Quote: (02-17-2013 08:30 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Comparing NYC to LA is really just not fair at the fundamental level. The two cities aren't really comparable in any way.

They are totally comparable on the question of “LA is harder to get laid than NYC?”

LA defenders always start getting off the topic and start getting all over the map ie which has better weather, geography, trips to Las Vegas, ability to go rockclimbing, rollerblading, hopscotch, hula hopping, knitting, thumb wars, wood carving etc.

Which, of course, means they already lost.

And they get prone to making outlandish statements to make it seem like the two cities are dead even, like: "LA is just as good as NYC! Sure the clubs close early as f*ck and there are 5 guys to every girl, but all you need is Triple Coated Carmel Cappuccino Whipped Cream Double Back Flip Coffee Shop Day Game in LA!!!!"

(And as we know, saying you need to focus on "Day Game" in a city is just code talk for that city having horrible nightlife.)

It’s a straightforward question with a straightforward answer.

LA has more guys than girls.

NYC has more girls than guys.

LA has horrible logistics.

NYC has great logistics.

LA has a 1:30 last call time.

NYC has a late last call time.

Case closed. NYC is winner by 1st round bloody, career ending KO.

Call the ring doctor. And the ambulance.

To say anything different, you are either being a “hometown fan”, have never spend significant time in both places, or you just want to yap and hear yourself talk.

Like G said West Coast is a GREAT training ground. I literally fucking HATE the early last call time here in LA. It fucks with my money (guy buy less bottles then NYC cuz there's less time to drink) and it doesn't feel right. That's why I almost always go to an afterhours underground spot after the club.

If you can game well in LA you'll do fine in NYC. NYC has better clubs, hotter women and more options.

That being said: Fuck the subway, fuck the coldass weather and fuck the highass rent prices.

NYC Wins but LA works better for me.

Again with repeating the hyped myths.

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

LA has more guys than girls.

The [Los Angeles] male population is 1,173,364, and the female population is 1,182,630.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Data

Reference: http://www.maletofemaleratio.com/wiki/Ca...ngeles.htm

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

NYC has great logistics.

If you live and work (game) in your local community, just like in LA. Otherwise, you're looking at a long subway ride, long cab ride, or frozen traffic jam.

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

NYC has a late last call time.

This only matters if you're talking about night game exclusively which, in every US city is increasingly undesirable (worse ratios, costs, general club/bar bullshit like fatties, bouncers, and cunts). The original question was whether it was harder to get laid in LA than NYC, not whether you could stay out later or, even if this is true, whether to get SNLs there. This doesn't seem predictive of the original question.

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

To say anything different, you are either being a “hometown fan”, have never spend significant time in both places, or you just want to yap and hear yourself talk.

I've spent significant time in both.

If anything this is a draw, depending on what kind of game you work, where you live, how much you spend. When corrected for the amount of money that you spend in Manhattan (on exorbitant rents, cab rides, and general cost-of-doing-business); plus add in the ancillary parts (other boroughs) of New York; the added pain-in-the-ass obstacles like a higher likelihood of roommates; consider the fact that weather can (and is) prohibitive for weeks (if not months) at a time, I'm not convinced that New York is the easier place.

New York in the summer, if you live right in Manhattan (or the right parts of Brooklyn), have decent bankroll, work mostly night game, and are going for SNLs only--then maybe.

Los Angeles year-round, you live in a desirable area, work the local community (equivalent of borough), have tight apartment game, have a car that runs, and work a combination of day/night game--I'm handing that to LA.

Part of the problem is we're comparing apples to oranges. You guys say New York, but you really mean Manhattan. Then you compare that to all of Los Angeles. A better comparison would be something like Manhattan to Santa Monica, or Manhattan to the (new) Downtown, or Williamsburg to Silverlake (which I might hand, to be perfectly frank, to Williamsburg).

Well if we have a Vegas meetup hopefully it won't turn into a recap of Tupac on the strip with this West/East coast rivalry lmao!

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Again with repeating the hyped myths.

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

LA has more guys than girls.

The [Los Angeles] male population is 1,173,364, and the female population is 1,182,630.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Data

Reference: http://www.maletofemaleratio.com/wiki/Ca...ngeles.htm

I think the relevant ratio is SINGLE men to SINGLE women.

Most studies that I have seen have New York (at least, Manhattan) with a more favorable ratio than LA, but I could be wrong.

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Part of the problem is we're comparing apples to oranges. You guys say New York, but you really mean Manhattan. Then you compare that to all of Los Angeles. A better comparison would be something like Manhattan to Santa Monica, or Manhattan to the (new) Downtown, or Williamsburg to Silverlake (which I might hand, to be perfectly frank, to Williamsburg).

