rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.
#26

Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.

Most of my friends who have moved out to Pittsburgh/Detriot (outside Detroit) in the 27-33 age range, who work in Finance/Technical fields are pretty happy. They are making $100K+ with low housing costs, abundance of females, and a pretty decent lifestyles. I know that both are Tier 2 cities (at best) but if your money goes farther and your banging a new girl each time, I can get used to that.
Reply
#27

Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.

IMO, Boston is the hidden gem in this forum. Even just doing daygame on its various college campuses (pretty much all i do, and i'm just an amateur), you can get young college girls easily.
For a while, i wondered why there's a relative lack of talk about Boston and its datasheet. My conclusion is that it's because there aren't many players here! (and hence why Boston is an easy place for beginners: lack of player competition) As you can see in this forum, the players are hitting NYC, Miami, LA... but Boston somehow escapes their attention. I'm happy to let this secret out. So, playas.... go get Boston [Image: smile.gif]

It could use better weather though. Boston with LA or even SF weather would make it the best player capital imo (if you're into younger girls)
Reply
#28

Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.

Quote: (02-07-2013 01:54 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

These 'studies' are always the WORST. I lived in a neighborhood that was heralded as the best place in America for singles, and it was absolutely terrible for picking up girls. Guys I respect routinely agree with me on that area, so it's not like I'm an outlier on it. The words of a trusted player are far more valuable than these reams of analysis. I'm a guy who tends to buy studies and analyses too, but these are always bullshit.

Yeah, these lists are what you come up with by looking solely at statistics.

I remember one of these lists had Coronado, CA as #1 in America for Rich, Young, Singles or something like that.

If you know Coronado, CA it was the most laughable thing ever.

The strictly looked at the numbers.

1. Rich - They got this part from all the older retirees.

2. Young - They got this from the military presence.

3. Singles - Military presence and old people that their spouse died off.

So basically they just looked at the numbers and came up with it as #1 in America for Rich, Young, Singles, even though there isn't a single individual who is Rich, Young, and Single in Coronado, CA.

It might be the worst place in America for Rich, Young, Singles.
Reply
#29

Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.

Agree with all of gmanifesto comments above.

These lists aren't even worth reading, people just run stats. Stats don't mean shit, running game isn't like picking a pitcher in baseball.
Reply
#30

Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.

DC....filled with WAY too many unbangable fat nerds...
Reply
#31

Boston #1, WashDC #3 cities for single men, SF #1 for women. NYC unranked.

Somebody more mathematically inclined than I am should set the BAR (Bangs Above Replacement) for cities and update them every year.

A basic desirability level could be set if the statisticians of the forum control for the variables we all know are ignored in these polls funded by the tourism boards.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)