# The Petrus God's Conspire Against Me Yet Again....



## JLarsen (May 12, 2009)

So some of you may have seen this before when I was going for sub 20 at first with Petrus, in a similiar whiney-ish thread that I made on that, where I got a 20.00 avg of 12....Well the petrus gods are back for revenge yet again....this time with sub 17. All the comments were things I actually typed in the comments on cct lol. 

Statistics for 05-12-2009 17:59:28

Average: 17.59
Standard Deviation: 0.00
Best Time: 14.69
Worst Time: DNF
Individual Times:
1.	(14.69)	L2 D U' F2 D2 U B2 F D' L2 F L' B2 D' U R' F L B' F D2 B' F L' R2

2.	16.40	L' B' U B' F2 U B' F U2 L' D U' B' F2 L2 R2 D L' F R' D2 U B' D L

3.	17.18	L2 B2 L' R2 F' D2 B' U' B' F L R' U' B F D U' B F U' B F' D' U2 L'

4.	17.31	L' F' D B F D2 B' F R' B2 F D' U' R2 F' R B R2 D B L2 D2 U' B U

5.	15.41	D2 L2 R2 F2 L' B2 L U L R' U L D' U F2 D' L D2 U L' D B L B' F2	-16.33 RA5

6.	16.19	U2 B F L2 F' U' B' F' D' B2 F' D2 L' F2 R2 B' L F2 D' U2 B2 L2 D U2 R'	-16.59 RA5

7.	18.46	F D' B' L U' B F L2 R2 B D2 R2 U L R F' U B U' F D L U L' R	-16.89 RA5

8.	(DNF)	R2 B F L' R B2 L' B F2 L' R B' L2 R' F2 U2 L' R' B F D2 U2 F D2 L'	-17.32 RA5

9.	19.36	B2 F L' R' U2 L2 R B F R' D' L' R' B F2 L2 R2 F2 L2 D2 B F2 D2 U B2	-18.00 RA5

10.	20.42	D R' D U F2 L2 R B F L' U B' F R F2 L D2 L2 B2 F' L2 B L' D' L2

11.	17.38	B L R F' R F2 L R D' U2 B D' U2 B2 U' B2 F L' R B F2 U B U B'	-WITH A ****ING POP

12.	17.81	R2 B2 F2 D2 U' B' L' F' D2 L' D' F2 L' R2 D2 F' D2 U2 R2 U B L2 D2 U R2	The Petrus God's hate me like they did when I tried to get sub 20.

I seem to get nervous when I have an amazing average, which you can see was as low as 16.33 at solve 5, then I just got increasingly shaky, got a pop dnf, and my average went up .8 or so. This is the 5th time or so I've had sub 17 within grasp, and then lose it too over excitement. Anyone have similar experiences?


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

dude...ever heard of the accomplishment thread?
You just absolutely wasted 30 seconds of my time.


----------



## James Kobel (May 12, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> dude...ever heard of the accomplishment thread?
> You just absolutely wasted 30 seconds of my time.



You chose to read it, thus wasting your own time.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

that's horrible logic. Seeing that there was a new thread, I instinctively clicked on it. Two seconds later, I realized the absolute needlessless of it, and felt that I had to express your opinion.
This post, however, and the time that was taken to compose it WAS my fault.


----------



## thelurch1986 (May 12, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> dude...ever heard of the accomplishment thread?
> You just absolutely wasted 30 seconds of my time.



This isn't a so called accomplishment as he did not achieve what he was going for. He was simply stating something that he noticed in his cubing (first part of an average is going well and over-excitement takes over and ruins the rest of the average) and wondered if anyone else had the same experience.

Your reply was uncalled for IMO.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

If you want to have the mindset that anyone can post a new thread at any time, about any pointless topic, then go ahead, but I'd really appreciate it if you kept the fact that many visitors of this forum site would view this as unnecesarry.

Perhaps I should have sent you to the one-question answer thread?


----------



## Kit Clement (May 12, 2009)

Honestly, I was more irritated by the apostrophe in "God's." =p


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

I was also irritated by that apostrophe, but since he was correct, spelling/grammar-wise otherwise in the post, I let it slide.


