[idane]

Based on my post here:

thread-54529.html

I will soon have to crank up my pipelining, tinder and online dating skills. I have some experience with it, but have not applied it to a great degree. However, I have noted the following:

1. She and I can have great online chemistry which results in a real world meetup. There is a mutual attraction.
2. Once we meet for real, there is a big chance that there is no chemistry at all. Everything feels wrong and awkward. Example: She does not engage in the conversation, has to check her phone all the time etc etc. Due to bad chemistry we split and nothing further happens.
   

Side note: Roosh mentiones in his audio series, that if you have a success rate of more than 50% in terms of phone numbers from daygame/nightgame you are doing REALLY well.

What is your estimated success rate going from online -> real world? In the poll try to reflect back on all your real world meetups (based on online gaming such as tinder, dating sites etc) and estimate how often it felt "right" and how often it felt "wrong". Do not consider whether the meetup resulted in a bang, multiple bangs, being friends etc.

Because a poll can only contain 10 options I am limited heavily into making it detailed: Success rate in different parts of the world, did mutual real world chemistry result in a bang, or nothing? I tried to differentiate between the western world and the rest of the world - although it is not perfect. You should be able to make multiple choices (please, max 2).

[The Black Knight]

(03-24-2016 04:49 AM)idane Wrote:  

Based on my post here:

thread-54529.html

I will soon have to crank up my pipelining, tinder and online dating skills. I have some experience with it, but have not applied it to a great degree. However, I have noted the following:

1. She and I can have great online chemistry which results in a real world meetup. There is a mutual attraction.
2. Once we meet for real, there is a big chance that there is no chemistry at all. Everything feels wrong and awkward. Example: She does not engage in the conversation, has to check her phone all the time etc etc. Due to bad chemistry we split and nothing further happens.
   

Side note: Roosh mentiones in his audio series, that if you have a success rate of more than 50% in terms of phone numbers from daygame/nightgame you are doing REALLY well.

What is your estimated success rate going from online -> real world? In the poll try to reflect back on all your real world meetups (based on online gaming such as tinder, dating sites etc) and estimate how often it felt "right" and how often it felt "wrong". Do not consider whether the meetup resulted in a bang, multiple bangs, being friends etc.

Because a poll can only contain 10 options I am limited heavily into making it detailed: Success rate in different parts of the world, did mutual real world chemistry result in a bang, or nothing? I tried to differentiate between the western world and the rest of the world - although it is not perfect. You should be able to make multiple choices (please, max 2).

I'm going to cut you a break and assume English isn't your first language.

I have a vast amount of online experience. This is the bottom line:

Online interaction and "chemistry" don't mean shit or correlate to real life chemistry. Period.

The only reliable and consistent indicator was how a brief phone call went prior to meeting person. If the phone call went well, the date went well (unless there wasn't mutual physical attraction; which did happen from time to time). If the phone call was shit, the date was shit.

99% of the time, the vibe of the phone call correlated to how the in-person meet would go. I eventually learned to not bother even meeting women when the vibe on the phone was lukewarm, bad, boring, or a struggle; despite a positive and warm interaction online. When I doubted myself and went on dates with women where the phone call vibe was off, it never ended well except with an a few rare exceptions. If I had gone and met women based on online interactions alone, I would have wasted epics amounts of time chasing bad leads.

[XPQ22]

(03-24-2016 05:55 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I have a vast amount of online experience. This is the bottom line:

Online interaction and "chemistry" don't mean shit or correlate to real life chemistry. Period.

Agreed. If you neglect serial daters who just about nobody has a chance with anyway, I'd estimate my online dating number close to date where it felt "right" percentage is no more than 50%, i.e. no better or worse than just flipping a coin. And that's using OKCupid - while some people make fun of the "match" questions, I've found they're actually fairly decent in predicting whether you'll get along with a person. Pretty much all the girls I've banged from that site I matched with at "90%" or higher. But even with that you still get duds that you "match" highly with quite a bit.

If you want to not waste time with online game, you really do have to prescreen pretty hard. Don't just meet up with every ho whose pics pass the boner test and tosses a number your way. That's how guys get frustrated with the process.

[CleanSlate]

Less than 25%

Perhaps anecdotal, but the girls whom I have had fantastic real life chemistry with in SEA were barely blips on my radar when I was pipelining.

