# The road to sub 20, or 20.00 if god hates you....



## JLarsen (Dec 19, 2008)

Statistics for 12-18-2008 21:18:07

Average: 20.00
Standard Deviation: 1.32
Best Time: 15.93
Worst Time: 22.87
Individual Times:
1.	20.42	R2 U L' U' L2 R' B' F' L R B2 D' B2 F' D2 B' F2 U B F' L2 U2 B2 F' D2
2.	21.37	L2 U R2 U R2 B' D U' L2 D' B' F2 D' F D' B D' F D' U2 L' R' B2 F D'
3.	20.66	F2 R2 U L R' B2 R2 U' B R2 D2 U' L2 D B' R U2 B L' R F2 D B R' U
4.	20.73	R' B U2 F' D' B2 F' D' L' B2 L R' F' R B' L D R2 F' D2 B D' U2 F' L
5.	18.64	D U' B2 F' D2 U' L' B L' U2 F' D2 U2 B L' B F' L' D U L' R2 U2 B2 F
6.	19.00	F' R2 D' U B' F' L' D' U2 F2 L B' F' D' U' L B2 F2 L2 R U2 B2 R2 B' F2
7.	(22.87)	U2 L2 R' D' F' R D2 U2 R' U2 B U B' L R' F2 U2 L' D L2 B' F' L' R' U2
8.	16.93	R' F2 L' R D2 F U R D U B2 F D2 B' F2 D U L2 R' D2 U' L F L' R'
9.	20.99	B' F' U2 R2 U B' U2 B' F2 L2 R' B' L' D B' F D L' R' B' F D' U2 L R
10.	(15.93)	B R2 U B F' D U' F L2 U' R2 D' U' L' R' D2 U L R' F U2 B F2 D' U
11.	21.06	D2 L2 D U L2 R B R B F2 R D' B2 F D U2 B R U' L' R' B2 D2 R U
12.	20.18	D2 F2 L' B' L' R D U' L' D2 U2 R D2 B R B F2 L2 R F' L' D F' D' R2


Yeah.......01 left.....mind you this is down from a pb a month ago, of 20.27......you could say Petrus currently hates me? (damn you Erik) Or maybe I could be like wow, I've improved, which I really really have recently, but for right now, I just have to say this.......wow.


----------



## mrbiggs (Dec 19, 2008)

Out of my first five solves that were less than or equal to 20.00, two of them were 20.00. 

So I know how you feel to an extent.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Dec 19, 2008)

lol, my first sub 20 average was 19.98


----------



## xSwiftxClawx (Dec 19, 2008)

Duuuude, that's cruel =\

Maybe tomorrow.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 19, 2008)

It's technically sub-20, you averaged 19.998 seconds to be exact.


----------



## niKo (Dec 19, 2008)

^ wow nice. You should change your signature to that, PandaMan. My first sub-20 average was either 19.97 or 19.99.

- Niko


----------



## blade740 (Dec 19, 2008)

Dan Knights knows how you feel.


----------



## shelley (Dec 19, 2008)

kippy33 said:


> It's technically sub-20, you averaged 19.998 seconds to be exact.



No. If your timer only measures precision to hundredths of a second, your average can't have more significant figures than that.


----------



## Bob (Dec 19, 2008)

shelley said:


> kippy33 said:
> 
> 
> > It's technically sub-20, you averaged 19.998 seconds to be exact.
> ...



I like that. ...leave it to caltech to use sig figs. At Rutgers, we were told we could ignore significant digits.


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 19, 2008)

Bob said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > kippy33 said:
> ...



1/4 = .25 not .3

I hated sig figs in chem last year.

but yeah I agree with kippy33. 19.998 is sub 20. GOOD JOB!!!!


----------



## Ellis (Dec 19, 2008)

I remember having a pb of avg of 20.00 for a while. I went back to see what it really was after reading this and it was 20.001, haha


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 19, 2008)

Do you people know math?

If you're going to go compute the average as 19.998, you have to add 0.005, which makes 20.003.
See the speedcubing.com rules, and use either your brain or Google to figure out why (since Dan's page appears to be missing).

Anyhow, I've had lots of round solves. My PB was 10.00 for long while. People kept asking why I wasn't annoyed.
What's wrong with "WOOHOO! FINALLY TEN SECONDS"?
Besides, if people ask you for your time, you can say "twenty" and be pretty right.


----------



## FU (Dec 19, 2008)

ErikJ said:


> 1/4 = .25 not .3
> 
> I hated sig figs in chem last year.
> 
> but yeah I agree with kippy33. 19.998 is sub 20. GOOD JOB!!!!



the 1 and 4 in 1/4 aren't measurements.. they are exact values. 1.0000/4.0000 = 0.25 of course

i rmb i had my PB ave at 20.00 for like a week or so.. if not i would be like another place up on the UWR list


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 19, 2008)

Well I like to think of it as a very good sign, because one sub 20 average will keep me happy for a while, but it's only a matter of time before I'll want to consistently get solid sub 20's. It's only a matter of time. =]. I've got like 5 sub 21 averages just in the past 2 days now with times like 20.36 and 20.64, and I know the fairly soon, sub 20 averages....(real ones not these 19.998 lmao. )will come as easy. Thanks for your support.


