# When and how to move from 2-look to 1-look OLL



## mark49152 (Apr 1, 2013)

EDIT: Having come back and looked at this three years later, it is clearly over-complicated, probably because I spent so long immersed in the details when I originally wrote it! 

*So, TL;DR version:* Here is a list of all the OLL shapes, ordered by the average number of moves they save compared to solving the same cases with 2-look OLL. Learning full OLL in this order is a good idea because the ones nearer the top will cut more time off your solves, on average.


```
10.00    Stealth
8.50    Squares
8.13    Dots (1/54)
7.50    T shapes
7.31    Small lightning bolts
6.67    P shapes
6.00    Kites
5.88    C shapes
5.58    L shapes
5.56    Knight moves
5.38    Fishes (excluding kites)
5.25    Big lightning bolts
4.25    H
4.13    I shapes
3.81    Dots (rare)
3.44    Awkward
2.63    W shapes
```

In fact, learning just the top 15 OLL algs delivers 42% of the total move savings of learning full OLL, so if you only want to learn some of it, those are the ones to go for. Here's a condensed guide: View attachment ollTopThird.pdf

*------ Original Post ------*

Two of the questions that come up regularly on the forums are "when should I learn full OLL?" and "what order should I learn the OLLs in?".

Well, obviously you should learn them when you think they will benefit your solving more than anything else you could spend your practice time on. Then learn them in an order that starts with those that will benefit your solving most. The question of course is when and by how much they will benefit you.

The attached guide should help you decide this for yourself. It lists all 49 OLL cases that could be learned on top of EOLL & OCLL, ranked in order of move savings. That means it compares the number of moves taken to solve each case using 2-look OLL with the number of moves taken to solve the same case with 1-look OLL, and ranks the OLLs according to how much shorter the 1-look algorithm is. The logic is that you should learn the OLLs in order of potential move savings.

Here it is: View attachment oll1look.pdf

This guide assumes that you know 2-look OLL already, meaning the usual EO/OCLL approach (there are other ways of doing 2-look but we'll ignore that). If you don't know 2-look OLL, meaning all 3 EOLL algs and all 7 OCLL algs, learn that first. Also, full PLL is more beneficial than full OLL, so if you don't know full PLL, learn that first.

*Guide to the table
*
The table is split vertically into three sections.

The blue section shows the OLL cases. Wiki# is the reference number of the case on the Speedsolving Wiki. EO and U patt give the edge pattern and the OLL U-face pattern, and the fourth column shows the probability of the case occurring. This is important, because clearly it's less useful to learn a case with probability 1/216 than one with probability 1/54.

The orange section shows the OCLL cases that occur when using 2-look OLL on each case. There are four positions relative to the picture shown in the wiki - unrotated, U, U2 and U'. The four columns show which OCLL you will get depending on which position you are in when you start EOLL, and also which AUF move is required between EOLL and OCLL. Note that for OLLs with "L" shape edges, the starting positions are relative to the position with the L at back left, rather than the wiki picture, to save having to look those cases up, and different algs (see OLL-44) are used for each L position.

The last two columns in the orange section show the worst-case and average move count for EOLL/AUF/OCLL. Worst case means the longest sequence from all possible starting positions, per case. Move counts are in QTM but with double moves (R2, U2 etc.) counted as 1.5 and cube rotations counted as 2 moves. This gives better proportionality between move count and execution time (at least for me! ) although it is still only an approximation and actual execution time obviously depends also on how easy or awkward the flow of the alg is.

The green section shows the full OLL algs and their move counts, in the same metric. The final column shows the number of moves saved, relative to the average 2-look move count. The table is ranked by order of move savings; OLLs with the same move saving are ranked by length of alg on the basis that longer solutions are more in need of shortening. OLLs that have a probability less than 1/54 are weighted accordingly, i.e. a case with probability 1/108 has its score halved before ranking.

Underneath is a second table that shows scores for OLL groups. These are groups of cases with the same U-face pattern, as listed on the SS wiki, and the score given is the average of all cases in that group. Some of the groups have been modified slightly.

