Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Aunque mi método no fue perfecto, estoy satisfecho porque habría sido peor si no hubiera intentado nada. - Although my method was not perfect, I am satisfied because it would have been worse if I hadn’t tried anything.

no fue perfecto (preterite)
- Focuses on a completed event in the past.
- Implies: On that specific occasion, my method wasn’t perfect.
- Matches English: “wasn’t perfect” referring to a particular instance.
no era perfecto (imperfect)
- Describes something more ongoing, habitual, or descriptive in the past.
- Implies: My method, in general, wasn’t perfect (as a characteristic over time).

In this sentence, the speaker is evaluating one particular way they did something, so no fue perfecto (preterite) is the most natural.

Could we say “aunque mi método no fuera perfecto” instead of “no fue perfecto”? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can say both:

Aunque mi método no fue perfecto
- Uses indicative (fue).
- Suggests the speaker treats the fact as real and accepted:
  Although my method really wasn’t perfect…
Aunque mi método no fuera perfecto
- Uses past subjunctive (fuera).
- Often adds a nuance of hypothesis, concession, or less focus on factuality:
  Even if my method wasn’t perfect… or Even though my method wasn’t perfect…
- Feels slightly more formal or literary, but is quite common.

In practice, in Latin American Spanish:

Indicative after “aunque”: when the speaker presents the information as a known fact.
Subjunctive after “aunque”: when it’s hypothetical, unknown, or not the point whether it’s true.

Here, since the speaker is clearly accepting it as a fact, no fue perfecto is very natural.

Why is it “estoy satisfecho” (present) if we’re talking about a past method?

Because the speaker is describing their current emotional state:

estoy satisfecho → I am satisfied (now)

The past method (mi método no fue perfecto) is the reason, but the feeling of satisfaction exists in the present. This mix is very normal in both Spanish and English:

My method wasn’t perfect, but I’m satisfied.

Why “satisfecho” and not “satisfecha”? How does gender agreement work here?

Satisfecho/satisfecha is an adjective and must agree with the gender of the person speaking (or the subject):

estoy satisfecho → masculine speaker (or grammatically masculine subject).
estoy satisfecha → female speaker.

So:

A man: Aunque mi método no fue perfecto, estoy satisfecho…
A woman: Aunque mi método no fue perfecto, estoy satisfecha…

The rest of the sentence doesn’t change.

What tense is “habría sido peor”, and what does it correspond to in English?

Habría sido peor is the conditional perfect in Spanish:

habría (conditional of haber) + sido (past participle of ser).

It corresponds to English “would have been worse”:

habría sido peor → it would have been worse.

It’s used to talk about a hypothetical result in the past, often connected to an unreal or contrary-to-fact condition (here, if I hadn’t tried anything).

Why not say “sería peor” instead of “habría sido peor”?

Sería peor = it would be worse (conditional, generally present or timeless hypothetical).
Habría sido peor = it would have been worse (conditional perfect, hypothetical in the past).

In this sentence, we’re talking about a past situation that didn’t actually happen:

Real past: the speaker did try something.
Imaginary past: if I *had not tried anything, it would have been worse.*

So we need the conditional perfect:

habría sido peor → correctly matches would have been worse, not would be worse.

Why is it “si no hubiera intentado nada” and not “si no intenté nada”?

Because this is a hypothetical / unreal condition in the past. Spanish uses the past perfect subjunctive in this type of “if” clause:

si + past perfect subjunctive
- conditional perfect
si no hubiera intentado nada, habría sido peor
→ if I hadn’t tried anything, it would have been worse.

Si no intenté nada uses the preterite indicative and sounds like a factual statement:

Si no intenté nada, fue por falta de tiempo.
→ If I didn’t try anything, it was because I didn’t have time. (talking about real facts)

Here, we’re not describing what actually happened; we’re imagining a different past scenario. That’s why we need hubiera intentado (subjunctive), not intenté.

What exactly is “hubiera intentado” grammatically? How is it formed?

Hubiera intentado is past perfect (pluperfect) subjunctive:

hubiera → imperfect subjunctive of haber
intentado → past participle of intentar.

Formation pattern:

Take the third person plural preterite of the verb:
- intentar → intentaron
Replace -ron with -ra endings for the imperfect subjunctive:
- intentaran / intentase (plural)
- intentara / intentase (singular)
For haber: hubieron → hubiera, hubieras, hubiera, hubiéramos, hubieran
Add the past participle:
- hubiera intentado → had tried (in a subjunctive, hypothetical context).

What’s the difference between “hubiera intentado” and “hubiese intentado”?

Functionally, in modern Spanish, there is no difference in meaning:

hubiera intentado
hubiese intentado

Both are past perfect subjunctive and can be used in the same structures:

si no hubiera intentado nada, habría sido peor
si no hubiese intentado nada, habría sido peor

In Latin America:

hubiera is generally more common in speech.
hubiese can sound a bit more formal or literary, but it’s also understood and used.

You can treat them as stylistic variants of the same tense.

Why does Spanish use “nada” together with “no” in “si no hubiera intentado nada”? Isn’t that a double negative?

Yes, it’s a double negative, but in Spanish double negatives are normal and required in many structures.

Pattern:

No
- verb + nada → not … anything / didn’t … anything

So:

no hubiera intentado nada
→ literally: had not tried nothing
→ idiomatic English: hadn’t tried anything

In standard Spanish, you must use no with nada when nada comes after the verb:

No vi nada. → I didn’t see anything.
No dijo nada. → He/She didn’t say anything.

If nada comes before the verb, you drop the no:

Nada vi. (very emphatic/literary) → I saw nothing.

In everyday speech, the pattern you’ll hear is: no + verb + nada.

Is the word order “no hubiera intentado nada” fixed, or can I move “nada”?

The natural, standard order in everyday Spanish is:

no
- verb phrase + nada
  → no hubiera intentado nada

You can move nada for emphasis or in more literary style, but some variations sound odd or unnatural in everyday Latin American Spanish:

nada no hubiera intentado ✗ (unnatural)
no hubiera nada intentado ✗ (ungrammatical)

Practical advice: keep nada after the verb/auxiliary phrase:

No habría hecho nada.
No hubiera intentado nada.

Could we change the order to “porque, si no hubiera intentado nada, habría sido peor”? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, you can reorder:

porque habría sido peor si no hubiera intentado nada
porque, si no hubiera intentado nada, habría sido peor

Both are correct and mean the same:
because it would have been worse if I hadn’t tried anything.

The second version just highlights the condition a bit more by placing “si no hubiera intentado nada” earlier, but the logical meaning doesn’t change. The original word order is very natural and common in speech.

Is this sentence natural in Latin American Spanish, or would people say it differently?

It is very natural and idiomatic in Latin American Spanish. A native speaker could say this exactly as written.

Possible casual variants you might also hear:

Aunque mi método no fue perfecto, igual estoy satisfecho; habría sido peor si no hubiera intentado nada.
- Adding igual makes it a bit more colloquial (I’m still satisfied…).
Aunque mi método no fue perfecto, estoy satisfecho porque, si no hubiera intentado nada, habría sido peor.

But the original sentence is fully natural and common in everyday educated speech.