----------



## JLarsen (May 12, 2009)

Lol. It's amazing how much I perturbed you with a single post. Bet you wouldn't say anything if this was some post by nakaji saying that he's having issues at getting sub whatever. Also I admit, I am the spawn of satan for my apostrophe mistake. That being said chill the **** out my god.

Oh another thing. I've been here nearly as long as you have and I'm not bringing into question my topic appropriateness judging skills. Allow me to post the description of this sub forum. General discussion about speedsolving the Rubik's Cube and other twisty puzzles. Discuss new algorithms, methods, *share your records*, keep each other updated with the latest speedcubing news. This is not the place for beginner's questions.

You're just being an over reactive elitist prick.

Edit: Don't bother continuing this fight people just from looking at the first page. It's over, we made a truce.


----------



## Cloud_9ine (May 12, 2009)

Well back on topic, I find that when I am doing okay and then get like 3 sub 45s right after i can't even get under a minute, its depressing.


----------



## JLarsen (May 12, 2009)

Wow not even under a minute? What if we like didn't look at our times during the average. For me if I see 5 sub 17 solves I automatically know I'm in a really good average, so maybe just being ignorant is the only solution? Or perhaps tricking yourself into not caring?


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Lol. It's amazing how much I perturbed you with a single post. Bet you wouldn't say anything if this was some post by nakaji saying that he's having issues at getting sub whatever. Also I admit, I am the spawn of satan for my apostrophe mistake. That being said chill the **** out my god.



"Lol. It's amazing how much I perturbed you with a single post."
-I wasn't overly pissed off. I was purely informing you that your post was unnecessary, and there was really no reason for making it.

"Bet you wouldn't say anything if this was some post by nakaji saying that he's having issues at getting sub whatever."
-actually, I would. It's really a matter of how good of a cuber you are; it's more or less how you post, which is what I commented on. Notice, that in the first post, your actual times are never mentioned, nor is your method.

"Also I admit, I am the spawn of satan for my apostrophe mistake."
-This really didn't bug me much. Everyone has typos.

"That being said chill the **** out my god"
translates into "That being said, chill the **** out. My God!"
-I'm pretty chill, dawg-ee-fresh.



Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Oh another thing. I've been here nearly as long as you have and I'm not bringing into question my topic appropriateness judging skills. Allow me to post the description of this sub forum. General discussion about speedsolving the Rubik's Cube and other twisty puzzles. Discuss new algorithms, methods, *share your records*, keep each other updated with the latest speedcubing news. This is not the place for beginner's questions.
> 
> You're just being an over reactive elitist prick.



"I've been here nearly as long as you have and I'm not bringing into question my topic appropriateness judging skills...'*share your records' *"
-while I give you kudos for this find, I do keep strong to the fact that there are already places to show one's records in a slightly more organized fashion. Maybe I just have some sort of forumOrganizationOCD-itis, but I really don't know what to do about it if I do have it...

"You're just being an over reactive elitist prick."
-hmm...I'm not quite sure how to respond to this without sounding like an "over reactive elitist prick," but I'll do my best.
I don't hate you, the Petrus God's, or anything like that. All that I simply said in my first post was that I'd really appreciate it if you'd put this in another thread, as to help my forumOrganizationOCD-itis, but I do agree that I said it quite bluntly, and that it did come off a bit harshly.

All in all, my original post was more of a pointing out to you, saying that this thread was really unnecessarry, and that I, and I believe other members, would greatly appreciate it if you didn't create new threads whose(word choice == fail?) could easily be placed under another.

With the best of luck in all of your cubing,
Stachu Korick


anyway, I'm pretty sure that I've felt what I suppose you're feeling towards me before. Towards Stefan. Until recently, I'd seen Stefan's posts as really rude, but only recently had I started to see how his posts can help other members.
I really hope that you don't have any negative attitude towards me from now on, but I'm pretty sure that I've ruined that by now. *sighs*


----------



## Ellis (May 12, 2009)

I don't believe in the Petrus Gods. I have yet to see any proof of their existence.


