[Ouroboros]

(04-27-2019 07:49 PM)jasond Wrote:  

The amount of guys running live in-person cold approach game in 2019 is probably not higher than 5-10 years ago.

The big difference is that 10x as many guys are running internet cold-approach game compared to 5-10 years ago. Which means that the vast majority of single guys are now game-aware, compared to only a small minority 10 years ago. Any guy using Tinder is running game to some extent. And with the vast majority of single women now available to be approached online, they are getting hit on and gamed 10x more. So your daygame or nightgame approach will have much less of an impact than it did 10 years ago.

I would agree with all that excepted the highlighted part, unless we have very different conceptions of what 'game aware' means. Have you ever looked at the kinds of tinder messages that girls you have banged receive? I have. The messages that I have seen suggest that many guys could benefit from learning more game (and even then, a lot of online success can be attributed to looks, photo quality and miscellaneous factors like a girl breaking up with her boyfriend a few days before matching with you).

But anyway, the part about women getting hit on much more than before due to online apps and this leading to reduced receptivity (because they constantly have so many options) makes a lot of sense. Although at the same time I am bit surprised that the novelty factor of cold approach has declined given that the vast majority of men depend on online apps and social circle.

[WannaBang]

(04-27-2019 07:49 PM)jasond Wrote:  

That girl you approached on the street that would have banged you in 2010, has already been swooped by some internet fella in 2019.

Pretty much!

[SW15]

(04-27-2019 05:03 PM)jasond Wrote:  

a full penis pipeline for most women (due to tinder/instagram).

The penis pipeline issue is one of the most pressing in game. If a woman has a full penis pipeline and isn't at all receptive to approaches, things go nowhere. I could be entertaining and have a lot going for me, but if her penis pipeline is full, it just won't matter. It's really difficult. In a situation like that, self-doubt can start to creep in about the quality of one's game. It shouldn't, but it can be difficult not to let that happen when a solid approach goes nowhere, and the woman just isn't receptive to extending an approach.

(04-27-2019 07:49 PM)jasond Wrote:  

The amount of guys running live in-person cold approach game in 2019 is probably not higher than 5-10 years ago.

The big difference is that 10x as many guys are running internet cold-approach game compared to 5-10 years ago. Which means that the vast
majority of single guys are now game-aware, compared to only a small minority 10 years ago. Any guy using Tinder is running game to some extent. And with the vast majority of single women now available to be approached online, they are getting hit on and gamed 10x more. So your daygame or nightgame approach will have much less of an impact than it did 10 years ago.

There is a limited amount of female sexual activity that is distributed to the male population every year. Statistics say a girl averages 7 partners/lifetime. If anything, surveys having been showing less and less sexual activity over the past 5-10 years among women. Now think about all the girls hooking up via online dating. It's a zero sum game, so for every girl that hooks up via tinder, 1 less girl is available to be gamed day or night. That girl you approached on the street that would have banged you in 2010, has already been swooped by some internet fella in 2019.

This is a lot of food for thought, but then there are threads that a lot of guys are failing to get laid on Tinder or Bumble. So if there's a failure to get laid via apps, what happens?

The reason that I think female sexual activity is down is that there are fewer committed relationships in the younger age set. There's more female hypergamy, and women are holding out for the bigger, better deal. A lot of dates go nowhere (no sex, no future in-person interaction, maybe a text message declining future interaction) because the woman is too fussy relative to what she offers. I've been surprised with certain dates and certain approaches going nowhere even when I run quality game. I've even had certain women tell me that they were impressed or flattered that I approached but couldn't take things any further. It's truly disheartening.

I'm buying the idea that day approaches have less effect than they had 10 years ago, but I'm selling the idea that it is an internet fella swooping simply because internet game isn't working for the majority of guys. I'm buying the idea that women are getting fussier than they were even 10 years ago, which wasn't great, simply because they are fielding more approaches due Tinder, Bumble, and Instagram.

[AntoniusofEfa]

If the market seems to be overpriced at the moment (women, housing, tulips, whatever), the best thing to do is to stay away.

I have a close female friend that is 28, and a solid 7. She has no current LTR, and she is freaking out. For years she had disqualified decent guys, some even with serious amounts of money, because they were boring.

These guys moved on and got younger LTRs according to her. She has no real career going on, a rather useless bachelors degree and a bunch of debt. She still believes she deserves the best.

Daygame worked for me better in the past, because the market was better priced. Now it's a bubble.

While I use my acquired knowledge of chatting up women whenever the opportunity arises in the rare occurrence of a wink and a smile, I have no motivation what so ever to do cold approaching. It is a soul crushing experience, and the quality of the local girls is not worth it.