*Recommendations
*
Based on this analysis, some OLLs have the potential to save as many as 8-10 moves and are certainly worth learning earlier in your progression. That many moves will make a difference well before you get sub-20. On the other hand, some OLLs save so few moves that they would offer only minimal benefit compared to fast and well-practiced 2-look algs, even if you are sub-20.

My plan is as follows. Obviously you can make your own mind up what will work for you.

First, I will learn a selection of OLLs that save 6+ moves, by selecting U-pattern groups. Learning in groups reduces recognition time because you can make a fast decision based on U face only as to whether you will do 1-look or 2-look. Learning only part of a group slows down the 2-look cases because you pause to eliminate the 1-look possibilities.

I selected 15 cases in 5 groups and I call these the "top third" OLLs. These account for 42% of the total moves saved by learning full OLL, with an average score of 8 moves per case, compared to only 3 moves per case for the worst 15 OLLs. Some of them are really easy, like learning which cases are solved directly by the EOLL algs OLL-2 and OLL-45 and making sure to execute them from the right starting position. Most of the dot OLLs are included, which makes sense as EOLL and the 2-look solution is longer.

Here is a cheat-sheet for these 15 cases/algs: View attachment ollTopThird.pdf

Next, mid-table OLLs. In general, I would not bother to learn these except for algs that are really easy and fast, or where I don’t like the OCLL case. A good example is OLL-54, which is an easy double wide Sune, and where 2-look always results in a Pi OCLL which I’m not keen on. I won't learn any case unless I believe I can recognise it fast enough not to slow down 2-look for other cases in the same group.

Bottom of the league OLLs that only save 1-2 moves I probably wouldn’t even consider provided that I know what OCLL is coming and can do the 2-look without pause. The prize for the most useless OLL goes to OLL-41, for which the "optimum" 1-look alg scores worse than 2-look (due to the rotations).

Finally, there’s another option for OLLs that have a relatively small move saving, say <6. That is to force a preferred OCLL case by choosing the right starting position. For example, OLL-14. The 1-look OLL alg has a rotation, and I don’t like Pi OCLL either, but I know that if I start 2-look with the L at back left then I will get a Bowtie with no AUF. What’s even better is that I can run the F' at the end of the EOLL immediately into the F' at the start of the Bowtie.

*Caveats and disclaimers
*
Move count is a useful metric for estimating alg execution time, but it's nowhere near 100% reliable. It's just an approximation. A 12-move alg that flows well can be faster than a 9-move alg that doesn't, so it's quite possible that an OLL that the table says will save you 10 moves will make less of a difference to your times than another alg that only saves you 7 moves. This table is intended as just a helpful resource, not a definitive account of the relative speed of OLLs.

Also there is more than one possible alg that can solve each OLL. The rankings in the table are based on the algs shown, but there might be other algs out there that are shorter or that are longer but faster. It's up to you to find those. If this guide says learning a case has little benefit, that doesn't mean there isn't some other, better alg out there that makes learning it worthwhile. The algs here are mostly from Badmephisto, with some from the Speedsolving wiki, and are the ones that work best for me personally.

If you read this far, I hope it helped! Happy OLLing!


----------



## kunparekh18 (Apr 1, 2013)

This is an amazing guide to those who want to transition from 1LOLL to 2LOLL. Amazing :tu I will make sure to refer to this when I plan on learning 1LOLL.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Apr 1, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> This is an amazing guide to those who want to transition from 1LOLL to 2LOLL. Amazing :tu I will make sure to refer to this when I plan on learning 1LOLL.



That is what I was going to say. Nice job!


----------



## JF1zl3 (Apr 1, 2013)

This is just what I need!!! Thank you!


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Apr 1, 2013)

This is awesome, thanks.


----------



## jayefbe (Apr 1, 2013)

Awesome. I was planning on learning some OLL algs, especially the dot OLLs, and this reference will be incredibly helpful. Learning them in a systematic approach like this pares down OLL algorithms from a somewhat daunting number to multiple groups of much more manageable numbers, and also maximizing the results from your practice time. Just be forewarned, if I don't immediately drop 5 seconds from my average I'm going to be very angry and hold you responsible


----------



## qqwref (Apr 1, 2013)

I really like the idea of ranking the OLLs by how many moves are saved. Of course, it DOES depend on what algs you use, but the idea is very solid.

