# The idea of "lucky" and "non-lucky" is ridiculous.



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

I've been cubing for about 3 months now, and something always struck me as odd when I read someone's "non-lucky" and "lucky" best.

This concept completely limits speed cubing to the world of CFOP. It's method-ist (lol) if you see what I mean.

When one decides to learn a method, they know that there will be cases where they skip one of the steps involved. Part of the effort that went into learning the method is the notion that it will sometimes work better than other times.

In this case the solve may be lucky in the eyes of the CFOP world, but everyone else just has to deal with it. I propose that there no longer be this concept of a "lucky solve".

Even Erik got a PLL skip with his world record. How many of you say to yourself, "oh that was just luck"?


----------



## Muesli (Dec 10, 2009)

If there is a 1 in X chance of something happening, and X is a large number then it is luck. You miss a step in a solve that you normally would have performed you will have a solve that is faster than your average by chance.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 10, 2009)

A PLL skip isn't lucky. It's accidental one-look last layer.


----------



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

Innocence said:


> A PLL skip isn't lucky. It's accidental one-look last layer.



First of all, by using the word accidental you imply that a PLL skip is a bad thing. Second of all, the reason that there are the terms "two-look last layer" and "four-look last layer" etc. is because there are documented methods for achieving these scenarios as worst case. There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer", therefore your post doesn't make sense.

However, I garnered that you agree with me, which is good


----------



## Innocence (Dec 10, 2009)

> There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer", therefore your post doesn't make sense.


Makes no sense. 1 Look last layer: Doing the last layer after only looking at the cube 1 time.

Also, accidental: 'happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: ' (Dictionary.com, result 1)

Seriously, it was a spur of the moment jest.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2009)

OregonTrail said:


> This concept completely limits speed cubing to the world of CFOP. It's method-ist (lol) if you see what I mean.


Nope. A lucky solve is any solve in which a step is skipped (although if you forced the skip or the skip happens 20%+ of the time it doesn't count). This applies for whatever method you are using, i.e. if you do roux and the corners are solved after you make the second block then it is CMLL skip and thus lucky.



OregonTrail said:


> Even Erik got a PLL skip with his world record. How many of you say to yourself, "oh that was just luck"?


Lots of people do, but as Erik says "being lucky is not a crime". Do you think he can just do sub8s all the time, though? It's not so easy. He has had about 25 comps since then and the best time was 8.33 - not that that's a bad time, but it's quite far from 7.08. It's not like no skill is required to get a great time like that, but not all solves are created equal, and that's where luck comes in.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 10, 2009)

Having reviewed my comment after even I forgot it was a joke, I realize that accidental implies lucky, so nobody listen to me. Ever.


----------



## hr.mohr (Dec 10, 2009)

The idea of this thread is ridiculous.

Doing a fast non-lucky time is more impressive than a fast lucky. But a really fast time is still a really fast time regardless of luck.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 10, 2009)

hr.mohr said:


> The idea of this thread is ridiculous.
> 
> Doing a fast non-lucky time is more impressive than a fast lucky. But a really fast time is still a really fast time regardless of luck.



...right. That was pretty obvious. Anyhow, I get what you're saying, but what we're trying to get at is that non-lucky and lucky are pretty general, and maybe we should get more specific(Or just abolish the terms and stick with PB). At least I think that's what we're talking about.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 10, 2009)

If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL. 1 in 12 is a pretty good chance, and I consider it part of my strategy.

I feel the same way about square-1, where "easy" scrambles are much faster than some technically "lucky" scrambles. I usually get one or two significantly easy/lucky solves in every average of 12. I know it happens, and I just consider it part of the game.

To be honest, I've stopped caring about singles much at all. They don't really show much. Most cubers' fastest non-lucky is usually as close to lucky as possible without fulfilling the specific definition of lucky.


----------



## nathanajah (Dec 10, 2009)

"Getting lucky is not a crime"....