Manhattan is its own island, so it does, to some extent, merit its own comparisons. If you ask most people what is "New York," most will actually think of Manhattan.

South Bronx vs. South Central or Flushing Queens vs Anaheim

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I've spent significant time in both.

If anything this is a draw, depending on what kind of game you work, where you live, how much you spend. When corrected for the amount of money that you spend in Manhattan (on exorbitant rents, cab rides, and general cost-of-doing-business); plus add in the ancillary parts (other boroughs) of New York; the added pain-in-the-ass obstacles like a higher likelihood of roommates; consider the fact that weather can (and is) prohibitive for weeks (if not months) at a time, I'm not convinced that New York is the easier place.

New York in the summer, if you live right in Manhattan (or the right parts of Brooklyn), have decent bankroll, work mostly night game, and are going for SNLs only--then maybe.

Los Angeles year-round, you live in a desirable area, work the local community (equivalent of borough), have tight apartment game, have a car that runs, and work a combination of day/night game--I'm handing that to LA.

I wouldn't consider it a "draw," at least not during most of the year (except the winter). LA is cheaper to live in than Manhattan. LA has, in general, warmer weather than Manhattan. However, when it comes to women, Manhattan just has more available women, and that is the only metric that counts.

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Again with repeating the hyped myths.

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

LA has more guys than girls.

The [Los Angeles] male population is 1,173,364, and the female population is 1,182,630.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Data

Reference: http://www.maletofemaleratio.com/wiki/Ca...ngeles.htm

Ok this is skewed because of the bad parts of town.

http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/los-angeles/zi...-ratio.htm

Maybe you are swooping in Inglewood. I didn't know that.

Not to mention 90% of the posts from LA guys on the forum talk about horrible ratios.

The point is the male female ratio in Los Angeles is atrocious compared to NYC.

Quote:Quote:

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

NYC has great logistics.

If you live and work (game) in your local community, just like in LA. Otherwise, you're looking at a long subway ride, long cab ride, or frozen traffic jam.

If you think LA has great logistics, I can't help you there.

Quote:Quote:

Quote: (02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

NYC has a late last call time.

This only matters if you're talking about night game exclusively which, in every US city is increasingly undesirable (worse ratios, costs, general club/bar bullshit like fatties, bouncers, and cunts).

This is a very LA way of thinking. It doesn't surprise me that you have this perspective. Your very own words time and time again make the best case for NYC.

Let a person from LA continue to talk, and the truth always comes out (ie Sharkeez, or saying:

Quote:Quote:

quote='Tuthmosis' pid='373566' dateline='1361147944']

It's harder to call bullshit on NYC, and give specific reasons why a lot of what you hear is exaggerated by hype.

Someone in NYC would have a very different perspective on nightlife and swooping which is the whole point of the discussion.

Quote:Quote:

I've spent significant time in both.

I didn't realize you spent so much time in NYC.

I must have been on break when you were burning up the forum with NYC Data Sheets.

Maybe you can repost, so I know which places to avoid next time I am in NYC.

----

Alright.

Let's flip the script.

How many of you would prefer LA over NYC if LA had shitty weather , no rockclimbing, and no beaches?

How many of you would prefer NYC over LA if NYC had great weather and nice beaches?

Check mate.

Or should we bust out a poll for the people to weigh in and make it official?

This is almost like debating which city is better for swooping fly French girls?

Paris, France or Zanesville, OH?

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:35 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  

Well if we have a Vegas meetup hopefully it won't turn into a recap of Tupac on the strip with this West/East coast rivalry lmao!

I don't take this debate that seriously, which I think is the case for G and the others in it too. That's part of the reason I'm in it. It's fun to have, and I think there's some value in chopping it up and pushing back on some of the hype around New York--which very few people do. I acknowledge that some of that hype is deserved, but some of it isn't.

LA, when you find your angle, can be extraordinarily productive. The kind of stuff you see in the video are reminiscent of the complaints of guys who work the totally wrong angles, standing in line at bottle-service Hollywood clubs on Saturday nights. I think the difference between New York and LA is like the difference between learning English and learning Mandarin. English is easy to understand and everyone gets it. It's a proud, effective--if direct and lacking in poetic flourish--language. Mandarin is complicated, uses a different character set, and is a tonal language. That doesn't mean Mandarin can't be used to express ideas effectively, and certain nuances more effectively than you can in English.