PS: Some of your algs can be improved, e.g. R U' R' U2 R U y R U' R' y' U' R' for OLL 41, r' R2 y R U R' U' y' R' U M' for OLL r2. Also, I'd put OLL 45 and 2 in the bottom area, since they can and should be done with the 1-look EOLL alg. If you already know the alg you only have to learn the recognition, which isn't too bad


----------



## MarcelP (Apr 1, 2013)

Good stuff mark! The next few weeks/months I am going to concentrate on nothing but OLL and cross.  Handy table.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanks everyone for the positive feedback!

To those who have been putting off learning OLL: People often seem to talk about "learning full OLL" as if it's a daunting, all-or-nothing project best deferred until sub-20. The one thing I have learned from this is that it's not all-or-nothing. It can be beneficial to learn a few of the most worthwhile algs way before reaching sub-20. You don't have to learn all 57, and never really need to, as some of them are of minimal benefit.

As an extra, I created a "cheat sheet" with my selection of the 18 most worthwhile OLLs (including ones where you already know the alg from 2-look, but should learn case recognition for 1-look). Taking account of probabilities, these 18 will come up one-third of the time, but they account for 53% of the total moves saved by learning full OLL. Average saving over 2-look for these 18 cases is 8.4 moves per case, compared to 4.3 for the other 31 cases.

My own plan is to learn these 18 and mostly forget the rest.

I've added the cheat sheet to the original post.


----------



## uniacto (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanks for the list! I'm too lazy to learn algs, but when I get a sudden (infrequent) burst of motivation, I'll look at this (and the rest of the PLLs I haven't learned yet...).


----------



## Smiles (Apr 2, 2013)

it's all up to preference what order to learn them, most sites have them listed in some kind of order, either in groups based on recognition or based on execution (similar algs together).
and as for when to learn it, whenever you want lol. i normally tell people to do it asap unless they're working on something else like PLL or F2L. 

but i think this thread will reduce the huge number of threads asking when to move on to 1 look. thanks!


----------



## JF1zl3 (Apr 2, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Thanks everyone for the positive feedback!
> 
> To those who have been putting off learning OLL: People often seem to talk about "learning full OLL" as if it's a daunting, all-or-nothing project best deferred until sub-20. The one thing I have learned from this is that it's not all-or-nothing. It can be beneficial to learn a few of the most worthwhile algs way before reaching sub-20. You don't have to learn all 57, and never really need to, as some of them are of minimal benefit.
> 
> ...



I think I have a better alg for one of the cases.

This case:







I have this alg:






The alg is super finger trickable and I can do it super fast.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 3, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> I think I have a better alg for OLL-28.


Thanks, that is a much better alg! I will update the Top Third sheet when I get some time, and also reorganise those 18 cases by patterns. There are some interesting patterns I hadn't noticed, like OLL-37 being inverse of OLL-33.



qqwref said:


> Some of your algs can be improved, e.g. R U' R' U2 R U y R U' R' y' U' R' for OLL 41, r' R2 y R U R' U' y' R' U M' for OLL 42.


Thanks! They are better too. Even though that OLL-42 would save 7 moves, I'd still put it outside the Top Third because of the rotations.

I should reiterate that I'm not recommending any particular algs, and am not qualified to do that anyway since I'm only just learning these myself. The intent of this analysis was to compare cases based on representative algs. Therefore I tried to avoid algs with rotations or in <MU> just to keep some consistency for fair comparison. Using HTM the <MU> OLL-28 would lose on score even though it's faster (but since then I've realised that I failed to count the M's in several other algs as two moves anyway). I'm not convinced that HTM is the best choice of turn metric for this comparison, and how should rotations be counted, since they take time? But it's all approximation, so hey.


