# Which BLD Fold method has the highest success rate?



## kickinwing2112 (Aug 31, 2008)

I couldn't find a thread on this but if there is one delete this.

I dont want to know which method is the easiest or fastest. I want the one that is most consistant with its solves. If anyone has ideas please give them with links where to find them.

Thanks


----------



## KConny (Aug 31, 2008)

Old Pochmann, I think.


----------



## joey (Aug 31, 2008)

All? It depends on how good your memo is?

(btw 'BLD Fold' maybe be lol)


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Aug 31, 2008)

joey said:


> All? It depends on how good your memo is?
> 
> (btw 'BLD Fold' maybe be lol)



lets say i can train it to be better.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 31, 2008)

KConny said:


> Old Pochmann, I think.



It's now referred to as _Classic_ Pochmann


----------



## qqwref (Aug 31, 2008)

I guess you'd want one with either few setup moves or few algorithms. Of course, for any method, memorizing wrong is a DNF, but you want to minimize how much you mess up on execution. I think I'd say to go for either Old Pochmann (one algorithm to know, setups usually short) or M2 R2 (setups longer but no real algorithms).


----------



## blah (Aug 31, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I guess you'd want one with either few setup moves or few algorithms. Of course, for any method, memorizing wrong is a DNF, but you want to minimize how much you mess up on execution. I think I'd say to go for either Old Pochmann (one algorithm to know, setups usually short) or M2 R2 (setups longer but no real algorithms).



Hmm... I'd say for M2/R2, the setup/setdown(?) moves themselves are the algorithms, so if there's nothing wrong with memo and you know your "algorithms" well enough (it's not like you can do something wrong in the middle of a U perm, nor any perm for that matter, same goes for M2 "algorithms"), you can't possibly go wrong at all, because everything is pretty much "predetermined", there's nothing with which you come up on the fly. (Except, perhaps, PLL parity?)

So I think M2/R2 is safest  Same goes for Classic Pochmann, only in Classic Pochmann, the setup moves and the Y/J/T perms themselves feel kinda separated, unlike in M2 where they just flow nicely, so you're probably more prone to making setup errors in Classic Pochmann, I think. Yeah.


----------



## MistArts (Aug 31, 2008)

I think it depends on your memo method. Direct solving is the safest like 3-cycle freestyle, M2/R2 and Classic Pochmann.

I wouldn't consider 3OP "direct solving" because you have to do more and your success rate goes down.


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 31, 2008)

M2 R2, Classic Pochmann, anything that doesn't separate orientation and permutation. Otherwise, you will have to memorise 4 different things and it will get harder.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 31, 2008)

I think the best thing to do is probably look at people with long strings of success rates. What method does Clément Gallet use, for instance? Leyan Lo always used 3OP; I assume he still does, but maybe he's switched to M2 or something else?

Tim Habermaas is pretty deadly accurate, and he uses M2. If you look at the multiBLD event (which focuses more on accuracy, rather than speed), many of us use M2. I think M2 is particularly accurate.

I think you also need to consider: are you talking about accuracy at whatever speed, or are you talking about accuracy at really high speed? The answer might be different for the two cases.

In any event, there are people who are very accurate with each of the popular methods, so it's hard to answer this definitively.


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Aug 31, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think the best thing to do is probably look at people with long strings of success rates. What method does Clément Gallet use, for instance? Leyan Lo always used 3OP; I assume he still does, but maybe he's switched to M2 or something else?
> 
> Tim Habermaas is pretty deadly accurate, and he uses M2. If you look at the multiBLD event (which focuses more on accuracy, rather than speed), many of us use M2. I think M2 is particularly accurate.
> 
> ...



Im talking about accuracy at whatever speed. I'd obviously like it to be faster but id rather sacrafice speed for accuracy.


----------



## blah (Sep 1, 2008)

kickinwing2112 said:


> Im talking about accuracy at whatever speed. I'd obviously like it to be faster but id *rather sacrafice speed for accuracy*.



Classic Pochmann then.