[Dantes]

JasonD makes some insightful points. Having know him for several years, I know he speaks from experience.

I offer the following points from my perspective:

1. Having met some of the “top Daygamers”, remember they are selling a product and/or service. They put their best approaches on YouTube. It is seldom you see their blowouts and the countless numbers that go nowhere.

2. It is clear that men are competing with the infinite attention girls receive on IG and Tinder. This supports what I have always felt about direct Daygame. Your physical attractiveness is paramount, and even more so to differentiate yourself from the multitude of men competing for her attention.

I had a recent conversation with an American women abroad who disclosed to me about her dating struggles. The conversation turned to how overwhelmed she was by the number of tinder matches and offers of dates when she visited Nyc. She is average looking at best.

3. The goal of learning Daygame should be to develop a skill set for approaching women when you are going about your daily life. Devoting to Daygame outings, a certain number of approaches is useful in the beginning stages to extinguish approach anxiety, but will ultimately leave you feeling hollow if you continue on this path too long. Learning to interact with women during the day is a great tool, but it is not the only one in the toolbox you should draw from.

[jasond]

(04-28-2019 02:48 AM)SW15 Wrote:  

but I'm selling the idea that it is an internet fella swooping simply because internet game isn't working for the majority of guys

Just because internet game isn't working for most guys, doesn't mean it's not working for all guys.

In a city of 1 million people, all you need is 100 "super-studs" each pulling 100+ girls per year via online game (I know a few), to completely disrupt the market for everyone else. In the past, such numbers weren't possible, since nobody can approach 500 girls a day via day or night game. But that's easily doable online, especially if you outsource the operation to professional assistants.

[ksbms]

(04-28-2019 03:53 AM)AntoniusofEfa Wrote:  

If the market seems to be overpriced at the moment (women, housing, tulips, whatever), the best thing to do is to stay away.

The working implicit assumption here is that the market in any domain will "recover". Whereas one can try to model sexual market on the unconstrained, capitalist market model (which has many built-in assumptions, and many inccorrect ones), the former does not depend on the latter. The epistemic, self-regulatory pricing of goods dependant on self-adjusting supply and demand doesn't apply here. As jasond points out, In a city of 1 million people, all you need is 100 "super-studs" each pulling 100+ girls per year via online game (I know a few), to completely disrupt the market. This creates unhealthy imbalance that won't self-correct, just because.

Women won't begin, all of sudden, popping out new, pretty and slim girls, one after the other, just because there's lack of supply of young women - to the contrary, Europe has, on average, a negative demographic growth. On average, it's always half boys, half girls being born anyway, right? Unfortunately, the current politico-socio-economic set up of Western countries (in particular) is such, it favours females over males. With no-fault divorce, the pill, state subsidy, affirmative employment action, non-judgemental sexual activities, economic self-sufficiency due to higher education, sex-on demand offered over the internet at all times, as a consequence, women have little to no incentive to, as they used to, to find a man, be faithful, caring and, generally speaking, relatively good women, as they grandmas or even mums had had.

Say, the skill of cooking - most women have no idea about these days. They don't need do - all you need to do is to shove a ready made into a microwave. Nothing is demanded of women (bar looking good by cosmetics and clothing companies). I look, therefore I am, to paraphrase Descartes. Actually, not even that - a woman can keep enticing suitors online with the best-from-five-years ago pictures sitting on a couch with greasy hair, in her pyjamas and stinking pussy, whilst munching on a third pack of Doritos. Just a decade ago, a woman would have to put effort, doll up, hit a bar in anticipation of a possible romance.

The technology, which improved the quality of life in certain respects, depressed it in others. Ironically, it is men who excel at cooking these days. One of my friends is an excellent cook, a former chef at a Michelin star restaurant, others cook well and healthily too, (and dress well, work-out, and put more effort into bettering themselves then majority of women). My friends' wives and girlfriends suck at cooking. Or they find it a demeaning activity. Making scrambled eggs would be a challenge. A man can't rely on a woman in Western world to be an able cook - it's an abomination for a "modern" woman to cook these days, though what they can do is to take great pictures of food under various angles and post on the instagram. In the past, ability to cook well was a given, a skill that helped attract a man - there was something required to provision for the future family. But I digress.

The supply will keep shrinking until a major societal overhaul to disincentivise females from living a forever "happy go lucky" takes place. If nothing bar good visual appearance is required plus continuous cock supply is there - it will only get worse (as more countries become Westernised). Humans respond to behavioural incentives, if none or few are there, women won't make any effort to make it easier to the bidder because they don't have to.