----------



## Methuselah96 (Apr 3, 2013)

I think a better way to take the probability into account is to divide the moves saved by using one-look and multiplying by the probability. This would give the practical of how many moves per solve each case would save. For example, the first one OLL-18 would save 12(moves saved)*(1/54)(probability) = 0.22(moves saved every solve) moves every solve, in comparison to OLL-01 that only saves 10/108 = 0.09 moves per solve. In that way OLL-01 would be ranked lower. Using this method you could advertise that your top 18 OLLs would save 151/54 or 2.80 moves every solve. This would then put the OLLs in a better ranking as follows (and proves your top 18 to be the most helpful):
(Name of OLL:Turns saved per solve)
OLL-18:0.22
OLL-19:0.20
OLL-45:0.19
OLL-02:1.67
OLL-33:1.67
OLL-05:1.67
OLL-03:1.48
OLL-17:1.48
OLL-48:1.48
OLL-51:1.48
OLL-06:1.48
OLL-07:1.48
OLL-43:1.48
OLL-04:1.30
OLL-28:1.30
OLL-50:1.30
OLL-37:1.30
OLL-08:1.30
OLL-29:0.11
OLL-13:0.11
OLL-14:0.11
OLL-15:0.11
OLL-31:0.11
OLL-32:0.11
OLL-39:0.11
OLL-40:0.11
OLL-46:0.11
OLL-01:0.09
OLL-09:0.09
OLL-11:0.09
OLL-54:0.09
OLL-16:0.09
OLL-34:0.09
OLL-35:0.09
OLL-49:0.09
OLL-30:0.07
OLL-53:0.07
OLL-47:0.07
OLL-52:0.07
OLL-57:0.06
OLL-12:0.06
OLL-38:0.06
OLL-10:0.06
OLL-20:0.05
OLL-55:0.04
OLL-36:0.04
OLL-56:0.02
OLL-42:0.02
OLL-41:0.02


----------



## Veerexx (Apr 4, 2013)

Thank you for this 
I have been wanting to start the transition for a while now and have been stuck on where exactly to start  THANKS A BUNCH


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 16, 2013)

After some time playing around with this analysis and practising some algs, I’ve made some changes and have what I think is a much better system. Here are my observations.

First, my 2-look recognition is pretty good. EO is so easy to recognize and see coming that usually it flows on smoothly from the end of F2L with no pause at all. Then maybe a slight pause to recognize the OCLL case - but only slight.

On the other hand, my 1-look recognition is much slower. Sure it will improve, I hope, but probably it will be a long time (for me) before it flows as seamlessly from F2L as EO does, if ever. Longer recognition is an acceptable price to pay on those occasions when I actually end up executing a single OLL alg, but if learning only some of the cases, 1-look recognition slows down the 2-look cases as well. 

For example, my original top 18 included a single one of the six L cases. So after F2L if I saw an L pattern on the U face I would pause briefly to try to recognize that case, and when I didn't recognize it (5 times out of 6) I would do 2-look. But without the smooth transition from F2L, my 2-look is delayed, so I'd got faster on one case but slower on 5 others.

Therefore I decided to adapt the analysis to put groups of similar cases into order, rather than individual cases. I used the standard “shape” groups, as found on the wiki. Now after F2L I can very quickly see what shape I have from the U face alone, and based on that either flow smoothly into EO ignoring the side stickers, or pause to recognize the full OLL case. It’s early days but this seems to work much better for me.

I’ve updated the ranking table and cheat sheet and attached them in the first post, as well as updating the description.

Here are the average move savings per case, by group, from the document:-


```
10.00	Stealth
8.50	Squares
8.13	Dots (1/54)
7.50	T shapes
7.31	Small lightning bolts
6.67	P shapes
6.00	Kites
5.88	C shapes
5.58	L shapes
5.56	Knight moves
5.38	Fishes (excluding kites)
5.25	Big lightning bolts
4.25	H
4.13	I shapes
3.81	Dots (rare)
3.44	Awkward
2.63	W shapes
```

Based on this, the top 5 groups clearly offer bigger wins than the rest. These include 15 algs and so these are my new “top third” OLLs. Together they account for 42% of the potential total savings of 1-look over 2-look OLL, with an average saving of 8 moves. They also happen to be really easy to learn and recognize. The worst 15 OLLs on the other hand only save an average of 2.8 moves each, which really shows why it's worth being selective about which OLLs to learn, or learn first.

