# Theoretical Averages



## Harris Chan (Jan 21, 2007)

To quote from Macky's site:

"Theoretical average is the sum of average of times for individual steps: cross, 4 F2L pairs, OLL, and PLL for Fridrich. You are given inspection before each of these 7 steps. Your theoretical average more or less represents your potential if you look ahead 100% and never stop. 

If your theoretical average is much lower than your actual average, you're wasting a lot of time looking for pieces during F2L."

Joseph got 8.88 seconds Theoretical avg, but avgs around 18-19 seconds. He was able to do T perm in almost sub 1. 

What are your theoretical avgs?


----------



## annon (Jan 21, 2007)

Using Petrus F2L/2-look LL, I could theoretically average about 15 seconds, but I'm still in the 30s.


----------



## pjk (Jan 21, 2007)

I haven't tried my theoretical average yet, but I will soon and update you. Harris, what is your theoretical average, and what is your normal average?


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 21, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Harris Chan_@Jan 21 2007, 03:56 AM
> *He was able to do T perm in almost sub 1. *


I can do it sub-1. 

I'll try the theoretical average later today, sub-10 should be easy.


----------



## Harris Chan (Jan 21, 2007)

Yes Johannes =)

My theoretical avg is 8.08 (avg of 10) Here's the breakdown (sorry for wasting space)

1.54
1.12
0.5
0.78
1.37
1.04
2.45

1st=8.8

1.73
.98
1.15
1.02
1.45
1.00
2.01

2nd=9.69

1.51
.79
.52
.89
.85
1.13
1.61

3rd=7.3

1.38
.91
.95
1.01
.98
1.63
1.90

4th=8.76

1.27
.82
.84
.61
1.02
1.48
2.34

5th=8.38

1.21
.97
.68
.71
.70
.59
1.32

6th=6.18

1.30
1.04
1.25
.29
.89
1.04
1.66

7th=7.47

1.68
1.06
.97
1.00
.82
1.11
1.95

8th=8.59

1.77
.9
.9
1.24
1.08
1.31
2.05

9th=9.04

1.33
.98
.82
.76
1.54
1.02
1.47

10th=7.92

1.16
.87
.91
1.09
1.04
.55
1.49

11th=7.11

1.42
.91
.22
1.06
.91
1.09
1.78

12th=7.39


----------



## pjk (Jan 21, 2007)

Can you do every OLL and PLL in under 2.5 seconds?


----------



## Harris Chan (Jan 22, 2007)

No, there are like a couple that I can't *coughcoughNpermcoughcough*, but luckily it didn't pop on those solves 

-Harris


----------



## Erik (Jan 23, 2007)

A 'theoretical average' of 12:
8.70, 7.29, 9.20, 9.34, 8.31, 8.16, 7.48, 10.96, 8.36, 6.60, 6.38, 8.03=> 

1
1.62
0.97
0.97
1.41
1.33
0.95 Anti Sune
1.45 Edge 3 cykel
----
8.70

2
0.88

1.08
0.58
1.55
0.50
1.25 Thingy
1.45 Edge 3 cykel
----
7.29

3
1.50
0.98
1.26
1.11
1.22
1.02 FRUR'U'RUR'U'F'
2.11 The 'bad' r
---
9.20

4
1.02
0.83 
1.01
1.86
1.09
1.12 rU2R'U'RU'r'
2.41 N!! <_< <_< 
----
9.34

5
0.82
1.25
1.23
1.14
0.48
1.55 
1.84 F
----
8.31

6
1.08
0.69
1.39 
0.81
1.08
1.53
1.58 Corner 3 cykel
----
8.16

7
1.36
0.64
0.67
0.94
1.02
1.24
1.61 T
----
7.48

8
1.62
0.98
1.38
1.20
1.66
1.86 
2.26 G 'wrong' G
----
10.96

9
1.45
0.48 
1.34
1.08
1.11
1.54
1.36 J (my favo)
----
8.36

10
0.66
0.48
0.77
1.03
1.06
1.34
1.26 Edge 3 cykle
----
6.6

11
1.44 
0.50
0.48
0.30
0.80
1.34
1.52 C 3 cykle
----
6.38

12
1.39
1.02
0.90
0.84
0.99
1.28
1.61 T
----
8.03


----------



## pjk (Jan 26, 2007)

I'd be curious to see 4x4 or 5x5 theoretical averages. And each center can be a section, each edge group, then the theoretical of the 3x3 solve. If you have time, please do it and post it. Just one or two solves would be fine, no need to avg. unless you want.


