# Algorithm repetition.



## DaijoCube (Mar 25, 2010)

I was wondering. Do your ''style'' of cubing (I guess we all have patterns in our solving style) can affect the PLL/OLL rate?

For example, on 12 solve I've got 6 V perms...That's quite weird! It happened 2 days ago too, but with the T perm. Does that happen to you? Or is this only random?

I solved my siamese about 6 to 7 time since I got it. I only got, ONLY got U perms, one H perm and 2 Z perms. No corner swap ever. Is that because of ''luck'' or because of the move possibilities being reduced to less than on a normal 3x3x3?


----------



## dillonbladez (Mar 25, 2010)

It's not related to cubing style AT ALL. it seems to be pure luck, but that is indeed quite weird (the 6 v perms must suck, if you're using badmeph's alg)

The siamese, however, is probably because you are using 2-gen moves.


----------



## joey (Mar 25, 2010)

Of course "style" has no effect on the algs you get.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 25, 2010)

joey said:


> Of course "style" has no effect on the algs you get.



I don't mean the way you turn and perform algorithms  I'm not that stupid 

We all have reflexes on certain situations when cubing, those might lead to the same situations, like the V perm.


----------



## dillonbladez (Mar 25, 2010)

well, that could be it. i doubt it would effect PLL. OLL definately if you use a ZBF2L/VHf2L/winter variation


----------



## Feryll (Mar 25, 2010)

You know, I did a ton of solves today, and I swear, every OTHER freakin pll was v-perm. I'm barely even exaggerating. I also didn't get a single z perm during that block. I use R2 U' B2 U B2 R D' R D R' U R U' R Is that a good one, because I always sigh when I see a v perm


----------



## joey (Mar 25, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > Of course "style" has no effect on the algs you get.
> ...


Stupid enough to think that PLL would be affected by stuff that happens before it


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 25, 2010)

My V perm alg is pretty tasty, I found good finger tricks for it : 
r'F RF' rUr' F R' F' r 2U R 2U R'

I think there a ''y'' at the beginning, or another rotation, I don't know.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 25, 2010)

joey said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...



It is not? They can teleport when the OLL is finished? They are ONLY affected by what happened before, but it's freaking hard to know in advance, that I'm obligated to say.


----------



## kunz (Mar 25, 2010)

well if your doing it intuitively then im sure there are tendencies that occur so its mostly chance but im sure the way you do it does change the odds


----------



## joey (Mar 25, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


Yeah, I meant they aren't affected in any predictable way. Obviously they're only affected by the stuff that comes before it


----------



## Escher (Mar 25, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> It is not? They can teleport when the OLL is finished? They are ONLY affected by what happened before, but it's freaking hard to know in advance, that I'm obligated to say.



It's perfectly possible to consciously control PLL type at OLL by learning one or two more algs for an OLL case. I guess if one learnt full OLL+CP for say, adjacent oriented edges OLL cases you could force those cases during last slot or even 2nd to last slot, in which case you'd be using f2l to help influence PLL. 

Otherwise, no, if you are not consciously altering OLL or PLL type during preceding steps it's no different to rolling a 58/22 sided dice.


----------



## liljthedude (Mar 25, 2010)

OLL's do affect the PLL. Do a OLL on a solved cube. The pieces will be permutated around.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 25, 2010)

liljthedude said:


> OLL's do affect the PLL. Do a OLL on a solved cube. The pieces will be permutated around.




*whoosh*


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 25, 2010)

Escher said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > It is not? They can teleport when the OLL is finished? They are ONLY affected by what happened before, but it's freaking hard to know in advance, that I'm obligated to say.
> ...



Actually yea it is because PLL probabilities arent 1/22 and OLL probabilities arent 1/58. 

anyway, the base idea is this
Since OLL precedes PLL, OLL in part determines what PLL you get; however, since F2L precedes OLL, F2L determines what LL (OLL+pre-OLL-PLL) you will get. Generalize this to "since a precedes b, a determines in some way what b will be like" and then go all the way down to the point of the scramble. The scramble is random; when you go back up the chain, your OLLs and PLLs are affected by the scramble which is random and thus the occurrence rates of OLLs and PLLs are probability-based, not based on which alg you have learned for some OLL case.


----------



## Escher (Mar 25, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Actually yea it is because PLL probabilities arent 1/22 and OLL probabilities arent 1/58.



:fp
I sometimes make the mistake of thinking that cases = probabilities.

You summed up what I was trying to say better anyway...


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 25, 2010)

Rowan is correct if he meant it was a biased/imperfect die.

You meant that... right?


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 25, 2010)

Sometimes, I can force certain ZBLLs (I liek T set) subsets, or even force PLL.

I subconciously do VHF2L, I have to make a concious effort not to.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 25, 2010)

4Chan said:


> Sometimes, I can force certain ZBLLs (I liek T set) subsets, or even force PLL.
> 
> I subconciously do VHF2L, I have to make a concious effort not to.