The paradox of all this is that the men have been a driving force behind the key enablers benefiting women that fucked most men in the proverbial ass, in the end (the microwave invented by Percy Spencer, the pill invented by Gregory Goodwin Pincus, the Tinder app invented by Jonathan Badeen, and so forth, and so on). The men been sawing off the branch they've been sitting and it ain't look pretty.

We'll (us, men) eventually chop that supply-tree to tiny pieces.

[jasond]

(04-28-2019 04:57 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

Whereas one can try to model sexual market on the unconstrained, capitalist market model

A good analogy that describes the changes in the dating market over the past 10 years, is the shock-therapy that post-communist countries experienced in the 1990s, in their transition to capitalism.

In communist times, goods were distributed relatively equally, and inefficient state-owned companies were able to survive. Similarly, in the past, girls were distributed relatively equally (1 woman to 1 man), and less than ideal guys (SMV 7 or lower) could survive due to market inefficiencies (limited supply of guys that girls can choose from).

The rise of internet dating however, is like the introduction of free-market capitalism to formerly inefficient markets. A male 7 who meets a female 7 at work, can no longer count on her to be interested, since she has 100 male 9's hitting her up on instagram.

Online apps make the sexual marketplace more efficient. And since girls desire to date up, and guys are willing to fuck girls beneath them, that's what you get...a society where everyone is dating girls 2-3 points below their SMV. The male 7 complains he can't get a female 7, because he's probably banging a female 5, and the female 7 he wants is banging the male 9. And most of these higher SMV guys are banging multiple girls, which further restricts the supply of women to lower smv guys.

[Feldeinsamkeit]

(04-28-2019 04:57 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

(04-28-2019 03:53 AM)AntoniusofEfa Wrote:  

If the market seems to be overpriced at the moment (women, housing, tulips, whatever), the best thing to do is to stay away.

The working implicit assumption here is that the market in any domain will "recover". Whereas one can try to model sexual market on the unconstrained, capitalist market model (which has many built-in assumptions, and many inccorrect ones), the former does not depend on the latter. The epistemic, self-regulatory pricing of goods dependant on self-adjusting supply and demand doesn't apply here. As jasond points out, In a city of 1 million people, all you need is 100 "super-studs" each pulling 100+ girls per year via online game (I know a few), to completely disrupt the market. This creates unhealthy imbalance that won't self-correct, just because.

Women won't begin, all of sudden, popping out new, pretty and slim girls, one after the other, just because there's lack of supply of young women - to the contrary, Europe has, on average, a negative demographic growth. On average, it's always half boys, half girls being born anyway, right? Unfortunately, the current politico-socio-economic set up of Western countries (in particular) is such, it favours females over males. With no-fault divorce, the pill, state subsidy, affirmative employment action, non-judgemental sexual activities, economic self-sufficiency due to higher education, sex-on demand offered over the internet at all times, as a consequence, women have little to no incentive to, as they used to, to find a man, be faithful, caring and, generally speaking, relatively good women, as they grandmas or even mums had had.

Say, the skill of cooking - most women have no idea about these days. They don't need do - all you need to do is to shove a ready made into a microwave. Nothing is demanded of women (bar looking good by cosmetics and clothing companies). I look, therefore I am, to paraphrase Descartes. Actually, not even that - a woman can keep enticing suitors online with the best-from-five-years ago pictures sitting on a couch with greasy hair, in her pyjamas and stinking pussy, whilst munching on a third pack of Doritos. Just a decade ago, a woman would have to put effort, doll up, hit a bar in anticipation of a possible romance.

The technology, which improved the quality of life in certain respects, depressed it in others. Ironically, it is men who excel at cooking these days. One of my friends is an excellent cook, a former chef at a Michelin star restaurant, others cook well and healthily too, (and dress well, work-out, and put more effort into bettering themselves then majority of women). My friends' wives and girlfriends suck at cooking. Or they find it a demeaning activity. Making scrambled eggs would be a challenge. A man can't rely on a woman in Western world to be an able cook - it's an abomination for a "modern" woman to cook these days, though what they can do is to take great pictures of food under various angles and post on the instagram. In the past, ability to cook well was a given, a skill that helped attract a man - there was something required to provision for the future family. But I digress.

The supply will keep shrinking until a major societal overhaul to disincentivise females from living a forever "happy go lucky" takes place. If nothing bar good visual appearance is required plus continuous cock supply is there - it will only get worse (as more countries become Westernised). Humans respond to behavioural incentives, if none or few are there, women won't make any effort to make it easier to the bidder because they don't have to.