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 10, 2009)

OregonTrail said:


> When one decides to learn a method, they know that there will be cases where they skip one of the steps involved. Part of the effort that went into learning the method is the notion that it will sometimes work better than other times.


MGLS is all about the ELS skip. Yeah.


But really, the idea is not ridiculous. It's a very simple concept: If something happened that you didn't work for, it came to you by luck. How lucky "lucky" is is the only issue.

Anyhow, I fail to see how this is at all restricted to CFOP. You can call the term "lucky" useless and restrictive once you find a way to solve the cube without a method.


----------



## Erik (Dec 10, 2009)

Luck IS a stupid undefinable thing. For the OLL case I had on my world record for example I use 2 different algorithms depending on how the corners are permuted. Therefore I have double the chance of getting a PLL skip after it. Same with last F2L pairs and stuff. People sometimes complain about the fact that I get skips so often but hey, I just know some tricks. It's also the reason why I can find pretty easily a 2 step solution at FMC's for the last pair + LL. 
Also, for most people an F2L with only 3 move pairs don't count as lucky and a PLL skip does.. I think I'd rather have 3 move pairs all the time than a PLL skip...


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 10, 2009)

I would probably consider a F2l pair skip, OLL skip and PLL skip lucky and the very rare cross skip, but if that was the case it would probably be rescrambled.


----------



## Zubon (Dec 10, 2009)

It is true that some methods have been made in order to increase your "lucky" solves. Edge control and other tricks are great for this.

However, I can manage to get a 19.xx only once or so per cubing session. The other day I got a PLL skip and got 16.xx. I am not as happy getting fast times with lucky solves as I am with full step solves.

No matter who you are, if you use CFOP and you cube long enough, you will get a last layer skip. Cubers who get this and proudly display that time are not showing how fast they really are.

That is why I think that single times are not nearly important as averages.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 10, 2009)

blade740 said:


> If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.


Your COLL considers the edge permutation?


----------



## Muesli (Dec 10, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.
> ...


Yeah. I was wondering that...


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 10, 2009)

blade740 said:


> If I get an EPLL skip after doing COLL, I consider it non-lucky. Sure, it happens less than 20% of the time, but I "work for it" by doing COLL.



*cough* This means you use at least some ZBLL *cough*


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 10, 2009)

OregonTrail said:


> There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer",



D:


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 10, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > blade740 said:
> ...



He probably meant that he worked for the higher chance at a PLL skip by permuting the corners as well.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 10, 2009)

amostay2004 said:


> He probably meant that he worked for the *higher chance at a PLL skip* by permuting the corners as well.


If his method doesn't involve PLL, he can't skip it. And if he uses COLL+EPLL in addition to OLL+PLL, he might be working for getting EPLL instead of PLL, but that's not working for an EPLL skip. It's working for getting EPLL instead of PLL. Unless he's doing more than just regular COLL, his PLL skip probability after COLL doesn't exist and his EPLL skip probability is 1/12 which he ought to consider lucky, by the long-standing 20% rule.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Dec 10, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> OregonTrail said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as having a "one-look last layer",
> ...



I might be mistaken... but isn't ZBLL a one look LL? I'm still new to this so correct me if I'm wrong


----------



## blade740 (Dec 10, 2009)

I meant that part of the reason I do COLL is for the 1/12 chance of EPLL skip. It's not the classical definition of "working for it", but 1/12 is a good enough chance that I expect to get at least one any time I do a decent number of solves.


----------



## LewisJ (Dec 10, 2009)

qqwref said:


> (although if you forced the skip or the skip happens 20%+ of the time it doesn't count).



Since when is 20% the border? Why not 50? Why not some other seemingly arbitrary number?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2009)

Since, like, 2004? It's not like I just made it up, that's been the arbitrary number for unofficially counting something lucky for a LONG time. Setting it much higher than 20% would be pretty dumb.