More often than not, superb online chemistry ends up as a flop in real life.

[Latan]

From my point of view "online chemistry" is nothing ore than your imagination combined with your horniness while looking at the girl's pics.
I never saw any correlation between "online chemistry" and real life one.

Better just ignore it, and see the girl as someone you just met 1 second before the meetup.

[General Stalin]

How a girl portrays herself in her online profile and over chat/txt mostly does not translate to real life. Some girls may seem sweet, bright, and cheery in their self-summary and over text but may be dull, cold, and even a little bitchy in person. On the flipside I've been with girls who were short and robotic over text and profiles left much to be desired, but were sweet, feminine, and cheery in person.

A lot of girls (and guys too) go through a heavy filter in impersonal interactions. Online you can be who you want to be and proofread everything - and on the other side of the coin a lot of people are bad at conveying who they really are with texts and pictures.

Real life chemistry trumps all.

[WalkingMan]

(03-24-2016 08:19 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 05:55 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

I have a vast amount of online experience. This is the bottom line:

Online interaction and "chemistry" don't mean shit or correlate to real life chemistry. Period.

while some people make fun of the "match" questions, I've found they're actually fairly decent in predicting whether you'll get along with a person. Pretty much all the girls I've banged from that site I matched with at "90%" or higher. But even with that you still get duds that you "match" highly with quite a bit.

If you want to not waste time with online game, you really do have to prescreen pretty hard. Don't just meet up with every ho whose pics pass the boner test and tosses a number your way. That's how guys get frustrated with the process.

Did you shotgun messages to as many girls as you could daily? Or were you much more selective?

Also, how honest were you with the match questions? In the past I went full red-pill just to see what would happen.

My answers leaned towards more "traditional" ideas ("Yes, she would be a slut," etc.). While at the same time I was also honest about my sexual preferences. I wanted a hardcore screening profile.

Then I spam messaged at least 30 women a night for a week or so.

Rarely ever got a reply back and had low match percentages with most girls.

However, I ended up really hitting it off with a low-to-mid match % girl who was already texting me nudes before we met. Our chemistry was great online and even better on the phone.

We talked a lot, even while she spent a few days on vacation overseas. And in a few days we segued easily into phone sex. Probably because she brought something up that I answered in my profile.

Unfortunately she was a bit on the crazy side and the subsequent date was the worst I've ever been on. It ended with her ranting about feminism and complaining about dating as a black woman. Never talked to her again.

It was a learning experience. Next time I'd like to try three different profiles with different questions answered and see how far I get with the women I attract from them.

[262]

(03-24-2016 12:18 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

How a girl portrays herself in her online profile and over chat/txt mostly does not translate to real life. Some girls may seem sweet, bright, and cheery in their self-summary and over text but may be dull, cold, and even a little bitchy in person. On the flipside I've been with girls who were short and robotic over text and profiles left much to be desired, but were sweet, feminine, and cheery in person.

A lot of girls (and guys too) go through a heavy filter in impersonal interactions. Online you can be who you want to be and proofread everything - and on the other side of the coin a lot of people are bad at conveying who they really are with texts and pictures.

Real life chemistry trumps all.

The above is one of the factors why I picked up day game and ditched online game.

It's also why I meet forum members in person when I get the chance.

[Rhyme or Reason]

(03-24-2016 12:18 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

Real life chemistry trumps all.

Exactly. Just like texting should only be used for logistics, so it is with online "chemistry". All the chatting and "bonding" done up until the meet is meaningless once you actually meet the chick. The score gets set back to zero from there. I'd even take it a step further and say that more time spent talking and "connecting" online could actually work against you, since you are investing time in a hitherto non intimate interaction. It's signaling to her hindbrain that you don't have options and thus see it as worthwhile to invest time into someone you may not even meet.

[Mercenary]

I fully agree with most posts here that chemistry before you meet someone in real life is total bullshit. I have never had good chemistry on the phone or online with a girl that ever stayed good once we met. Never.

However, I don't mean to derail or hijack this thread....but I have a variation on the OPs original question.

Once you have met and banged a girl repeatedly on various occasions (and/or she is one of your plates) and you have established that in real life you do have chemistry....can you then have also have chemistry on the phone or online afterwards if you live apart ? Is it even necessary ?