Get an apartment in Mid-Wilshire. Hit up the Trader Joe's and Whole Foods and run some day game (actually, afternoon game). The talent there is mind-blowing. And, these aren't all actresses. These are college chicks, dancers, office workers. Work the cafes Al-Fresco style. Just walking the streets during the dog-walking times (5:30-7:30p) is a sight. Stop a few of those chicks. Hit up the bars on Melrose (east of La Cienega) or West Hollywood (for the fruit flies) during the week. Find bars to take the chicks you swoop, bounce them back to your apartment. If your game is reasonably tight, you'll have a stream of prospects.

That's one angle, there are more, and better, ones.

Guys can't unlock the logistics of LA because they're using NY logic (concentrated, centralized city) there. It's a different type of city. It's a different language.

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:50 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

I must have been on break when you were burning up the forum with NYC Data Sheets.

I've done very few (if any) location data sheets. It's not what I bring here.

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:50 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

How many of you would prefer LA over NYC if LA had shitty weather , no rockclimbing, and no beaches?

How many of you would prefer NYC over LA if NYC had great weather and nice beaches?

This is a fantasy scenario that doesn't exist. Let's compare real situations and locations.

Quote: (02-17-2013 10:50 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Or should we bust out a poll for the people to weigh in and make it official?

This has been my point from the start. Most people believe that NYC is the clear favorite. I'm pushing back against the conventional wisdom. A poll would only prove what I've been asserting all along.

It's easy to defend NYC, you have half the world calling it the best city in the universe. I'm making a different--and automatically more difficult--case.

G:
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I love the Zanesville, Ohio references. I've been to Zanesville. It's horrible. It's nothing. I spent a total of at least a month in the Zanesville area during the first fifteen years of my life. As far as I can remember, I haven't been back there since the summer after freshman year of high school, so I'm not in a position to bust out a Zanesville Data Sheet. I don't know why I would want to anyway except to tell people to stay the hell away from the place.

Quote: (02-17-2013 11:02 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

It's a different type of city. It's a different language.

Agreed 100%.

LA for swooping is like Adolf Hitler yelling German in your ear.

NYC for swooping is like a French Model Girl whispering in it.

Quote: (02-17-2013 11:26 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

I'm not in a position to bust out a Zanesville Data Sheet.

Fuck that. Bust out a data sheet.

I hope you all recognize that I'm holding my own up in here. This is basically the equivalent of a Battle Royale, with me against a hockey team's worth of New York boosters. But I'm the Hulkster, in a state of full-on Hulkamania--who ate his vitamins and said his prayers.



Watch me in action:

[quote] (02-17-2013 10:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Again with repeating the hyped myths.

[quote='thegmanifesto' pid='373637' dateline='1361154291']
LA has more guys than girls.


The [Los Angeles] male population is 1,173,364, and the female population is 1,182,630.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Data[/quote]

I know this is just a minute sidepoint but something doesn't add up here unless I'm confusing US geography. Quick search on US Census site shows a total population for city of LA as 3.792mm, general Google search shows 3.8mm as well, your number above totals 2.356mm.

US Census site shows net 14,493 more women than men overall. However, there are 71,000 or 79,000 more women than men at ages 40+ and 45+ respectively, meaning a deficit at ages younger than that.

Quote: (02-18-2013 02:43 AM)phoenix101 Wrote:  

[quote] (02-17-2013 10:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Again with repeating the hyped myths.

(02-18-2013, 02:24 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  LA has more guys than girls.


The [Los Angeles] male population is 1,173,364, and the female population is 1,182,630.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Data

I know this is just a minute sidepoint but something doesn't add up here unless I'm confusing US geography. Quick search on US Census site shows a total population for city of LA as 3.792mm, general Google search shows 3.8mm as well, your number above totals 2.356mm.

US Census site shows net 14,493 more women than men overall. However, there are 71,000 or 79,000 more women than men at ages 40+ and 45+ respectively, meaning a deficit at ages younger than that.

These numbers are all misleading. When we say "L.A." we are talking about the overall metropolitan area which includes a ton of areas that aren't officially part of Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Inglewood, etc. and aren't even included in the city's population count. The metro area population, or IOW what most people think of when they hear "L.A." is 13 million. And depending on what you include as part of the greater metro area that number can go as high as 18 million.

Quote: (02-17-2013 08:19 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

The sad part is, Tampa crushes both places in terms of weather, easy poosy and cost of living.

From my 5 days in Tampa last year I'd say that
while the clams might be easily grabbed in the city the quality isn't even comparable to even NYC's outer areas. And the logistics are bloody murder, if you're in the wrong place at night and pick a spot that's dead you're facing 30 drive to another area.