----------



## BashTheFash (Jan 28, 2007)

I was just curious to see what mine would be, so I just did one. 
x-
3.34
c/e:
4.94
2.58
1.81
2.14
(now my slow 2 step OLL...)
1.30
1.67
pll:
2.89

= 20.67

<_<


----------



## Gunnar (Jan 30, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Johannes91+Jan 21 2007, 11:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>*QUOTE* (Johannes91 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Harris Chan_@Jan 21 2007, 03:56 AM
> *He was able to do T perm in almost sub 1. *


I can do it sub-1. 

I'll try the theoretical average later today, sub-10 should be easy. [/b][/quote]
Hi Johannes (and everybody else)!

How do you solve the T-perm that fast? For me it's one of the worst PLL:s and I can't almost get sub-2.


----------



## Joël (Feb 10, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Gunnar_@Jan 30 2007, 11:54 AM
> * How do you solve the T-perm that fast? For me it's one of the worst PLL:s and I can't almost get sub-2. *


 Worst PLL?! Man.. The T-perm is sweet.. It's almost like a lucky case, dude.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 10, 2007)

I came across Macky's T-Perm when I was glanzing over his blindfolded page: F (R U' R' U) (R U R2) F' (R U R U' R')

I always hear from people that T-Perm can be done crazy-fast, but I can't see how you can do these 14 moves in under 1 second! (Sune (7)in 0.7 seems possible though)


----------



## KJiptner (Feb 10, 2007)

I think this one is old. Macky uses a diffrent T-Perm now... if you look at his PLL-Page

*(RUR'U'R')F(R2U'R'U')(RUR')F'*

It's acually the inverse of the alg you found.
This is the one that most of the people use nowadays, I suppose (including me ) . It can be executed very fast.


----------



## pjk (Feb 10, 2007)

Yeah, the T-Perm is definitely one the quickest ones. On average, I can do it in about 1.25 seconds, and I suck at PLL's right now. However, I can see that one being averaged under sub-1.


----------



## Gunnar (Feb 18, 2007)

> _Originally posted by KJiptner_@Feb 10 2007, 10:39 PM
> * I think this one is old. Macky uses a diffrent T-Perm now... if you look at his PLL-Page
> 
> (RUR'U'R')F(R2U'R'U')(RUR')F'
> ...


 Thanks. I'm gonna try the inverse now. I actually use the old one that is in the posted above this one. I will really work hard to get better on this one.

My favourite is J-perm. My best time is 1.33 or so. I can also do anti-sune in sub-0.6. h43r:


----------



## joey (May 5, 2007)

I know this is a bit of an old topic, but I just got a 11.43 theoretical solve!


----------



## Jason Baum (May 5, 2007)

Just tried this.

(06.71), (10.75), 09.29, 07.69, 08.23, 07.04, 08.61, 07.02, 08.21, 08.74, 07.39, 08.75 = *8.10* average

The first solve was awesome, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pairs were all either R U R or R U' R. I did ZBF2L whenever I knew it, which were solves 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12: 7.69, 8.23, 7.02, 8.21, 7.39, and 8.75. The 7.02 was a PLL skip using COLL (technically ZBLL). On the 8.75, I decided to use OLL/PLL because I had a Sune, but ended up with an N perm >_<. The rest of the ZBF2L solves I finished with COLL/PLL.

It will be interesting to try this again once I know all of ZBF2L and compare a Fridrich average and a ZBF2L + COLL/PLL average.


----------



## Inferno.Fighter.IV (May 9, 2007)

I feel kind of dumb, but I'm not sure if I get it. It sounds really cool.


----------



## doubleyou (May 10, 2007)

so how does it feel to pull that T perm in UNDER one second?? and how do you even time it? hands on table -> grap the cube -> solve the perm and smack it down again in SUB 1sec??? w00t


----------



## pjk (May 10, 2007)

Well when you time a PLL, you should be holding the cube, put your hands on, and solve as quick as possible, and place it down. If you have to pick it off the table and set it back down, that is around 1 second added onto your time compared to if you were in the solve.


----------

