# New 3*3 best standard deviation WR :p



## r_517 (Jan 31, 2010)

can be seen here, not updated yet. 

Former record was made by Frank Chang, with the standard deviation0.14(23.34 23.33 23.11 23.02 23.37) on Caltech Spring 2005

Xiaobo Jin broke WR with the standard deviation of 0.12 (15.81 15.97 15.84 15.71 15.61) in 3*3 final in Hangzhou Open today


----------



## Fox (Jan 31, 2010)

Wow, I hadn't seen that statistics, they are really funny.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 31, 2010)

Wow, very nice  I assume this was just by good luck, as was my 0.15?


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 31, 2010)

Woo, extremely consistent.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes. I'm going to beat this on purpose next weekend now.


----------



## TheMachanga (Jan 31, 2010)

I'll never get that record. My times are 19 23 21 20 24


----------



## r_517 (Jan 31, 2010)

TheMachanga said:


> I'll never get that record. My times are 19 23 21 20 24



oh is your profile pic Master Venjix?


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jan 31, 2010)

I've had some decent SDs of counting solves.

21.13 20.28 21.02 21.68 21.81


Not quite that fast, but still sub-1.


----------



## TheMachanga (Jan 31, 2010)

r_517 said:


> TheMachanga said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never get that record. My times are 19 23 21 20 24
> ...



It's HAL from the movie 2001


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 31, 2010)

Couldn't someone just solve the cube & wait until a time like 40.00 (something they could get under easily) & pause the time right when they see the 40 & get a wr?


----------



## TheMachanga (Jan 31, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Couldn't someone just solve the cube & wait until a time like 40.00 (something they could get under easily) & pause the time right when they see the 40 & get a wr?



I've been thinking that, but surely somebody someone wouldn't do that at their first competition. Probably someone with 50+ competitions, and they can just joke around in the final round or something.


----------



## dannyz0r (Jan 31, 2010)

I thought that page was just statistics and not actually WR. :confused:


----------



## r_517 (Jan 31, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> I thought that page was just statistics and not actually WR. :confused:


u have to admit that it's the newest smallest number whatever it's "statistics" or "records". anyway it's just for fun



TheMachanga said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't someone just solve the cube & wait until a time like 40.00 (something they could get under easily) & pause the time right when they see the 40 & get a wr?
> ...


Xiaobo said that the first four attempts was just by coincidence, and the last time he slowed down a tiny bit on purpose.


----------



## shelley (Jan 31, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Couldn't someone just solve the cube & wait until a time like 40.00 (something they could get under easily) & pause the time right when they see the 40 & get a wr?



If that particular statistic/record matters to you, yes.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 31, 2010)

shelley said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't someone just solve the cube & wait until a time like 40.00 (something they could get under easily) & pause the time right when they see the 40 & get a wr?
> ...



Yeah. no one really cares about such things. Nonetheless, for fun, I shall be going for this next week, during the second round of Drexel ;D


----------



## Stefan (Jan 31, 2010)

Of course this particular statistic can easily be cheated and possibly already is. But yeah, it's just for fun, and I guess if one day it's clearly full of intentionals and thus gets meaningless, we'll just remove that statistic and perhaps add a more interesting one instead. There are of course many more statistics we could do, we just try to keep a balance of not posting too few (and miss interesting ones) and too many (so the page is diluted by boring ones).


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 1, 2010)

If you wanted to waste a round, you could just finish the solve and stop the timer as close to 30 seconds (or whatever) each time. But that would waste a round...


----------



## Hays (Feb 1, 2010)

TheMachanga said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't someone just solve the cube & wait until a time like 40.00 (something they could get under easily) & pause the time right when they see the 40 & get a wr?
> ...





miniGOINGS said:


> If you wanted to waste a round, you could just finish the solve and stop the timer as close to 30 seconds (or whatever) each time. But that would waste a round...



I actually did this at Vancouver open with 2x2. I got exactly 15.00 avg 5 and all of my solves were within .16 of 15.00. 

But I wouldn't do this with 3x3 because of the standard deviation record.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Feb 1, 2010)

Woo, I'm 6th place.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 1, 2010)

(22.63) 23.08 22.88 23.88+ (27.93)

If that 23.08 hadn't had plus 2, my counting solves would be pretty close. Is this counting solves or or solves?