Regarding the metric: HTM is indeed not a good metric for estimating execution time. After timing a few algs, I switched to using QTM but with double moves (R2, U2 etc.) counted as 1.5 and cube rotations counted as 2 moves. This resulted in better proportionality between move count and execution time, although this is still skewed depending on how easy or awkward the flow of the alg is. There’s no perfect metric but at least it’s better than HTM. (Thanks to Brest for suggestions on metrics.)

I also switched from using the worst-case 2-look count for each case, to using the average for the case across all starting angles. I weighted scores according to the probability of the case occurring, and switched some of my original algs for better ones. Thanks to those who suggested better algs.

Now, back to practising


----------



## kunparekh18 (Apr 16, 2013)

My practice is such that I know for a particular OLL case what OCLL will follow when 2-looking, so zero recognition time 

Sent from my A75 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 16, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> My practice is such that I know for a particular OLL case what OCLL will follow when 2-looking, so zero recognition time
> 
> Sent from my A75 using Tapatalk 2


Same here, except that it came naturally after 2-looking for 6 months. I still need to learn 17 more OLLs.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 16, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> My practice is such that I know for a particular OLL case what OCLL will follow when 2-looking, so zero recognition time


Yes and even when I don't know exactly what case is coming up, OCLL recognition/prediction is so fast (at least at my speed) . This is exactly why I'm claiming that it's better to be selective and only learn partial OLL, at least until you're so fast that the tiny returns from the lowest scoring cases really matter to you.


----------



## MarcelP (Apr 16, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> This is exactly why I'm claiming that it's better to be selective and only learn partial OLL, at least until you're so fast that the tiny returns from the lowest scoring cases really matter to you.



I am just learning al of them just for the hack of it  I think in the end knowing all OLL's fluent is faster than any 2 step. The earlier you know all 57, the better. Since in the end it all comes down to doing them frequent to get them fast. In the beginning when I was learning OLL's I had some going 6 / 7 seconds while the 2 step took me 5 secs total. I thought it was pointless. Now I excecute this hard OLL in just 3 secs


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 16, 2013)

There's an assumption there that all 57 are worth learning, but clearly some offer much more benefit than others. I'm too lazy to learn algs that might save me 2 moves once every 54 solves 

It might be interesting to extend this project to look at other routes through the last layer - for example, maybe learning OLLCP algs for OLL case A gives better reward than learning OLL for case B, in terms of impact on averages overall. OLL's not the only choice of what to learn next. 

I'm also curious to know how often top CFOP solvers stick to a strict CFOP sequence or throw in other steps like edge control, OLLCP, COLL, etc. I'm guessing that the most efficient approach would be to know a variety of routes depending on cases, and the same approach could be taken to measuring the relative cost of different routes and choosing the learning order accordingly.


----------



## Niah (May 27, 2013)

new to the forums here, hi! just want to say alg 41 is one of my favorite algs, double sledge hammers and then double sexy's ((y') (L F' L' F)*2 L U' L' U L U' L), it's quite fun! i learned full oll with reflections, but my average is sadly 40+ seconds . learning oll took me 3 weeks, i'm so surprised how fast people are without full oll. i feel so bad, haha


----------



## Lagom (May 28, 2013)

Im working on a list of scrambles for OLL´s, categorised after what kind of shape they are. So if you learn for example all P-shaped OLL's you´ll have a list of scrambles for those, so you can practice. You guys want that?


----------



## Dakotajennings (May 28, 2013)

Lagom said:


> Im working on a list of scrambles for OLL´s, categorised after what kind of shape they are. So if you learn for example all P-shaped OLL's you´ll have a list of scrambles for those, so you can practice. You guys want that?



Yes!


----------



## PianoCube (May 28, 2013)

Lagom said:


> Im working on a list of scrambles for OLL´s, categorised after what kind of shape they are. So if you learn for example all P-shaped OLL's you´ll have a list of scrambles for those, so you can practice. You guys want that?