----------



## Worms (Dec 19, 2008)

I had the same problem

----- JNetCube Best Average for Fri Jan 25 23:52:50 CET 2008 -----

Average: 20.00

Fastest Time: 16.61
Slowest Time: 22.06
Standard Deviation: 01.55

Individual Times:
1) 19.84 B L' U' L R2 F D' B2 D2 F2 U F2 D2 U' L U R B R2 U' D' F D' F B2
2) (16.61) L U2 R U B D' L' R' F2 D L B2 R' B' U R2 D' L2 D R2 D' U L' R U
3) 20.34 B D' B' L R2 F' L' D2 F2 L2 F' L2 U R2 U2 B' R' U L2 D B2 L U B F
4) 21.24 U2 R2 U2 L U L' F' L D2 R' L' F2 D U2 L D2 R B R L' B' F' L' R2 D
5) 16.77 U D' L F D' B' F' L2 F' U2 R L' D2 B R' L2 F2 R U2 B' U' D B' D R
6) 20.27 R2 B2 L2 D2 U' B' U' R U D2 R F B2 U B U L2 B' U R2 B2 R2 L2 D2 L2
7) 21.89 L R2 F2 D' F2 D2 R2 B U R' F R D2 L' F B L' B2 F2 D2 L' R' F' R U2
8) 19.12 R' D L' R D R U R' B F2 L' U' R D' L2 B' R F2 D2 B2 F' U' L B2 D'
9) 21.88 D2 B D' F2 B2 R' D' F' D' B2 D' L2 F2 L' B' D L' F2 U2 F' U2 R2 D F2 U2
10) (22.06) F U F U2 L F L U F2 L F2 U R U D' B2 D B' U F D' U L D' R'
11) 18.76 L2 B R2 F2 R' B' F2 L F R2 U2 B D' U' B2 D2 U2 F' R D2 U2 R' L F L
12) 19.89 L D2 B2 D U L2 R' D R L B' F2 L' U' B2 R' D2 L2 D' U L2 B U' R U'

Average: exactly 20 sec (20.00000...)

It was terrible


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 19, 2008)

Worms said:


> I had the same problem
> 
> ----- JNetCube Best Average for Fri Jan 25 23:52:50 CET 2008 -----
> 
> ...


Wow, at least mine wasn't exact to every manner of the term....really though? 20.000000000000??? I think I'm changing my sig to 19.998, aha, that is really cool, and screw chem btw....


----------



## shelley (Dec 19, 2008)

ErikJ said:


> Bob said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



19.998 is sub-20, but you don't know for sure he got 19.998. Maybe the time on his first solve was 20.424, but the timer rounds it to 20.42. If all his times ended in 0.004 (worst case scenario), his average would be 20.002, which is not sub-20. We don't know, because the timer doesn't measure up to three decimal places. And that is why we use sig figs.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 19, 2008)

shelley said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > Bob said:
> ...


And that's only rounding. Most timers probably run on truncation.


----------



## Jgig1991 (Dec 20, 2008)

nice job with your sub 20, i am still working on getting sub 30, so close


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 20, 2008)

Jgig1991 said:


> nice job with your sub 20, i am still working on getting sub 30, so close



Ha, wait till the 20's, then it's like a second or two a month. Then if you get to 14 and crap, its like 4/5 months a second, or more.


----------



## Bob (Dec 20, 2008)

shelley said:


> 19.998 is sub-20, but you don't know for sure he got 19.998. Maybe the time on his first solve was 20.424, but the timer rounds it to 20.42. If all his times ended in 0.004 (worst case scenario), his average would be 20.002, which is not sub-20. We don't know, because the timer doesn't measure up to three decimal places. And that is why we use sig figs.



Actually, the worst-case scenerio might be even worse. From what I understand, the newest stackmats are incapable of producing a time ending in .01 or .99, along with some others. Someone correct me or clarify if I'm wrong.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 20, 2008)

Bob said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > 19.998 is sub-20, but you don't know for sure he got 19.998. Maybe the time on his first solve was 20.424, but the timer rounds it to 20.42. If all his times ended in 0.004 (worst case scenario), his average would be 20.002, which is not sub-20. We don't know, because the timer doesn't measure up to three decimal places. And that is why we use sig figs.
> ...



On my timer you cant get; 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.82 0.79 0.74 0.73

That's all I know of. I'm sure there's more.


----------



## Tomarse (Dec 20, 2008)

Aww so close! =[


----------



## JohnnyA (Dec 21, 2008)

I'm happy I didn't get an average of 20.00 ... just today I clicked with lookahead and managed to push from 20.23 to 19.63


----------



## Fobo911 (Dec 21, 2008)

Aww, too bad for the 20.00 rolling average. But hey, you matched the average of the winner at the 2003 World Championships.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 21, 2008)

Fobo911 said:


> Aww, too bad for the 20.00 rolling average. But hey, you matched the average of the winner at the 2003 World Championships.



Mehbeh, but that's just an average of 5, I've got around like 17 second averages of 5. Even 15 or 16 if its trimmed!


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 22, 2008)

PatrickJameson said:


> Bob said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



You can't get 0.99, 0.98, 13.37, 1.37, 1.01 on mine


----------



## ImNOTnoob (Dec 22, 2008)

Lol. At least computer timers are much more accurate, yet, there is still very little inaccuracies.

I cant get my average below 21! Wah!


----------

