.

I could be sub 20 with a better LL. I average 12 seconds on the F2L.


----------



## jiggy (Mar 14, 2010)

I use full OLL and full PLL and tend to adverage mid-20s. When I finished learning them, however, I was something in the range of 30+.

IMO, you should get full OLL out of the way *as soon as you have finished learning full PLL*, with no break in between. It's far easier to get them done while you are still in "algorithm learning mode" and now I know I wont have to learn them later! 

The big number isn't so bad either, many of them are mirrors or contain similar triggers. I find that the more algs you learn the easier it becomes to memorise the next one.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Mar 14, 2010)

Dene said:


> I put "Full PLL and Full OLL", although this is now technically incorrect, because I have long since forgotten one of the dot cases. I have tried several times to re-memorise it, but it just doesn't stick. I try to use partial edge control so the issue rarely arises.



Wow, really? The "dot" cases are all so simple or symmetrical though. Come on Dene, pick them up again  Those cases were actually the first OLLs I studied 





moogra said:


> I know around 45 OLLs, 21 PLLs, and 19-21 second average.



Sounds about the same as me. I'm almost done with the OLLs and I'm averaging between 18-21 seconds.


----------



## chavak (Mar 14, 2010)

A couple of OLL and full PLL, I am still very slow, > 60sec. But I have not given up.


----------



## bobso2 (Mar 14, 2010)

Maybe it sounds stupid but i did first learn the full OLL and after that I started to learn full PLL 

I did not know that it was more efficient to learn PLL first

Now I have learned them all, I was finished when my times were >35

now I average sub 30... so, I have to go practise now


----------



## Tim Major (Mar 14, 2010)

22 PLLs (including 2 that take like 4+ seconds) and about 25 OLLs and I average 20.5 (have sub 20'd a12).


----------



## Dene (Mar 14, 2010)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I put "Full PLL and Full OLL", although this is now technically incorrect, because I have long since forgotten one of the dot cases. I have tried several times to re-memorise it, but it just doesn't stick. I try to use partial edge control so the issue rarely arises.
> ...



Yea me too, but I have no need for it now seeing as I almost completely strictly use partial edge control.


----------



## Edward (Mar 14, 2010)

Using Full PLL and 2-look OLL (15-16 second avg)
Learning Full OLL
(This could change if I finally decide to switch to Roux :3)


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Mar 14, 2010)

Edward said:


> Using Full PLL and 2-look OLL
> Learning Full OLL
> (This could change if I finally decide to switch to Roux :3)


Roux is sexy. Serious.

I know full OLL and PLL, although like Dene I almost never come across dot cases. dots are uglyy


----------



## Todd (Mar 14, 2010)

20 second average, Full PLL and nearly 40 OLLs.


----------



## Cubenovice (Mar 14, 2010)

2 look OLL and 2 look PLL.
Currently studying some easy-to-recognise OLL cases: Dots - Lines - T's and the H and X cases.

Best average of 5: 1min 12s 
So still lots of work on my F2L and turning speed


----------



## dada222 (Mar 14, 2010)

2 look PLL and full OLL. 
Avg 45:98, I'm a total fhagget regarding the cross and F2L.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Mar 14, 2010)

I no 20 PLL's, and about 15 olls


----------



## Olivér Perge (Mar 14, 2010)

dada222 said:


> 2 look PLL and full OLL.



I'm curious: How did you learn a group of 57 algorithms before learning a group of 21 algorithms? How many PLLs are missing? I think you should learn those PLLs soon.


----------



## dada222 (Mar 14, 2010)

Olivér Perge said:


> dada222 said:
> 
> 
> > 2 look PLL and full OLL.
> ...



I just did. I know the PLLs for edges and corners only so about 15 I'm missing.
I didn't even properly know about PLLs at the time I learned the OLLs so maybe that's why


----------



## Daniel Que (Mar 14, 2010)

I know full OLL and PLL and average 14-ish.

I was missing the four G-perms and a bunch of OLLs for such a long time, but I still managed to average 15-ish. Between knowing most and knowing all, there is a slight difference, but its ot that big. Basically, whenever I got a G Perm, my time would be a second or two slower than my average but every other time, it was fine.


----------



## Litz (Mar 14, 2010)

Full OLL isn't that hard. Most algorithms are simillar/mirrors or share common triggers. And they're short.


----------



## Jani (Mar 14, 2010)

i can get sub 15 Ao5 few times and sub 15 Ao12 once

i know all PLLs and 9 more to Full OLL


----------



## chris410 (Mar 14, 2010)

I recently started learning full pll, with 2-look oll/pll my averages are low 40's. When I timed my 2 look pll against the single step it was between 4 to 5 seconds on average so, the pll should drop my times once I gain proficiency with identifying the cases and execute the algorithms quickly. I do plan on learning full OLL at some point as well.


----------



## mr. giggums (Mar 14, 2010)

I've technically learn full pll and oll even though I have learned only 7 oll but I use petrus so all I have to do is orient the corners. I average around 45.