Better still, M2 sacrifices neither


----------



## Kristoffer (Sep 1, 2008)

accuracy comes with practice? I'd say all BLD methods are even, the only factor in my opinion is if you are good at it!


----------



## shelley (Sep 1, 2008)

Success rate depends on the person and memorization ability, not so much the method. All the methods will successfully solve the cube from any position if you do them right.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2008)

kickinwing2112 said:


> I dont want to know which method is the easiest or fastest. I want the one that is most consistant with its solves.


Then you might try the method called "take your time memorizing and making sure you get everything right". In other words, you can directly influence your consistency simply by taking more time instead of rushing. And that's true for *all* methods. When I do a demo solve at a party or for an interview, I want to make sure I get it right and thus memorize and then walk over the memorization at least once more, and also take my time solving. I don't do that (as much) in competition, where I care less about success and more about speed.

Besides that, I suggest old pochmann or M2 for edges and old pochmann for corners. For 4x4 blind I have trouble executing R2 correctly, that's why I go back to my old method for its corners even though I'm less used to it. Note however that not having much experience with methods other than my own, I'm obviously biased.


----------



## F.P. (Sep 2, 2008)

It's not about the solving method it's about the memo-method.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 2, 2008)

Mike: Clement uses 3OP (Orient first, 3-cycle permute)
Stefan: "Old" Pochmann or "Classic" Pochmann?

And why would you like a high success rate? I think most good blindfolders go for speed instead of success. The event is a speed event and all you need is 1 good one. (Just ask Rowe Hessler, he doesn't seem to care about good/bad as long as its fast)


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Sep 2, 2008)

Accuracy is not about any method. if you know the method perfectly, then your accuracy can be perfect, BUT only, if your memo works.
And i dont want to be rude, but i dont think, that Tim is THAT good at accuracy. i LOVE his 24/24 (even if i have to go for a big amount to get WR now) , but HE told me yesterday, after i told him, that he is always like an idol for me, that his accuracy sucks. I think its quiet good, but not the best. not because of M2, i think, he is just doing some small mistakes, like mixing up some images on one place, so ----> the question has to be: what is the best MEMO-METHOD and not the best solving method for accuracy

Greetings..ennis


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 2, 2008)

I disagree Dennis. I once did an experiment with Clement Gallet. I memorised and solved the cube: DNF, I told Clement what I memorised and he solved it succesfully. We repeated this and the result was the same (DNF for me, success for us). That means that memo is not always the problem.

(In these cases I didn't even rememorised the scramble, right after my DNF I told Clement what I memorised and he executed directly)


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Sep 2, 2008)

THEN we come to the other point that i mentioned:
You have to know the method perfectly! so you have to know all the moves perfectly and have to be able to execute all of them blindfolded...AND THEN the memo is very important. 

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## KJiptner (Sep 2, 2008)

My opinion is without a doubt old pochmann. It's only 22+21 cases, and those become second nature very soon. Parity is not hard at all and there are no more special cases. (unlike the a bit trickiier M2) Combine that with loci-method to memorize and that should lead to a 90%+ rate with some practice


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 2, 2008)

My biggest memo problems are picking the wrong stickers. I'll look at a sticker that needs to go to UL and I'll memorize LU. Or something like that. I make that kind of mistake about 5 times for every time that my memorization actually fails. For that sort of thing, I don't think method has much impact at all. Perhaps that says that 3OP would be more accurate for me than M2 (or Old Pochmann), since I wouldn't be likely to make that sort of mistake. (Of course, I might just make a mistake memorizing orientation instead...)

I missed 2 5x5x5 BLDs and one cube in my multiBLD this week just because of memorizing the wrong pieces.


----------



## shelley (Sep 2, 2008)

Right, it depends on the person. Pochmann's methods may be easier execution wise, but they involve sticker memo. Being trained on 3OP, I completely suck at sticker memo.

It doesn't really matter which method you pick. Just do the one you feel more comfortable with. Then if accuracy is your priority, work on your memory method.


----------