The paradox of all this is that the men have been a driving force behind the key enablers benefiting women that fucked most men in the proverbial ass, in the end (the microwave invented by Percy Spencer, the pill invented by Gregory Goodwin Pincus, the Tinder app invented by Jonathan Badeen, and so forth, and so on). The men been sawing off the branch they've been sitting and it ain't look pretty.

We'll (us, men) eventually chop that supply-tree to tiny pieces.

Quite true, but it's worse than that, in the sense that the more women let themselves go, then the more men improve themselves to stand a fighting chance of securing one of the ever-diminishing quantity of attractive women left on the market, which in turn provides ever more supply of attractive males onto the SMP, thus reducing women's incentive for self-improvement further and so on in a seemingly endless doom loop for men.

Also, the number of men and women of fertile age is certainly not fifty-fifty, or at least not in Germany and many other western countries as a result of a male-biased policy to allow mass immigration, which has resulted in a heavily-skewed ratio of men to women in most cities. Furthermore, even without taking the immigration factor into account, the natural birthrate is roughly 1.05 males per 1 female in the West which post-WW2 has led to a build-up of surplus males owing to the absence of any major conflicts which might have culled this excess male population.

And all of this before we even come to consider the roughly 25% of women who are so obese as to be unviable as sexual prospects and the leveraging effect of social media on women's hypergamous instincts.

Talk about Brave New World ... somebody should publish a sequel, "Brave New Sausage Fest".

[Feldeinsamkeit]

(04-28-2019 03:53 AM)AntoniusofEfa Wrote:  

If the market seems to be overpriced at the moment (women, housing, tulips, whatever), the best thing to do is to stay away.

I have a close female friend that is 28, and a solid 7. She has no current LTR, and she is freaking out. For years she had disqualified decent guys, some even with serious amounts of money, because they were boring.

These guys moved on and got younger LTRs according to her. She has no real career going on, a rather useless bachelors degree and a bunch of debt. She still believes she deserves the best.

Daygame worked for me better in the past, because the market was better priced. Now it's a bubble.

While I use my acquired knowledge of chatting up women whenever the opportunity arises in the rare occurrence of a wink and a smile, I have no motivation what so ever to do cold approaching. It is a soul crushing experience, and the quality of the local girls is not worth it.

Reading this really struck a chord with me, since it reflects my own experiences daygaming in Germany. In 2017, I was daygaming in Leipzig in the former communist part of the country and had - on the whole - consistently good results, in terms of pulling numbers which actually resulted in the woman coming out on a date with me. I could finish work at around 4 p.m., do an hour of daygame and - barring bad luck - be sure that I'd harvest at least 2 numbers, one of which was sure to come out on a date. This would be from around 5-10 approaches, depending on my mood, availability of talent, et.c.

Fast foward to today in Hamburg and the picture's a totally different one. Despite putting in hundreds of approaches, I've got nothing to show for it - no makeouts even. I've pulled some women on dates, including a few instadates - mostly foreign and from eastern Europe - but the ROI is depressing me to the point that I'm now looking to move away, even though I've got a full-time job that isn't in itself badly paid at all. I've been forced into the realization that if I want to get laid here, I'm gonna have to go the p4p route, which I'm opposed to for several reasons.

It's almost as if I've become a different person and it has led to wonder whether I haven't changed recently in ways that I'm unaware of, although the biggest factor I'm sure is how the sexual market place is now in bubble territory, excluding all but the most attractive guys from participating.

[SW15]

(04-28-2019 03:53 AM)AntoniusofEfa Wrote:  

If the market seems to be overpriced at the moment (women, housing, tulips, whatever), the best thing to do is to stay away.

I have a close female friend that is 28, and a solid 7. She has no current LTR, and she is freaking out. For years she had disqualified decent guys, some even with serious amounts of money, because they were boring.

She still believes she deserves the best.

Daygame worked for me better in the past, because the market was better priced. Now it's a bubble.

While I use my acquired knowledge of chatting up women whenever the opportunity arises in the rare occurrence of a wink and a smile, I have no motivation what so ever to do cold approaching. It is a soul crushing experience

I did a day game approach on a woman recently at my gym that fit your description nearly exactly. She is 27 and 7-8. I'm 35 and 7 is a fair assessment for me, maybe even slightly conservative. Since it was gym and she's a regular, I did 2 small quick hit chats, then on the third time I chatted with her, I extended the conversation to ~10 minute mark and asked her out. She claimed not to be in a relationship, she claimed that she found me entertaining and fun, but she claimed to also not be in a place where she could handle being in one on one date setting. I felt she had disqualified a decent guy, and being overly fussy. I certainly felt that it was a soul crushing experience, so I truly empathize with how you feel.