----------



## JLarsen (May 12, 2009)

Dude, it's not like i made a thread like WUT TIMES U ALL GETZ?!?! I think others will agree you're just doing the typical internet rage with your little overdone dissection of everything with some retarded little comment after every section.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 12, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Dude, it's not like i made a thread like WUT TIMES U ALL GETZ?!?! I think others will agree you're just doing the typical internet rage with your little overdone *dissection of everything *with some retarded little comment after every section.



I don't see a problem with that. It's just responding to everything, and making it clear as to what your response is to a particular statement. Not that I'm taking sides on the general issue.


----------



## JLarsen (May 12, 2009)

"I'm pretty chill, dawg-ee-fresh."


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Dude, it's not like i made a thread like WUT TIMES U ALL GETZ?!?! I think others will agree you're just doing the typical internet rage with your little overdone dissection of everything with some retarded little comment after every section.



*shrugs* *sighs yet again*

I know that you previously told me to "calm the **** down," but I do believe that you should do the same. Please take note that this is NOT me trying to be a jerk, or to simply retort, but that maybe you're day's been long, as mine has, and we both need to take a chill pill.



Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> "I'm pretty chill, dawg-ee-fresh."


-This was purely my attempt at being humorous, something that I know little of, and usually fail at, both verbally and written


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 12, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> "I'm pretty chill, dawg-ee-fresh."



wtf? It's not like he made a whole post solely about that.
You both need to calm down...
It's not that big a deal. Granted, if some noob made a thread like this, there would probably be more people with a problem. But again, it's not a big deal, and I don't think it warranted the response that Stachuk had.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > "I'm pretty chill, dawg-ee-fresh."
> ...


Oh no. Please don't turn this into a post-count rave..


Lord Voldemort said:


> You both need to calm down...
> It's not that big a deal. Granted, if some noob made a thread like this, there would probably be more people with a problem. But again, it's not a big deal, and I don't think it warranted the response that Stachuk had.


As I said before, I regret stating my "initial argument(?)" so bluntly/harshly, but it still expresses many of the point that I wished to express.


----------



## JLarsen (May 12, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Lord Voldemort said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...



Nope, it's over. We're done here.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 12, 2009)

Thanks.

As far as your average goes, I'm currently in attempt to get sub-22.
I could definitely be there by now, but I keep on experimenting with other methods, which GREATLY slows me down. I just have to pick a method, and decide to stick with it forever, or at least until I can get decent averages .


----------



## Poke (May 12, 2009)

Cloud_9ine said:


> Well back on topic, I find that when I am doing okay and then get like 3 sub 45s right after i can't even get under a minute, its depressing.


 
I feel your pain. I took an average of 5, got a 52.xx, a 56.xx, a 1:08.xx, a 1:06.xx and then I got a 1:15.xx.

Made me so mad that those times had to go to waste.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 12, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Lord Voldemort said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...



No, that wasn't my point.
If you wasted space just saying that, it would indeed be laughable. But that wasn't all you said. I honestly couldn't care about post count, and I don't see why anyone should. It's not like you get 2 seconds knocked off your times for free every 500 posts or something. Sorry about interfering if you saw it that way, I just didn't want this to get out of hand. 

anyway, on topic. Sub 20.... I had a 13.34 non-lucky single yesterday, and I don't know what happened. After that, I had 2 sub-20s, and then a 21.x and a 22. My first average of 5 was like 18.10 or something. My next few solves went well, and then 3 out of my last four solves I had pops. I think this is partially because I was using a borrowed type A instead of my unpoppable type D, and also due to excitement.