----------



## Brunito (Mar 14, 2010)

i know the full PLL but only 30.35 OLL i dont know how  AVG OF 100 is 14.7x


----------



## Carrot (Mar 14, 2010)

Full PLL and 29 OLL's... some days I average (of 100) about 15 and sometimes it's about 18


----------



## rubiknewbie (Mar 15, 2010)

I knew full OLL/PLL when I was 30+s but knowing is 1 thing, being fast is another. I have a lot to improve on, like only recently did I learn U perm from another angle. It's quite different executing algorithms fast in isolation and doing it fast in actual solves.


----------



## Rosette (Mar 15, 2010)

Sometimes I forget some of my

newly learned OLLs..


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Mar 15, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> 22 PLLs (including 2 that take like 4+ seconds) and about 25 OLLs and I average 20.5 (have sub 20'd a12).


how can you know 22 PLL's?


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Mar 15, 2010)

luisgepeto said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > 22 PLLs (including 2 that take like 4+ seconds) and about 25 OLLs and I average 20.5 (have sub 20'd a12).
> ...



Solved case maybe?


----------



## PCwizCube (Mar 17, 2010)

Ew full OLL. Too lazy to learn. I know like 21 OLLs. I find it more entertaining to get better at F2L than OLL.

14 second average of 5  2 Look OLL




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EQYcuWMI1M


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Mar 17, 2010)

Dude.... 14 second avg of 5 with 2-look OLL...

Man I want that


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 17, 2010)

2-look OLL, Full PLL. It would be kind of pointless to learn Full OLL, wouldn't it?


----------



## Kian (Mar 17, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> 2-look OLL, Full PLL. It would be kind of pointless to learn Full OLL, wouldn't it?



Absolutely not.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 17, 2010)

Kian said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > 2-look OLL, Full PLL. It would be kind of pointless to learn Full OLL, wouldn't it?
> ...



Sorry I should have added a , I use Petrus. But, I guess you may argue, it might help my FMC, what if I do bad edges incorrectly, etc. But for basic speedsolving, no full OLL is fine for me.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Mar 20, 2010)

im 22 seconds and i use two look oll and two look pll. my focus is in f2l, which takes me 13 seconds. when i reach sub ten ill start learning oll and pll


----------



## guitardude7241 (Mar 20, 2010)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> im 22 seconds and i use two look oll and two look pll. my focus is in f2l, which takes me 13 seconds. when i reach sub ten ill start learning oll and pll



you wont get sub 10 with a four look last layer.


----------



## jiggy (Mar 20, 2010)

guitardude7241 said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > im 22 seconds and i use two look oll and two look pll. my focus is in f2l, which takes me 13 seconds. when i reach sub ten ill start learning oll and pll
> ...


I think he meant sub 10 F2L.


----------



## Toad (Mar 20, 2010)

guitardude7241 said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > im 22 seconds and i use two look oll and two look pll. my focus is in f2l, which takes me 13 seconds. when i reach sub ten ill start learning oll and pll
> ...



I hope this post was a joke.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Mar 23, 2010)

Learning OLLs. I've been cubing _way_ too long to not know them. I'm ashamed. It's been my goal a few times in the past but now I'm truly set on learning them. Almost there.


----------



## Mitch15 (Mar 23, 2010)

I know four look, and all but a couple full one look pll algs, which im learning now, and im just starting to get sub 20 averages. i dont know if i intend to learn full oll for a loooong time seeing as id much rather get good at blind


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 26, 2010)

sub13, I don't know OLL or PLL


----------



## Edward (Mar 26, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> sub13, I don't know OLL or PLL



Lol don't you use Roux?


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 26, 2010)

ja

I usually do CLL/ELL when I use LBL.


----------



## SebCube (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm learning full PLL, i've got like 4 left .


----------



## jackdexter75 (Mar 26, 2010)

My pb is 21 sec. and I avg 25 sec. I don't know all the full pll or oll. I recommend learning 1 look oll and pll. learn pll first cause it shortens your time way more than oll. two look oll takes me about 2-3 sec. big woop. just learn the oll cases over a period of time when you can only concentrate on them, they are easy to learn though. 1 a day is easy to do, 2 or more depending on what cases they are. I know probably 15 olls and I lack 5-6 of 1 look pll. to be fast you do not have to know 1 look oll and pll. it does help though. and why not learn them? but pll is best to learn first if you really want to see a time change. I say if you are 30 sec or more... get a better f2l. my avg for ll was 7 sec and my avg for f2l was 30 sec... this was a week ago. my f2l is now sub15 and my ll is the same. and now I am avg. sub 25. that was a mouthful, but I thought I would say it cause this is kinda where I'm at/ past.


----------



## MrSupercubefreak (Mar 26, 2010)

I average about 20 and I learn all pll and 2 look oll(lazy to lean all oll )I was average about 25 when i learn all pll


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Mar 26, 2010)

still "learning" OLL. maybe that'll get me sub-14 consistent?


----------



## dada222 (Mar 26, 2010)

I'm finally taking the time to learn full PLL, like I said earlier I already know full OLL. So far, I can agree that they shorten your times more than OLL does, but that remains to be seen.