You said your female friend feels she deserves the best. I bet the woman I approached at the gym felt that way too, being 27, quite fit, and having a Master's Degree and working in the medical field. I was disappointed that she had a Master's degree but she was that good looking that I did ask her out. I prefer women with no more than a Bachelor's simply because I think that lesser educated women are more reasonable on assessing men. I'm thinking this woman had a bit of an inflated sense of self given her Master's Degree when she had to mention within her first 15 minutes of knowing me. I did not mention my education level to her at all (I have a Master's as well), and I didn't mention my job either. Those are boring conversation topics, and I tried to be interesting and exciting in that interaction (and all interactions) and it still didn't pan out.

When there is an interaction like the one I described, there's certainly a feeling that the market is overpriced. However, dealing with an overpriced female mating market is difficult to do. Expatriating from the United States or another Western nation to South America, Southeast Asia, or Eastern Europe isn't feasible. I still have to participate in the mating market in a major U.S. metropolitan area simply because I need to have sex.

(04-28-2019 04:35 AM)jasond Wrote:  

(04-28-2019 02:48 AM)SW15 Wrote:  

but I'm selling the idea that it is an internet fella swooping simply because internet game isn't working for the majority of guys

Just because internet game isn't working for most guys, doesn't mean it's not working for all guys.

In a city of 1 million people, all you need is 100 "super-studs" each pulling 100+ girls per year via online game (I know a few), to completely disrupt the market for everyone else. In the past, such numbers weren't possible, since nobody can approach 500 girls a day via day or night game. But that's easily doable online, especially if you outsource the operation to professional assistants.

I live in a U.S. city of over 1 million people. This was something I could relate to. I can swipe right on more women on Tinder and Bumble in 2 hours than I could approach in person via day or night game in like 3 months. I wasn't pulling 100 bangs a year when I did Tinder/Bumble game, but I did get a decent quantity of dates from it, but most dates were duds.

(04-28-2019 06:31 AM)jasond Wrote:  

(04-28-2019 04:57 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

Whereas one can try to model sexual market on the unconstrained, capitalist market model

A good analogy that describes the changes in the dating market over the past 10 years, is the shock-therapy that post-communist countries experienced in the 1990s, in their transition to capitalism.

In communist times, goods were distributed relatively equally, and inefficient state-owned companies were able to survive. Similarly, in the past, girls were distributed relatively equally (1 woman to 1 man), and less than ideal guys (SMV 7 or lower) could survive due to market inefficiencies (limited supply of guys that girls can choose from).

The rise of internet dating however, is like the introduction of free-market capitalism to formerly inefficient markets. A male 7 who meets a female 7 at work, can no longer count on her to be interested, since she has 100 male 9's hitting her up on instagram.

Online apps make the sexual marketplace more efficient. And since girls desire to date up, and guys are willing to fuck girls beneath them, that's what you get...a society where everyone is dating girls 2-3 points below their SMV. The male 7 complains he can't get a female 7, because he's probably banging a female 5, and the female 7 he wants is banging the male 9. And most of these higher SMV guys are banging multiple girls, which further restricts the supply of women to lower smv guys.

As a male 7, I find this analysis apt. It is a real dog fight to deal with 6-7 market via internet dating. Not only has this been true since Tinder/Bumble became the major players in the market 2012 and later, I think it was also true in the 2009-2012 before apps when OkCupid, POF, and Match ruled the roost. In the 2009-2012 era, before swipe apps, women were have their inboxes flooded on those sites. Swipe apps did take it to another level. The number of matches that a woman will have on Tinder or Bumble is essentially unconstrained.

I do think that there is some relationship between the swipe apps and potential day game approaches. There seems to be less receptivity to day approaches (probably true of night approaches as well) simply because of the penis pipeline that exists on Tinder/Bumble (that's not even mentioning Instagram either, where thirsty guys are looking to slide into DMs). I am wondering if there is any differentiation created at this point by doing an in-person approach vs doing the whole swiping and texting thing. One might think that being bold and doing an in-person approach on a woman sets a man more apart from the field if he's running contrary game and doing in-person approaches, but if a woman feels her penis pipeline is great from Tinder/Bumble/Instagram, how much value is there in my approach during the day?