That's not based purely off which alg you use for which case, that is based on a decision you make to do something a specific way such that the result will be how you want it to be. Sure you can affect later steps by choosing to do earlier steps a certain way, but if you do a specific case for one step a specific way every time, the case for the following step will be unaffected from simple probability - this is the question daijo is asking, and the answer is no.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 25, 2010)

Feryll said:


> R2 U' B2 U B2 R D' R D R' U R U' R


what.


DaijoCube said:


> r'F RF' rUr' F R' F' r 2U R 2U R'


You mean U2, not 2U.

Here, try this one:
R' U R' U' y x2 R' U R' U' R2 x' U' R' U R U

Anyway, no, if you just go through F2L and OLL without looking at which LL pieces are where, the PLL algorithms will have the same probability as they will for everyone else. The only way it changes is if you do different F2Ls/OLLs depending on the permutation of the LL pieces (and not just on the F2L/OLL case).

However, any Siamese Cube which doesn't allow F, B, L, or D turns will not allow the corners on PLL to be unsolved. So you can only get U, Z, and H perms.


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 25, 2010)

>Implying that I didn't know that and I wasn't just showing off my zbll like I usually do.


----------



## wing92 (Mar 25, 2010)

I've thought about this some before and this is what I came up with.

Throughout your F2L, you do have tendencies to do certain things. These things will affect certain pieces. However, those last layer pieces are randomly positioned throughout the cube. If you only pay attention to the pieces in the F2L during F2L, then the only thing you will consciously affect is the F2L. You will move, for example, the UFR corner around, but it doesn't matter. The movement will be random.

I thought about this before because I was wondering if it would be possible to force a LL skip on absolutely any solve. I think it would be possible but extremely inefficient and hard to recognize in most cases.


----------



## rubiknewbie (Mar 25, 2010)

I think there is some effect in the way you cube to what OLLs and PLLs you eventually get. Though I don't know exactly how.

Like on my good day, I tend to be more efficient in F2L and use certain more efficient ways to insert the edge-corner pairs. And then I end up with certain OLLs and PLLs more often than others.

On a particular bad day, my lookahead is not working and I end up with some long algorithms that I normally don't use. And then it leads to repeated occurences of an ugly OLL. Which in turn leads to certain PLLs more often.

It may be luck but I think it has to do with me doing F2L in a different way.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 25, 2010)

Nope.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. Basically, if you think you're having a good day you will notice the good PLLs more, and if you think you're having a bad day you will notice the bad PLLs more. This is standard human psychology and applies to a lot more than just cubing.


----------



## Escher (Mar 25, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Rowan is correct if he meant it was a biased/imperfect die.
> 
> You meant that... right?



SURE


----------



## andyt1992 (Mar 25, 2010)

I always find on new cases i've learnt when i am doing a speedsolve and wanting that case i never get it  makes me angryy *Grrrrrr*


----------



## robindeun (Mar 25, 2010)

with a siamese cube you can only have the u,z and H perms


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Mar 25, 2010)

I find myself getting the same X-Cross cases a lot. In my mot recent average of 100, I got 54 consecutive Ua permutations. 2 were OLL skips. COLL really pays off sometimes. The next 3 solves I knew the ZBLL algs for. Then the average went downhill.


----------



## guitardude7241 (Mar 25, 2010)

eastamazonantidote said:


> I find myself getting the same X-Cross cases a lot. In my mot recent average of 100, I got 54 consecutive Ua permutations. 2 were OLL skips. COLL really pays off sometimes. The next 3 solves I knew the ZBLL algs for. Then the average went downhill.



54?!?!


----------



## riffz (Mar 31, 2010)

eastamazonantidote said:


> I find myself getting the same X-Cross cases a lot. In my mot recent average of 100, I got 54 consecutive Ua permutations. 2 were OLL skips. COLL really pays off sometimes. The next 3 solves I knew the ZBLL algs for. Then the average went downhill.



I know I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure you're full of crap.


----------



## a small kitten (Mar 31, 2010)

I don't get that many consecutive Ua perms but I have gotten over 50 in an average of 100. COLL is tasty. But I with you...not sure I believe the 54 consecutive xD


----------



## deepSubDiver (Mar 31, 2010)

Imagine:
You insert a pair by using R'FRF' instead of URU'R' to get a better OLL. Both insertions are 3-cycles of corners. Most COLLs I use are basically 3-cycles of edges (and flipping them, of course). While pairing up the last CE-pair, I sometimes try to permute the corners and orient the edges, which get me a lot EPLL's.

So, yes, your style / method affects your LL.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 31, 2010)

deepSubDiver said:


> You insert a pair by using R'FRF' instead of URU'R' to get a better OLL. Both insertions are *3-cycles of corners*.



Look like double swaps to me.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Mar 31, 2010)

RU'R' swaps URF and DRF.
R'FRF' cycles UBL, UBR and DRF.
RUR'U'R'FRF' swaps UBR and UFL.


----------