I ask because I do have some plates that I dont get to see very often as they live far away. With some of them the dialogue is great, with others its pretty awful. We struggle to say anything interesting to eachother. But both types will still let me bang them when we meet.

So im wondering:

Is any sort of regular contact with a girl you're already banging (that isn't logistical) essentially pointless ?

or

Do you need a minimum amount of semi regular contact with your plates so they doesn't mentally "move on" ?

[RatInTheWoods]

If you actually take the time to send and receive a half dozen thoughtful probing emails, the chemistry is >75%

I can usually discard the poor candidates at the profile stage, emails are just another vetting layer to ensure I don't waste time with a meetup if she shows red flags on emails.

As others have said, the last layer before meetup is the phone call.

[monster]

This is one of the the things that pisses me off most about online dating: it's that less than a 1/4 of the online dates have any chemistry at all but at the same time just to get a girl to agree to go on a simple date is like pulling teeth.

I can't help but think girls know that there's a 50/50 chance there won't be chemistry, but then at the same time they're actively looking to date but they don't want to go on dates to see if there's anything there

Earlier today, there was a girl I bantered with off over several days on Tinder then I ask if she wants to meetup and grab a coffee to see how it is face-to-face. She says "no." I'm like wtf, why and she responds while you don't seem genuinely interested in me because you haven't asked enough questions and you also didn't give any thought to our first date so chose something as boring as coffee. I'm thinking: WTF - the purpose of a first date from tinder is just to see if there's fucking chemistry and if there's not it's easy to bail after a few minutes in a coffee shop.

I'm really ready to give up on this Tinder shit and just go offline. It's a time suck and the ROI is piss poor.

The bottom line to me is that these dating apps match you at a very superficial level and there's chemistry maybe 1/4-1/3 of a time. I'm of the persuasion that I genuinely want to see if there's chemistry as soon as possible. But most girls for me at least, it takes a solid 2 hrs of communication just to get em to warm up enough to meet, then 50% of them flake on that. Then assuming you have a 25% good-chemistry rate, the ROI just sucks.

[General Stalin]

(03-24-2016 05:20 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Is any sort of regular contact with a girl you're already banging (that isn't logistical) essentially pointless ?

or

Do you need a minimum amount of semi regular contact with your plates so they doesn't mentally "move on" ?

In my experience, it depends on the score. A lot of girls are down with basically just being fuck buddies and will only contact you to "chill" and vice versa. There are other girls that will drop off if there isn't a vibe that you are kind of "dating" eachother.

I treat it as a case by case basis. Generally girls like texting, so let her hit you up and respond accordingly if she wants to exchange pics or fun little texts whatever.

[XPQ22]

(03-24-2016 02:47 PM)WalkingMan Wrote:  

Did you shotgun messages to as many girls as you could daily? Or were you much more selective?

Nope, I don't shotgun/spam message girls. I sniper. I spend about 45 minutes a day browsing through pics, find about 4 or 5 cuties that I like that I "match" well with and don't have cuntish/weird/ultra-feminist profiles, and then write an opening message tailored to it. I have several themes/tropes that I work off in my head and adapt those themes to a particular girl, like adapting resumes to a job.

I've gotten pretty good at it over the past 8 months of doing it almost daily. If I see a girl with a pic I like, my total time investment from clicking on the pic, deciding if her profile makes her seem like a girl who would be down for quick sex/is similar to other girls I've laid, and devising a clever opening message of a couple sentences that's unique to her and sending it averages around 90 seconds.

I try to always hit up girls whose profiles list them as "online." That usually means their checking their iPhone for push notifications.

Two lays, one a "6" (who is now my ongoing fuckbuddy, banged her five times in the past 3 weeks at her place), one a "7", and one "8" whom I didn't fuck, but gave me fantastic head and begged me to cum on her face all in the past month, so at least in my opinion this strategy has been working out OK.

Quote:

Also, how honest were you with the match questions? In the past I went full red-pill just to see what would happen.

Pretty honest. The end result is I "match" highly with a lot of feminists, but I also "match" highly with a lot of poly/hipster/indie/tattooed rocker girls who aren't hardcore feminists, but are educated and also DTF.

I "match" highly with feminists, but in their minds it would be for the wrong reasons. Why would I "slut shame"? I love sluts. Why would I like "traditional" gender roles? I have no desire to be a provider slave at the moment.