[Anchor Man]

(04-28-2019 04:57 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

(04-28-2019 03:53 AM)AntoniusofEfa Wrote:  

If the market seems to be overpriced at the moment (women, housing, tulips, whatever), the best thing to do is to stay away.

The working implicit assumption here is that the market in any domain will "recover". Whereas one can try to model sexual market on the unconstrained, capitalist market model (which has many built-in assumptions, and many inccorrect ones), the former does not depend on the latter. The epistemic, self-regulatory pricing of goods dependant on self-adjusting supply and demand doesn't apply here. As jasond points out, In a city of 1 million people, all you need is 100 "super-studs" each pulling 100+ girls per year via online game (I know a few), to completely disrupt the market. This creates unhealthy imbalance that won't self-correct, just because.

Women won't begin, all of sudden, popping out new, pretty and slim girls, one after the other, just because there's lack of supply of young women - to the contrary, Europe has, on average, a negative demographic growth. On average, it's always half boys, half girls being born anyway, right? Unfortunately, the current politico-socio-economic set up of Western countries (in particular) is such, it favours females over males. With no-fault divorce, the pill, state subsidy, affirmative employment action, non-judgemental sexual activities, economic self-sufficiency due to higher education, sex-on demand offered over the internet at all times, as a consequence, women have little to no incentive to, as they used to, to find a man, be faithful, caring and, generally speaking, relatively good women, as they grandmas or even mums had had.

Say, the skill of cooking - most women have no idea about these days. They don't need do - all you need to do is to shove a ready made into a microwave. Nothing is demanded of women (bar looking good by cosmetics and clothing companies). I look, therefore I am, to paraphrase Descartes. Actually, not even that - a woman can keep enticing suitors online with the best-from-five-years ago pictures sitting on a couch with greasy hair, in her pyjamas and stinking pussy, whilst munching on a third pack of Doritos. Just a decade ago, a woman would have to put effort, doll up, hit a bar in anticipation of a possible romance.

The technology, which improved the quality of life in certain respects, depressed it in others. Ironically, it is men who excel at cooking these days. One of my friends is an excellent cook, a former chef at a Michelin star restaurant, others cook well and healthily too, (and dress well, work-out, and put more effort into bettering themselves then majority of women). My friends' wives and girlfriends suck at cooking. Or they find it a demeaning activity. Making scrambled eggs would be a challenge. A man can't rely on a woman in Western world to be an able cook - it's an abomination for a "modern" woman to cook these days, though what they can do is to take great pictures of food under various angles and post on the instagram. In the past, ability to cook well was a given, a skill that helped attract a man - there was something required to provision for the future family. But I digress.

The supply will keep shrinking until a major societal overhaul to disincentivise females from living a forever "happy go lucky" takes place. If nothing bar good visual appearance is required plus continuous cock supply is there - it will only get worse (as more countries become Westernised). Humans respond to behavioural incentives, if none or few are there, women won't make any effort to make it easier to the bidder because they don't have to.

The paradox of all this is that the men have been a driving force behind the key enablers benefiting women that fucked most men in the proverbial ass, in the end (the microwave invented by Percy Spencer, the pill invented by Gregory Goodwin Pincus, the Tinder app invented by Jonathan Badeen, and so forth, and so on). The men been sawing off the branch they've been sitting and it ain't look pretty.

We'll (us, men) eventually chop that supply-tree to tiny pieces.

Dude, you always have insightful comments. I know your position about daygame. You are advocate for it. Are you still ?

[WannaBang]

I'm surprised there isn't a poll in this thread. Would be fascinated to see the results. I think a lot of people (like yours truly) who complain about day game as bad as it is now as still not being the worst way to meet women. I mean for guys who struggle with day game, how many are killing it with night/social circle/online game these days?

[bgbusiness]

(04-28-2019 10:50 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

I'm surprised there isn't a poll in this thread. Would be fascinated to see the results. I think a lot of people (like yours truly) who complain about day game as bad as it is now as still not being the worst way to meet women. I mean for guys who struggle with day game, how many are killing it with night/social circle/online game these days?

Fair enough, if it's all about the results and progress, you are right.

Doesn't matter which vector or way of meeting girls is the best for one person if they are actually getting results.

[sharksfanguy88]

Curious about who everyone is following for daygame these days in 2019.

Tom Torero and James Tusk on YouTube are incredible.

I've seen a few people recommend Krauser's Daygame Mastery as the go-to book.

Any other good resources?

[ksbms]

(04-28-2019 08:04 PM)sharksfanguy88 Wrote:  

Curious about who everyone is following for daygame these days in 2019.

Tom Torero and James Tusk on YouTube are incredible.