----------



## BigGreen (Dec 10, 2009)

can i bring some roux to this thread?

ok, so after i make my 2 blocks and all of my edges are oriented. Then i do my coll/cll/cmll (i use a big mix of them all) would my solve be consider lucky because i "accidentally" skipped a step? i myself would not consider this solve lucky
on the other hand if i do my cmll, then i orient edges and i end up with a solved cube. i do consider that lucky.


----------



## LewisJ (Dec 10, 2009)

Of course it would be dumb if it were much higher than 20% and I agree with that, but I am just interested in the origin of the 20% figure - how was it decided upon and why? If you go by the simple definition of "lucky" - occuring by chance - then anything that happens less than 1/2 the time would have to be considered "lucky" and nonlucky solves would be incredibly rare.

And of course in the cubing sense there's also the problem of evaluating what a lucky F2L is...


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 10, 2009)

dunpeal2064 said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > OregonTrail said:
> ...



Yeppers, I discern the case, then I do an alg, and it's solved.


----------



## Lux Aeterna (Dec 10, 2009)

I've always been under the impression that a lucky solve wasn't one with a step skipped, it was just one that's not at all representative of your average solve length. If I look at my CCT log, almost all my recent times are between 34 and 50 seconds, with one 28 second solve. I remember that, and it wasn't a PLL skip or anything, it was just a normal solve that I did an unusually good job with F2L lookahead on... 

Lucky solves are just statistical outliers, that's all. It doesn't matter WHY the solve was the time it was.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Dec 10, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> dunpeal2064 said:
> 
> 
> > Cubes=Life said:
> ...



This meathod looks so interesting... how much CFOP did you know before you went over to ZB?


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 10, 2009)

I knew OLL and PLL, then I learned COLL, and from there, I kept going.
I only know enough ZBF2L to have a certain degree of fluidity, but I don't yet know all of it yet.

This thread isnt about ZB though, I don't want to thread hijack.


----------



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

The reason I said that is that ZBLL requires ZBF2L, which I was considering in my mind an extra last layer step. But yeah I guess it is a 1LLL.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Dec 10, 2009)

haha good point. interesting to know though.

back on topic: would it be lucky to be pairing up an f2l peice and as I'm finishing it another one matches up? I mean... I suppose it wasn't on purpose, but I'm not working for the f2l peices to be in any specific place, I just solve them from where they are.

... I hope this makes sense. Like for instance, I prefere same-color-on-top for pairing f2l... but it isn't lucky if I get that... so where is the line drawn?


----------



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

Exactly, with each step the are lucky and non lucky cases.

3 move cross.
Pre-paired edges.
OLL skip.
Easy perm.

The idea of a lucky solve is too nebulous for it to have real significance.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 10, 2009)

LewisJ said:


> I am just interested in the origin of the 20% figure


http://www.speedcubing.com/records/records-rules.html
That's as far back as I know.

Edit: And it's been there since at least 2003:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030727111958/http://www.speedcubing.com/records/records-rules.html


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Dec 10, 2009)

With my averages.... I know I'd feel really bad if i beat someone purely due to a skip. like... I suck at 2x2, my non-lucky pb is 9.87... but my lucky pb is 4.56 that seems like a big gap to me


----------



## blade740 (Dec 10, 2009)

I've done a bit of math (which I'm bad at, so please, let me know if I'm wrong).

After COLL, the odds of getting an EPLL skip are 1/12. This means the chance of getting at least one EPLL skip in an average of 12 is 1-((11/12)^12), or roughly 65% (or 35% in an average of 5). The probability of getting EXACTLY one skip is ((1/12)*(11/12)^11)*12, or 38% (13% in an average of 5). 

If I am correct, the probability of getting a skip that affects my average (2 or more skips in an average) is over 26% for an average of 12 or 22% in an average of 5.


----------



## joey (Dec 10, 2009)

Lux Aeterna said:


> Lucky solves are just statistical outliers, that's all. It doesn't matter WHY the solve was the time it was.


No... those are personal bests.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Dec 10, 2009)

joey said:


> Lux Aeterna said:
> 
> 
> > Lucky solves are just statistical outliers, that's all. It doesn't matter WHY the solve was the time it was.
> ...