The hottest talent I saw there was northeast tourists (even I can spot a Boston accent).

With that said however, Tampa is incredibly cost effective, your CPN will almost be on par with parts of SEA.

Quote: (02-17-2013 08:19 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

The sad part is, Tampa crushes both places in terms of weather, easy poosy and cost of living.

From my 5 days in Tampa last year I'd say that
while the clams might be easily grabbed in Tampa the quality isn't even comparable to NYC's outer areas.

The hottest talent I saw there was northeast tourists (even I can spot a Boston accent).

For the unfamiliar observer, can someone break down the basic tenets of 'bro game' as used by patrons of Sharkeez?

Quote: (02-17-2013 11:02 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I don't take this debate that seriously, which I think is the case for G and the others in it too.

I hope your are joking.

I mean I was posting pictures of guys dying of thirst in the desert and Mexican M*fia as reasons to avoid LA.

---

Here is the funniest thing about this thread: I don't have a dog in this fight.

I don't currently live in either city. (I am now in a city that defeats both).

In fact, I should be rightfully defending LA. But I am not a "hometown fan" prone to irrational arguments just to defend a place even when I know it's worse.

If I really wanted to benefit myself, I would be telling guys to move to LA.

That way it could go from 5 guys to 1 girl to 10 guys to one girl.

Sharkeez would go from 20 guys to one girl to 50 guys to one girl (Tuth's favorite bar).

And unlike what Tuth says, guys usually believe LA is way better than NYC. LA has the propaganda machine. Hell, that is why there are so many guys in LA compared to NYC.

This is why it is called Los Mangeles.

The only reason why Tuth thinks NYC has the better reputation is because he lives in LA and deep down he knows NYC's superiority.

But ask a guy from Zanesville, OH? He will say LA is better.

Objectively, NYC is so much better than LA it is not really a comparison.

So I can't lie to you guys just for my own personal benefit.

The fact that this thread is still going on is hilarious. I don't know how you can force your opinion onto another person who has their own preferences. You either think one or the other is better and that's pretty much it.

Personally, I couldn't live in Los Angeles. I used to dig it when I was younger and into the music industry but after traveling the world and spending time in other places I found it to be pretty empty. It's actually quite telling that I never visited the city during the time I lived in San Francisco. I never even thought about the place. Crazy how different those cities are.

That said, I also couldn't live in NYC for long, but I like it much more than LA. The pace of life in the Big Apple is intense and many parts of the city are dirty. It's also completely urban which is why I liked SF because it has an urban setting surrounded by nature. If you're talking about chicks though I think it's a no-brainer. NYC has every ethnicity and nationality in the world represented there. And for tourism which city even comes close? New York is every European's big city dream and small town people the world over. Lots of exotic mixes that you have never heard of are not uncommon there.

Some interesting insights:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/the-10-ma...k-and-l-a/

http://thecorner33.blogspot.com/2010/02/nyc-vs-la.html

Quote: (02-18-2013 05:59 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote: (02-17-2013 08:19 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

The sad part is, Tampa crushes both places in terms of weather, easy poosy and cost of living.

From my 5 days in Tampa last year I'd say that
while the clams might be easily grabbed in the city the quality isn't even comparable to even NYC's outer areas. And the logistics are bloody murder, if you're in the wrong place at night and pick a spot that's dead you're facing 30 drive to another area.

The hottest talent I saw there was northeast tourists (even I can spot a Boston accent).

With that said however, Tampa is incredibly cost effective, your CPN will almost be on par with parts of SEA.

There probably is better top shelf talent in NYC, but how accessible are they to the average player? The girls in Tampa have very little bitch shields. As far as diversity, people that immigrate to the East Coast end up in Tampa or NYC. I saw 9's in Publix down there with EE accents.

I still dream of spending time in NYC, but natives from there have told me to plan on no more than a year stint, as it will wear on you. I can see that. LA wore on me. Tampa is more laid back, period. And yeah, the COS is a fraction of the other two.

Another observation of Tampa is everyone there isn't from there, so people seemed more open to you being a newbie. Total opposite from LA, and I can't speak of in NYC from not having enough time, but they did love my accent and were open to conversation. And that's all I need. But the novelty factor can run out quick, as we all know.

Friday around 5pm try to leave my apartment, have to wait 6 minutes for the traffic flow to allow my car to get out.
Friday around 11:45pm, we are driving to the bar and have to pass through a DUI checkpoint.