I've seen a few people recommend Krauser's Daygame Mastery as the go-to book.

Any other good resources?

I've seen quite a few Tusk videos, he mostly rips off basics of LDM and he's not, with his looks and physique, a representative sample of what an average man can achieve doing day game, especially with his robo-style.

Not sure about Torero, my wing met him a few times and seems to be a fan of his style but Torero doesn't really do anything more than LDM anyway.

Krauser's definitive set is Daygame Mastery & Infinite. The books are complimentary and worth every penny.

[Heuristics]

Daygame is like door to door sales. Nightgame is like being Don Draper at a long booze soaked prospect lunch. Online game is like ordering a pizza and waiting for it to arrive. Social circle game is like an old school matchmaker or an arranged marriage.

There is a utility in each method of course. And the flaws are readily apparent in each.

If you are in an urban area I think day game is a fantastic option, especially in such an anonymous place as a big city, a straight up proposition comes off as a ballsy old school move that puts you above all the faceless simps on Tinder, etc.

The single most damming thing about daygame is most guys don't have the balls to do it. Also, it is, quite literally, a numbers game. As such I've never met many guys who profess to want women that have ever daygamed--even once.

[Iconoclast007]

For those that are in search of quality over quantity, are up for the challenge and can handle rejection, Day game will yield fantastic results. You need to look at it as a learning experience, it is not for the feint of heart.

I only day game. In Estonia smaller city, it is deadly effective.

I have found that not fapping a week prior to day game sessions is a secret weapon.

[Feldeinsamkeit]

(05-01-2019 09:13 AM)Iconoclast007 Wrote:  

For those that are in search of quality over quantity, are up for the challenge and can handle rejection, Day game will yield fantastic results. You need to look at it as a learning experience, it is not for the feint of heart.

I only day game. In Estonia smaller city, it is deadly effective.

I have found that not fapping a week prior to day game sessions is a secret weapon.

Well, I think this depends on location, including the local SMP dynamics. By way of my own example, I'm getting practically no results from Daygame here Hamburg, whilst in Leipzig I had a lot of success with it. Are you getting more success running daygame there than in the US?

[whiteknightrises]

(03-07-2019 07:21 PM)Tinder Scientist Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 03:36 PM)whiteknightrises Wrote:  

Everything has its ups and downs

(not complete list)
Daygame pros

vs. nightgame
- not being hungover
- not having to go to bars or clubs if you don't like those places

vs. online game
- less competition - any scrub can send a message on an app

vs. social circle
- don't have to be social

Daygame cons

vs. nightgame
- probably more "boring" if you like high-energy environments like clubs

vs. online game
- online you can be doing from your house

vs. social circle
- have to make an impression vs. not try as hard if you are cool and have "social proof"

Need to decide what makes sense based on your personality, lifestyle, etc.

You also forgot to mention that daygame takes considerably more time invested than everything else combined.

Even the best daygamers have terrible meet to bang ratios. 30 to 1 meet-bang ratio is what I read some of the "masters" pull off.

In online game and night game at least you know most women are available or receptive to the approach.

I'm not saying daygame is bad, but if you wanted to get laid in the fastest/most efficient way possible then night game and online game triumph in my opinion.

My point is not valid I guess when you just go through your normal life and take the opportunity to daygame when it presents itself.

In my personal situation

It is pretty much the same shit in the end.

Day: approaching, talking, messaging, date, bang = time
Night: go out, approach, bang = time
Online: swipe, message, date, bang = time

I agree that daygame is more "as you go about your life" but that depends on how much time you have on your hands, how you choose to spend your time, etc.

[Iconoclast007]

I get similar results in terms of quantity in Estonia as I did in the US (lotsa sluts in US) . The quality is leagues better here in Estonia. Ive never been to Germany for long enough periods to speak intelligently about the day game but as culturally fucked as it appears to be (very sad indeed) , it doesnt surprise me its a shitty hunting territory for day game.

I think day game requires a certain mindset, confidence to be effective. Im in sales and handle rejection easily. I am also a hunter. Day game is congruent with my personality as it is like trophy hunting and has sales aspects.

I do not enjoy night game anymore as I dobt drink alcohol and find drunk folks annoying. The competition also tends to be skewed in a females favor of men to women ratios.

Online game is effective but theres no sport in it. I actually enjoy the hunt /pursuot. It also fluffs the ego of my prey.

[SW15]

(05-01-2019 02:55 AM)Heuristics Wrote:  

Daygame is like door to door sales. Nightgame is like being Don Draper at a long booze soaked prospect lunch. Online game is like ordering a pizza and waiting for it to arrive. Social circle game is like an old school matchmaker or an arranged marriage.