Like this one?: http://thesixsides.com/rubikscube/algorithms/oll.php


----------



## jayefbe (May 29, 2013)

PianoCube said:


> Like this one?: http://thesixsides.com/rubikscube/algorithms/oll.php



I only see algs on this site.

I would also like scrambles to practice OLLs, although Marcel's program already provides a function similar to that. I believe his scrambles are mostly the inverse of the OLL algs, maybe with some rotations thrown in. So maybe collaborating to make a program with scrambles that won't reveal which OLL it is, while also being able to pick and choose which OLLs you want to work on would be interesting.


----------



## Jorghi (May 29, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> I only see algs on this site.
> 
> I would also like scrambles to practice OLLs, although Marcel's program already provides a function similar to that. I believe his scrambles are mostly the inverse of the OLL algs, maybe with some rotations thrown in. So maybe collaborating to make a program with scrambles that won't reveal which OLL it is, while also being able to pick and choose which OLLs you want to work on would be interesting.



Pretty much get a list of 100+ inverse OLL algs from cube explorer.


----------



## Lagom (May 31, 2013)

Here you go https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95991760/OLL-Training.xlsx
Note that there's two sheets. The second sheet contains the scrambles.

Im gonna update it soon tho. Make sure the scrambles switches places every time you open the document and stuff like that. Maybe even add timer and stuff if I figure out how to...

If anyone knows programming and want to use this idea to make a simple program, let me know 

Note that I took all the algs, pictures and comments from www.cubewhiz.com (thank you), so no credit for me about that!


----------



## mark49152 (May 31, 2013)

This is nice if you want to set up a specific OLL. Alternatively if you don't want to know what OLL case you will get, use a last layer scrambler like qqTimer.

Also for anyone learning OLL, I recommend reading back to the first post in this thread. That proposes an OLL learning order based on how much time each will save you over 2-look. For those in too much of a hurry, here is a breakdown of how many moves on average each OLL group will save you (basically, don't learn W's first! )

```
10.00	Stealth
8.50	Squares
8.13	Dots (1/54)
7.50	T shapes
7.31	Small lightning bolts
6.67	P shapes
6.00	Kites
5.88	C shapes
5.58	L shapes
5.56	Knight moves
5.38	Fishes (excluding kites)
5.25	Big lightning bolts
4.25	H
4.13	I shapes
3.81	Dots (rare)
3.44	Awkward
2.63	W shapes
```


----------



## Lagom (May 31, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> This is nice if you want to set up a specific OLL. Alternatively if you don't want to know what OLL case you will get, use a last layer scrambler like qqTimer.
> 
> Also for anyone learning OLL, I recommend reading back to the first post in this thread. That proposes an OLL learning order based on how much time each will save you over 2-look. For those in too much of a hurry, here is a breakdown of how many moves on average each OLL group will save you (basically, don't learn W's first! )
> 
> ...



Thank you for that list 
Which ones are stealth and kites? Never heard those categories before


----------



## mark49152 (May 31, 2013)

Lagom said:


> Thank you for that list
> Which ones are stealth and kites? Never heard those categories before


Stealth = OLL-28, H = OLL-57, the all corners oriented cases.

I separated out kites (OLL-9 & 10) and fishes (OLL-35 & 37) because although the wiki groups these together, they are distinctly different U patterns. Note that the kites can be solved by Sunes with M setup moves so are in the same "family" as the squares and small lightning bolts.

The dots are also separated into those with 1/54 probability and those with <1/54 probability; the move savings for the latter are weighted by their probability which is why they are so low in the list. Although rare, when one actually arises you still save a lot of moves (8-10) so they're good to learn anyway.


----------



## Lagom (May 31, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Stealth = OLL-28, H = OLL-57, the all corners oriented cases.
> 
> I separated out kites (OLL-9 & 10) and fishes (OLL-35 & 37) because although the wiki groups these together, they are distinctly different U patterns. Note that the kites can be solved by Sunes with M setup moves so are in the same "family" as the squares and small lightning bolts.
> 
> The dots are also separated into those with 1/54 probability and those with <1/54 probability; the move savings for the latter are weighted by their probability which is why they are so low in the list. Although rare, when one actually arises you still save a lot of moves (8-10) so they're good to learn anyway.