The double-standard of feminism is readily apparent in online game here in the belly of the beast, one constantly sees profiles that say something like "Message me if you agree feminism is good for men" and I want to say "Yeah! It is great. The sexual revolution was great. I can bang out girls after two hours of conversation at a bar" and they'd be like "Wait! No! We're the ones who are supposed to have the sexual freedom, while you're supposed to all stay in the provider role! You can lay girls whenever you want?! That's not how it was supposed to work! Shit. SHIT"

I have about ten pages worth of girls around here whom I match with at 90% or better, in just a 25 mile radius. There's an enormous amount of talent, I could never have time to message them all. If I set the distance to 50 miles and age range 23-32 I have like 2 pages full of just 99% "matches."

Which is likely the reason night game sort of blows around here. They're all online.

Quote:

My answers leaned towards more "traditional" ideas ("Yes, she would be a slut," etc.). While at the same time I was also honest about my sexual preferences. I wanted a hardcore screening profile.

Then I spam messaged at least 30 women a night for a week or so.

Rarely ever got a reply back and had low match percentages with most girls.

However, I ended up really hitting it off with a low-to-mid match % girl who was already texting me nudes before we met. Our chemistry was great online and even better on the phone.

Interesting. I might try making a second profile which uses this approach and see what happens. But the Boston area is feminist central, and almost every really attractive, intelligent girl around here has feminist leanings of some type. I'm pretty sure that if I answered the questions the way you do, I'd mostly match highly with suburban "bogans" (as our Australian friends call them) who are 32 and work at Dunkin Donuts. They're mostly unattractive single mom "No hookups!" "I'm a hopeless romantic looking to marry a rich guy" types who, at the end of the day, are far more annoying and harder lays than SWPL soft-feminist college girls in their 20s.

I have a Plenty Of Fish profile that I've been using where I've made a straight up "player asshole" profile, where I don't have to answer a bunch of "match" questions, when I feel like grinding away at the "sexy single mom who works at Bed, Bath, and Beyond in the suburbs" talent around here. I pretty much exclusively target single moms/divorcees under 30 on POF who say they're "looking to date but nothing serious."

Got one blowjob from there but no bang yet. I'm still working on the "POF Lay" project, but I haven't invested much time lately. My response rate is actually overall lower than on OKC.

[XPQ22]

(03-24-2016 08:32 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

In my experience, it depends on the score. A lot of girls are down with basically just being fuck buddies and will only contact you to "chill" and vice versa. There are other girls that will drop off if there isn't a vibe that you are kind of "dating" eachother.

I treat it as a case by case basis. Generally girls like texting, so let her hit you up and respond accordingly if she wants to exchange pics or fun little texts whatever.

Most of my plates/fuckbuddies (which has amounted to only three so far) have expected that I BS with them over text at least once every other day for a few minutes, and take the effort to at least take them out on a traditional "date" where we go to dinner or a movie or some other fun event, every week or two.

Usually it has played out tit-for tat: I drive over to her place to just "Netflix and chill" one night where she cooks me food, then she'll expect I cover a dinner out for both of us pretty soon down the road.

[General Stalin]

I've had all over the spectrum. I've had girls that don't like to "hook-up" but want to "date." Those are the ones that need a level of emotional investment beyond just hanging out to have sex, and want to get to know you, talk to you, and do things with you. I've also had girls that come straight over and fuck, and we only ever text when one of us wants to get laid. Like I said really depends on the girl.

A lot of it likely depends on your vibe too. I try to be relatively fluid with girls and will give them a bit of what they like along with my personality. Some girls respond well to being a bit of a dickhead who doesn't care much about them. Some girls respond well to a little bit of beta game.

If you are robotically consistent in your interactions with every female then you will seem a little 1-dimensional and will tend to only click with specific kinds of chicks (unless you are super good looking and/or your 1-dimension is pretty awesome so girls will mold themselves to you regardless).

I can be a funny sarcastic life-of-the party kind of guy. I can be a brooding deep-thinker and philosopher. I can be the artistic music guy who goes on and on about my passion for expression. I can be the provider-type who makes good money, drives a nice car, and affords a comfortable life. Etc.

In reality I'm all of those things to one degree or another, as I try to stray away from the "fake it till you make it" approach, but I also recognize that different girls respond better to different parts of who I am so I just bring those parts out more with those girls.