----------



## JLarsen (May 13, 2009)

Yeah I could see that ruining your times. I normally average in the low 18's to high 17's right now, and if somehow it wasn't clear I use Petrus from my sig, or the title, I use Petrus. Also I've come really really close in the past to sub 17, but I always get nervous and lose it. I'll update my sig because my pb 10/12 is no longer 17.08 or whatever it says in my sig, its 17.04! lol


----------



## Cloud_9ine (May 13, 2009)

Well I got a 42 a sec ago then got a 1:02 right after


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 13, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Yeah I could see that ruining your times. I normally average in the low 18's to high 17's right now, and if somehow it wasn't clear I use Petrus from my sig, or the title, I use Petrus. Also I've come really really close in the past to sub 17, but I always get nervous and lose it. I'll update my sig because my pb 10/12 is no longer 17.08 or whatever it says in my sig, its 17.04! lol


Yeah. The hard thing is deciding on which method to use.
Out of the following info, what do you(all) think I should stick with?

Fridrich
-24s avg
-really nice cross
-I execute/recognize PLL's REALLY slowly for some reason

Petrus
-38s avg
-HORRID block-building
-WV that I learned from ZZ

ZZ
-30s avg
-I like this method, but suck at EOline
-WV again

Roux
-35s avg
-probably my favorite method, but I absolutely fail at the first/second blocks...intuition == bad


----------



## JLarsen (May 13, 2009)

Go with whatever funnest. So for you, Roux. Unless you care about how easy it is to get fast. Then of course go Fridrich.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 13, 2009)

Hmmm...Fridrich until the 30'th (my competition), then probably switch to roux/zz


----------



## JLarsen (May 13, 2009)

Average: 16.87 Individual Times: 15.22, 15.81, 17.82, (19.94), 16.43, 16.34, (14.96), 18.13, 19.89, 16.05, 17.17, 15.88

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was getting pretty nervous, but what I basically did is did the average over like a 15-20 minute time span, and talked a lot on aim with a friend to calm me down, and it worked like a dream. Try this some time people.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 13, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Average: 16.87 Individual Times: 15.22, 15.81, 17.82, (19.94), 16.43, 16.34, (14.96), 18.13, 19.89, 16.05, 17.17, 15.88
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I was getting pretty nervous, but what I basically did is did the average over like a 15-20 minute time span, and talked a lot on aim with a friend to calm me down, and it worked like a dream. Try this some time people.



I wish I could have my worst time be 19.94 
Congrats though, enjoy the sub 17 until you are warped into the goal of sub 15!


----------



## JLarsen (May 13, 2009)

Thanks but sub 16 sounds good for now. =]


----------



## Danny84 (May 13, 2009)

#1- D' R' D F2 D R' F R L' F' B' R F B U' L' B' U'


----------



## rachmaninovian (May 13, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Go with whatever funnest. So for you, Roux. Unless you care about how easy it is to get fast. Then of course go Fridrich.



just a comment...i think speedcubing is ultimately losing its purpose...people switch to fridrich just to get fast...and not have fun =P

an ex-petrus user I have to admit I failed =P i went to fridrich in an attempt to speed up my cage times...and I am stubborn NOT to switch to reduction because I don't want to miss out the fun =P

wells work hard on petrus =P the improvement might not be as rapid as fridrich...but I guess petrus has the potential of beating fridrich after a very long time..=P


----------



## soccerking813 (May 13, 2009)

Congratz on the nice time

Hopefully some day a world record will be made with a method other than fridrich.


----------



## Rubixcubematt (May 13, 2009)

why dont we just create a thread titled "Cubing failures thread"?


----------



## Cride5 (May 13, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Yeah. The hard thing is deciding on which method to use.
> Out of the following info, what do you(all) think I should stick with?
> 
> Fridrich
> ...



Interesting set of stats! How long have you been working on each method? EOLine is deffo hard to begin with. I've never done XCross, but I'd imagine its on a similar level of difficulty to master. I started with EO+Line, but after 4 months EO planning is becoming easy enough to start integrating the line during planning. I don't think I'm quite there yet, but I'm sure that once EOLine is second nature ZZ will be rapid 

PLL recognition is always a bit of a b**ch for me too, especially compared to corners only OLL. If you're going with ZZ or Petrus COLL could speed up your overall LL recognition time.

I'd recommend ZZ ... not biased in the slightest of course


----------



## Haste_cube (May 15, 2009)

Just use the method that the most compatible to you. If you think Roux, then Roux. If it's ZZ then go for it


----------