Thank you


----------



## pipkiksass (May 31, 2013)

Mark, you am legend! I subscribed to this thread AGES ago - I got about 1/2 way through reading the OP and my daughter started crying, knew it would be worth coming back to. Are your algs all selected on length, the 'common' algs, one particular source, or 'other'? Would be interesting to have a similar comparison based on time, as well as move count - i.e. finger-tricked 2-look algs vs. the optimum finger-tricked 1-look alg for each case. 

Funnily enough, I only know c.20 OLLs, and I'd started learning the W's. Definitely won't bother now! 

Should be stickied. Fantastic work, thanks a lot.

Out of curiosity, how far along your through your own learning order have you got so far?


----------



## Crowned xerxes (May 31, 2013)

I don't think it matters.
I average 16 seconds and I know 16-21 plls. And only like 8 olls.


----------



## Lagom (May 31, 2013)

Crowned xerxes said:


> I don't think it matters.
> I average 16 seconds and I know 16-21 plls. And only like 8 olls.



Well if you knew the oll´s you´d average like 14


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 1, 2013)

@pipkiksass: Thanks, glad you like it 



pipkiksass said:


> Are your algs all selected on length, the 'common' algs, one particular source, or 'other'?


They are mostly Badmephisto's with a few replaced by more optimal algs from the wiki where they are significantly shorter. I wanted algs that were representative of execution time, relative to each other; I made an assumption that if there's a longer alg usually preferred, it's because it's finger-tricky and faster than the move-optimal alg and therefore the move count of the optimal alg is more representative. I'm not recommending any of these algs, just using them for estimation purposes.



pipkiksass said:


> Would be interesting to have a similar comparison based on time, as well as move count - i.e. finger-tricked 2-look algs vs. the optimum finger-tricked 1-look alg for each case.


Yes agreed - see the above comment, and also note that I used a non-standard metric, counting quarter turns (including slices) as 1, half turns as 1.5, and rotations as 2. That (for me) gave a better approximation of execution time as a function of constituent moves, based on a few tests. Of course execution time is subjective, and this is still only a rough approximation that in particular doesn't account for finger-trickiness; but this whole thing is rough approximation so I didn't want to get too anal about the metric.



pipkiksass said:


> Out of curiosity, how far along your through your own learning order have you got so far?


I've learned the "Top 15" and I already knew the other dots. At my blistering 4tps execution rate, that's a saving of ~2 seconds per solve when they come up. I have no plans to learn any of the others, at least until I'm a lot faster and have sorted out some of my bigger weaknesses, like cross & F2L.


----------



## Ok ganta (Jul 16, 2013)

Awesome...


----------



## Alphalpha (Dec 17, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Well, obviously you should learn them when you think they will benefit your solving more than anything else you could spend your practice time on.



I understand this catch-all suggestion and agree wholeheartedly. But, since I searched and found, I will ask my original question anyway. Any suggestions on what speed/avg I should be looking for with 4LLL before I adopt 2L-OLL? Perhaps other's personal experiences trials and successes will help me decide when to start learning.


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 17, 2014)

Alphalpha said:


> I understand this catch-all suggestion and agree wholeheartedly. But, since I searched and found, I will ask my original question anyway. Any suggestions on what speed/avg I should be looking for with 4LLL before I adopt 2L-OLL? Perhaps other's personal experiences trials and successes will help me decide when to start learning.



If you're using 4LLL, you're using 2-look OLL...


----------



## josh42732 (Dec 20, 2014)

Alphalpha said:


> I understand this catch-all suggestion and agree wholeheartedly. But, since I searched and found, I will ask my original question anyway. Any suggestions on what speed/avg I should be looking for with 4LLL before I adopt 2L-OLL? Perhaps other's personal experiences trials and successes will help me decide when to start learning.



There is only 7 algorithms for edge-oriented OLL cases and I highly recommend looking at this video about edge control for OLL. It really helped me do 2LLL and brought my times down: http://youtu.be/hgOORsYS07k


----------