There is a utility in each method of course. And the flaws are readily apparent in each.

If you are in an urban area I think day game is a fantastic option, especially in such an anonymous place as a big city, a straight up proposition comes off as a ballsy old school move that puts you above all the faceless simps on Tinder, etc.

The single most damming thing about daygame is most guys don't have the balls to do it. Also, it is, quite literally, a numbers game. As such I've never met many guys who profess to want women that have ever daygamed--even once.

Online game is not ordering a pizza and waiting for it to arrive. Pizza Hut doesn't flake nearly as much and if Pizza Hut behaved nearly as poorly as most females on apps, it would have been out of business a long time ago.

If daygame is door to door sales, which isn't a bad parallel, daygame would be dead. Door to door sales is dead in most industries, and has been dead for decades.

I've daygamed and it is a royal pain. Even the implementation of lifestyle techniques that enhance testosterone don't make daygame that much more enjoyable.

[Iconoclast007]

SW15.

What is your malfunction?

You seem very bitter about game in general. Have you been getting lays with any type of game?

You say day game is a pain... Well things that have intrinsic value tend to have high barriers for entry and difficulty at the beginning.

[sharksfanguy88]

(04-30-2019 06:13 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

I've seen quite a few Tusk videos, he mostly rips off basics of LDM and he's not, with his looks and physique, a representative sample of what an average man can achieve doing day game, especially with his robo-style.

Not sure about Torero, my wing met him a few times and seems to be a fan of his style but Torero doesn't really do anything more than LDM anyway.

I had read that Torero, James Tusk and John Matrix all lived in the same house together to learn - is that true?

I get that Krauser is the LDM godfather, but to be frank, his uploaded videos pale in comparison to James Tusk. I haven't seen anyone doing daygame better than Tusk, the guy is a beast. I don't understand why he doesn't get more respect. The guy is pulling down absolute smokeshows and also uploads all of his rejection videos. Relative to Tusk, some of Krauser's stuff is absolutely painful to watch (no disrespect though!)

(04-30-2019 06:13 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

Krauser's definitive set is Daygame Mastery & Infinite. The books are complimentary and worth every penny.

Great feedback, thank you. I am going to order Mastery. What's the core difference between Infinite and Mastery? Do you really need both?

[subterfuge]

If feel like Tusk has decent game, but people just don't really give him any props because the dude is like 6ft 2, ripped, and with a really handsome face! I have friends who have literally zero game, but they get laid like crazy due to having similar features (although i'm aware taht Tusk does indeed have much better game than them friends)

I feel like Tom Torerro and Krauser both have game, but they both tend to exploit the whole 'hitting on travellers and in forreign countries' angle. It honestly IS a lot easier to get laid like that. I think Torerro is definitely the more impressive of the 2, though. IN one of his products, he is out there banging pretty 17 year old virgins from cold approach and he's like 35 at teh time! And I wouldn't say he's handsome tbh (although ever since he faked teh kiss close video, i've always been slightly skeptical of him). I also feel like verbally, lots of Torerros and Krausers stuff is cringey and they'd struggle more if they weren't hitting mainly on Forreign girls with a bit of a language barrier and where they are given the benefit of the doubt (different culture) for some of their verbals/cold reads etc. I think most local girls would give them a more negative reaction to some of the stuff they say

Tony Hustle is another one. His results are up there with the very best imagineable (if it's true). However, it's been said a few times that he's another very good looking dude. And I often feel like his 'game' is really not a skill. It's opening a girl, telling her she's hot and trying to escalate super fast. All good, but if she thinks you're ugly, that just ain't gonna work! So his game seems a lot less technical to me.

I'm personally a fan of Aaron from evolution Daily. He can be a bit full-on and jokes around lots and does the occasional creepy thing like begging for a kiss after a number close in a food store (!) but I know for a fact that he gets some seriously good results. Helpls that he's OK looking, young looking, and mainly games in a college town full of adventure seeking teens! But he does have a certain skill in terms of conversation, making girls feel comfortable, being 'fun' and funny etc. He's more 'normal' that, say, Krauser. If Krause or Tom had a friend who didn't know what game was, hear what he'd said too a girl in set, his friend would be like ''WTF was that stuff about comparing her too a flamingo and then assuming she does something creative?? Bit weird, mate!'' whereas Aarons friends wouldn't think he'd said anything weird lol

Also Vadeem from Honest Signals always impresses me when I watch him. I'd love to be as chill as him! (in certain situations)