----------



## megaminxwin (Mar 26, 2010)

Full PLL and 2-look OLL.

Once my Type AII comes in, I'll start learning Full OLL.

(lol 69)


----------



## cuberkid10 (Mar 26, 2010)

Woah. I know, like, 5 OLLs and 7 PLL's and I average 22 seconds. Practice with what you have and youll come a long way. That how my PB of 16 seconds is with the beginners method. :O


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 26, 2010)

21 PLL's, 33 OLL's.

Apart from the 2 look OLL's, I figured them all out myself apart from the one what thrawst teaches in his memorising algorithms tip of the week (I learnt it as he was learning it )


----------



## a small kitten (Mar 27, 2010)

> Woah. I know, like, 5 OLLs and 7 PLL's and I average 22 seconds. Practice with what you have and youll come a long way. That how my PB of 16 seconds is with the beginners method. :O



Yes, but this will fail when you apply it to OH and if you want to get faster than a 20s average.


----------



## JasonD (Mar 27, 2010)

I know full OLL and PLL. I average 26 seconds. Most of F2L is intuitive but I am starting to learn algorithms for tougher cases. A few can be done at multiple angles, but not many.

I am impressed at all of your times without knowing the full sets. Your hands are just fast. That's what I need to work on next....


----------



## Feryll (Mar 27, 2010)

I myself am surprised at how many 2 look last layerers are out there. I thought I was a bit odd for knowing full oll and pll at this level, but apparently it's not too uncommon. But now, I am feeling awkward. What do I "learn" next? Only practicing seems a little uncannily boring for me, so I always have a second task to bide my time when I am tired. I think I'll start with more lookahead and X-crossing...Or 2x2


----------



## JasonD (Mar 28, 2010)

*Feryll*,

I'd say learn the F2L next. Even once you know them all as algorithms, some of which would be more efficient than intuitively solving them, you could then learn how to do all 42 possibilities from all 4 angles. That's a lot to learn.

Another thing is to learn how to do the cross without looking, with your eyes shut. And learn to do it on both the white and yellow sides (or whatever colors are opposite on your cube), picking whichever is easiest to do. Furthermore, you'll need to get used to the reversed ordering of colors when you choose the opposite side, which isn't too hard to do, but it does slow you down a bit.


----------



## Feryll (Mar 28, 2010)

JasonD said:


> *Feryll*,
> 
> I'd say learn the F2L next. Even once you know them all as algorithms, some of which would be more efficient than intuitively solving them, you could then learn how to do all 42 possibilities from all 4 angles. That's a lot to learn.
> 
> Another thing is to learn how to do the cross without looking, with your eyes shut. And learn to do it on both the white and yellow sides (or whatever colors are opposite on your cube), picking whichever is easiest to do. Furthermore, you'll need to get used to the reversed ordering of colors when you choose the opposite side, which isn't too hard to do, but it does slow you down a bit.


Thanks! I am already full color neutral, with no advantage over any particular color. I already know all the f2l algorithms from the front two angles (just by muscle memory anyway. The ones where the edge pair is connected but corner is twisted/edge is flipped, I actually know the algorithms.) I just don't know the ones where the edge is permuted right but the corner isn't oriented/permuted. I'll learn those. I'm also looking for smexier oll's and pll's.


----------



## denhil3 (Apr 4, 2010)

full oll and pll algroriths are quite hard too remember!


----------



## chris410 (Apr 6, 2010)

I finally have full PLL down however, I need to practice more to develop the muscle memory and execute the algorithms faster and smoother. They were not too hard to learn, I wrote them down on note cards and worked on learning them when i had time.

Once I gain some speed I will start on full OLL. I think it will take about a month of practice (I get maybe 1 hour per day to practice if I am lucky)


----------



## Feryll (Apr 6, 2010)

chris410 said:


> I finally have full PLL down however, I need to practice more to develop the muscle memory and execute the algorithms faster and smoother. They were not too hard to learn, I wrote them down on note cards and worked on learning them when i had time.
> 
> Once I gain some speed I will start on full OLL. I think it will take about a month of practice (I get maybe 1 hour per day to practice if I am lucky)



Lol, yeah. That's how I was on my OLL's before I got them completely right, except I sued that one member's super helpful OLL excel sheet. I suggest you use it too, it makes learning them extremely easy.
EDIT: Dangit, I have problems typing 'used' right...But at least I catch the 'jsut's before I post. Oh well, too late to change it.


----------



## chris410 (Apr 6, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> 21 PLL's, 33 OLL's.
> 
> Apart from the 2 look OLL's, I figured them all out myself apart from the one what thrawst teaches in his memorising algorithms tip of the week (I learnt it as he was learning it )



that is a good idea, I used a pll trainer which helped cut the time down and improved my recognition. I will compete in the Baltimore Open however, I am not very fast so if I can simply remember all the algorithms and finish my solves I will be happy. Thank you for the spreadsheet suggestion.


----------



## dada222 (Apr 7, 2010)

At last, Full PLL and full OLL. Just need to practice on execution now.


----------