I agree. I get outliers because I don't know G-perms but I know the rest of PLL.. that has nothing to do with luck xD


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 10, 2009)

OregonTrail said:


> The reason I said that is that ZBLL requires ZBF2L



It doesn't though...


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2009)

blade740 said:


> I've done a bit of math (which I'm bad at, so please, let me know if I'm wrong).
> 
> After COLL, the odds of getting an EPLL skip are 1/12. This means the chance of getting at least one EPLL skip in an average of 12 is 1-((11/12)^12), or roughly 65% (or 35% in an average of 5). The probability of getting EXACTLY one skip is ((1/12)*(9/12)^11)*12, or 4.2% (13% in an average of 5).
> 
> If I am correct, the probability of getting a skip that affects my average (2 or more skips in an average) is over 60% for an average of 12 or 22% in an average of 5.



The probability of exactly one skip should be ((1/12)*(11/12)^11)*12 = 38.4%, so the probability of a counting skip (assuming a solve with a skip is always faster than a solve without) is 26.4% for an avg12.


----------



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> OregonTrail said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I said that is that ZBLL requires ZBF2L
> ...



Is ZBF2L the same thing as "edge control"?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Dec 10, 2009)

Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 10, 2009)

qqwref said:


> The probability of exactly one skip should be ((1/12)*(11/12)^11)*12 = 38.4%, so the probability of a counting skip (assuming a solve with a skip is always faster than a solve without) is 26.4% for an avg12.



Oh, thanks, I have no idea where I got 9/12.


----------



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

hawkmp4 said:


> Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.



Exactly, so if you didn't know ZBF2L, then you would still have at worst a 2LLL for EO.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 10, 2009)

First, can you intuitively understand the idea of "luck"?
If so, you should be able to tell something is lucky without a proper definition.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 10, 2009)

I see your point that "lucky scramble" is not universal for all solvers, but its not only restricting the whole term lucky to just CFOP because of it. Coincidence with such insane claims greeted by mass criticism; you have little experience. Fancy that? Boggles my mind. What exactly makes you think you have any merit? At all? I don't get it.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 10, 2009)

OregonTrail said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Complete edge control, yes. You can use ZBLL any time you get to LL and have EO completely done. That can be forced, partially forced, or lucky.
> ...



Or you could just use Petrus. (or ZZ)


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 10, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> OregonTrail said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



Mhm, ZB/ZZLL would fit perfectly with Petrus or ZZ once one knows the algorithms and recognition.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 10, 2009)

I am sub 30 with ZZ. 

I can support that statement.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 10, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> I am sub 30 with ZZ.
> 
> I can support that statement.



Haha, I'm sub-30 with 3LLL and sometimes 4LLL.  I have to learn some PLL's.


----------



## OregonTrail (Dec 10, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I see your point that "lucky scramble" is not universal for all solvers, but its not only restricting the whole term lucky to just CFOP because of it. Coincidence with such insane claims greeted by mass criticism; you have little experience. Fancy that? Boggles my mind. What exactly makes you think you have any merit? At all? I don't get it.



Very poetic.

I realized even when I was writing the first post that "lucky" is not limited to a certain method, but I didn't feel like editing it into general terms.

I'll still stand by the fact that "lucky" solves are part of the advantage of dedicating time to learn a method, and that "lucky" can never be clearly defined. Therefore the concept of reporting a "lucky" solve is flawed.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 11, 2009)

OregonTrail said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > I see your point that "lucky scramble" is not universal for all solvers, but its not only restricting the whole term lucky to just CFOP because of it. Coincidence with such insane claims greeted by mass criticism; you have little experience. Fancy that? Boggles my mind. What exactly makes you think you have any merit? At all? I don't get it.
> ...



Why define it? You should be able to few if a solve is lucky without a precise definition. 
Luck is when something unexpected and good happens. 
"Skipping a step" is not lucky if you saw it coming. Such a solve should be called "easy" because things were flowing well.


----------