----------



## Thomas09 (Feb 1, 2010)

Ooooohhh, who has teh exact opposite of this? Who is the most inconsistant?


----------



## Sa967St (Feb 1, 2010)

Thomas09 said:


> Ooooohhh, who has teh exact opposite of this? Who is the most inconsistant?


Derrick Eide

he once had an SD of over 9000 for the Sunday Contest.


----------



## Thomas09 (Feb 1, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> Thomas09 said:
> 
> 
> > Ooooohhh, who has teh exact opposite of this? Who is the most inconsistant?
> ...


I didn't know you over 9000'd, Sarah!


----------



## Tyson (Feb 2, 2010)

I guess my brother was messing around here:

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2004MAOT01

At WC 2009.

Oh, Chang Frank? I want to go and edit his name in the WCA database now.


----------



## Novriil (Feb 2, 2010)

Lol I just found out that my pyraminx times on Est Open were very consistent.. 
12.63, 12.81, 12.80, DNF(0.00), 12.97 = current avg5: 12.86 (σ = 0.08)

(DNF was the best scramble but I messed the LL up and after I ended the solve time was 18sec and I still had a alg to do)

Too bad that there is only 3x3 SD in the statistics.

(And on magic I've gotten 1.34 average (PB) with SD=0)


----------



## Stefan (Feb 24, 2010)

I just noticed Cameron Almasi is now #1:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#11

14.53 14.80 14.55 14.72 14.52
standard deviation 0.11

And I guess it was achieved innocently, given that that's his official record average.


----------



## rowehessler (Feb 24, 2010)

my 10.39 was .63 SD, when all of my others are over 2 seconds lmfao


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 24, 2010)

rowehessler said:


> my 10.39 was .63 SD, when all of my others are over 2 seconds lmfao



US Nationals 08?


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Feb 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> I just noticed Cameron Almasi is now #1:
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#11
> 
> 14.53 14.80 14.55 14.72 14.52
> ...








Here is the video if anyone wants to see.


----------



## Bryan (Feb 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> And I guess it was achieved innocently, given that that's his official record average.



I call shenanigans on Vincent's DNF record though...


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 27, 2010)

Bryan said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > And I guess it was achieved innocently, given that that's his official record average.
> ...



Seconded.


----------



## anders (Apr 8, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> I just noticed Cameron Almasi is now #1:
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#11
> 
> 14.53 14.80 14.55 14.72 14.52
> ...




Well, I just noticed that Zhen Tang is now #1:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#11

19.86 19.84 19.78 19.88 19.90 
standard deviation 0.04

And I am quite sure that it was *not* achieved innocently, given that his official record average is five seconds better.


----------



## Weston (Apr 8, 2010)

anders said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > I just noticed Cameron Almasi is now #1:
> ...



I doubt that too. Especially since he did it in the first round where his scores wouldn't matter too much. But you never know...


----------



## shelley (Apr 8, 2010)

Hmmm...

I skimmed through the WCA regulations and nowhere does it state that competitors have to be ranked according to speed (with the exception of multiBLD, where it explicitly states lower times are better when comparing results with the same score). The closest it comes to actually saying this is referring to "best" results.



WCA regs said:


> 6a) Awards, prizes or honours may be given to competitors according to the announcement of the competition.



So.. as long as it is clearly announced, a competition could be held in which the winner is not the competitor with the fastest solves, but the one with the best standard deviation in his average. Who wants to host the Standard Deviation Open?


----------



## anders (Apr 8, 2010)

Well, we have



WCA regs said:


> 9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting.
> 
> 9f8) In 'Average of 5' rounds competitors get 5 attempts. Of these 5 attempts, the best and worst attempt are removed, with the mean of the remaining 3 attempts counting.
> 
> ...



where I find it hard to include the standard deviation as a measure of "best" result. Unless you find a creative definition of "attempt". But nothing stops you for hosting an unofficial event (http://www.speedcubing.com/results/)


----------



## qqwref (Apr 8, 2010)

Best of 1, with an attempt being a standard SD of 5 

Perhaps you could break ties by having a faster average win if the SDs are the same.


----------

