[Hotwheels]

(04-07-2013 04:01 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 03:48 PM)w00t Wrote:  

Yeah I read his book and thats what he says himself. His whole game is an "industrial" style of pick up (his words). Going for massive numbers and screening for chicks who are DTF. He doesnt even do dates, instead he has them come up straight to his apartment.

However playing huge numbers is basically his game, he doesnt invest in sets at all, just grabs the number and moves on. His looks certainly help in the quality of chicks he scores. Oh and he also advocates going for chicks who "you wouldnt mind banging" and not just go for the top shelf material. He wrote in his book that he gets about 40 numbers a week and gets the number from every second or third chick. So thats 80-120 approaches what else is that if not massive numbers game?

I broke your block of text into 2 paragraphs.

Do you see how the first paragraph complete refutes the second paragraph?

If not, think it over. You'll get it soon enough.

It's all about being efficient.

I do the same with broads online. I screen them hard and if they fall out I haven't wasted time meeting them for fucking coffee at some trendy java house. Instead I am with a broad that is DTF.

[MikeCF]

(04-08-2013 03:12 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 04:01 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 03:48 PM)w00t Wrote:  

Yeah I read his book and thats what he says himself. His whole game is an "industrial" style of pick up (his words). Going for massive numbers and screening for chicks who are DTF. He doesnt even do dates, instead he has them come up straight to his apartment.

However playing huge numbers is basically his game, he doesnt invest in sets at all, just grabs the number and moves on. His looks certainly help in the quality of chicks he scores. Oh and he also advocates going for chicks who "you wouldnt mind banging" and not just go for the top shelf material. He wrote in his book that he gets about 40 numbers a week and gets the number from every second or third chick. So thats 80-120 approaches what else is that if not massive numbers game?

I broke your block of text into 2 paragraphs.

Do you see how the first paragraph complete refutes the second paragraph?

If not, think it over. You'll get it soon enough.

It's all about being efficient.

I do the same with broads online. I screen them hard and if they fall out I haven't wasted time meeting them for fucking coffee at some trendy java house. Instead I am with a broad that is DTF.

Yes.

The best golfers, boxers, and other sportsmen are the most efficient.

Would you say someone with an efficient swing or punch or footwork had good game?

Of course.

So when a guy is using a method to screen out the prudes, he is not just "running numbers." He is using technique and strategy, i.e., game.

[soup]

(04-06-2013 09:11 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I want to give props to Janka because I emailed him a couple questions and he emailed me back answers pretty quick a year or two ago.

I asked something like

1) "Why isn't there a chick shortage in NYC ( Manhattan) when rents are about the highest anywhere?"
"Their dads subsidize the rent." ( specifically didn't say "parents", he said "dads.")

2) "How can you screen for kinky chicks so you don't waste time with vanillas?"
"Bold, sexual texts."

What did he write back?

[Divorco]

(04-08-2013 03:33 AM)w00t Wrote:  

He plays huge numbers and goes for the easy girls,

Yes. Janka is a tall, handsome, Harvard (physics) grad who dresses well. His apartment is small, but centrally located and prepared for seduction.

He runs errands in Manhattan and sees literally hundreds of women during the day. Good-looking + easy access + bold = many phone numbers. He mass-texts sixty in the afternoon, asking to meet for a drink near his place. Then he waits for responses and double- or triple-books the most promising/desperate/drunk/horny.

Getting Laid in NYC


I went on a "date" with self-professed "Casanova" Paul Janka last night ... to his apartment.

He commenced pawing me. ... tried to grab at my crotch. When I covered myself with his blanket for protection, ... he felt at ease to start jerking off ... underneath the blanket

"I don't [buy drinks] anymore. I ran the numbers, and it just wasn't worth the cost. "Three drinks for her, plus seltzers for me, that's sixty bucks, times five times a day is $300..."

Anyway I left pretty quickly after that. ... So insatiable was his need last night that he actually donned his American Apparel jacket and left his apartment when I did, headed for some destination across town.

Paul Janka Did Not Rape Me Last Night

Emily, ... went on a date with him [because she] ... saw a Gawker post and ... wondered what it was like to hang out with a pile of shit. Paul doesn't even dispute her claim that he grabbed her, pinned her down, tried to fingerfuck her, and shoved his tongue in her mouth.

"I'd say going on a date under false pretenses is pretty underhanded, wouldn't you? I'm not interested in disputing her account, tit-for-tat. Suffice it to say she's spun it to serve her interests."
Paul Janka Brushes Off Attempted Date-Rape Charge

[Divorco]

(04-08-2013 04:47 PM)Divorco Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 03:33 AM)w00t Wrote:  

He plays huge numbers and goes for the easy girls,

Yes. Janka is a tall, handsome, Harvard (physics) grad who dresses well. His apartment is small, but centrally located and prepared for seduction.

He runs errands in Manhattan and sees literally hundreds of women during the day. Good-looking + easy access + bold = many phone numbers. He mass-texts sixty in the afternoon, asking to meet for a drink near his place. Then he waits for responses and double- or triple-books the most promising/desperate/drunk/horny.

Getting Laid in NYC


I went on a "date" with self-professed "Casanova" Paul Janka last night ... to his apartment.

He commenced pawing me. ... tried to grab at my crotch. When I covered myself with his blanket for protection, ... he felt at ease to start jerking off ... underneath the blanket

"I don't [buy drinks] anymore. I ran the numbers, and it just wasn't worth the cost. "Three drinks for her, plus seltzers for me, that's sixty bucks, times five times a day is $300..."

Anyway I left pretty quickly after that. ... So insatiable was his need last night that he actually donned his American Apparel jacket and left his apartment when I did, headed for some destination across town.

Paul Janka Did Not Rape Me Last Night

Emily, ... went on a date with him [because she] ... saw a Gawker post and ... wondered what it was like to hang out with a pile of shit. Paul doesn't even dispute her claim that he grabbed her, pinned her down, tried to fingerfuck her, and shoved his tongue in her mouth.

"I'd say going on a date under false pretenses is pretty underhanded, wouldn't you? I'm not interested in disputing her account, tit-for-tat. Suffice it to say she's spun it to serve her interests."
Paul Janka Brushes Off Attempted Date-Rape Charge

[iknowexactly]

(04-08-2013 04:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 09:11 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I want to give props to Janka because I emailed him a couple questions and he emailed me back answers pretty quick a year or two ago.

I asked something like

1) "Why isn't there a chick shortage in NYC ( Manhattan) when rents are about the highest anywhere?"
"Their dads subsidize the rent." ( specifically didn't say "parents", he said "dads.")

2) "How can you screen for kinky chicks so you don't waste time with vanillas?"
"Bold, sexual texts."

What did he write back?

The parts where he answered are in red.

[Samseau]

(04-08-2013 04:47 PM)Divorco Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 03:33 AM)w00t Wrote:  

He plays huge numbers and goes for the easy girls,

Yes. Janka is a tall, handsome, Harvard (physics) grad who dresses well. His apartment is small, but centrally located and prepared for seduction.

He runs errands in Manhattan and sees literally hundreds of women during the day. Good-looking + easy access + bold = many phone numbers. He mass-texts sixty in the afternoon, asking to meet for a drink near his place. Then he waits for responses and double- or triple-books the most promising/desperate/drunk/horny.

Getting Laid in NYC


I went on a "date" with self-professed "Casanova" Paul Janka last night ... to his apartment.

He commenced pawing me. ... tried to grab at my crotch. When I covered myself with his blanket for protection, ... he felt at ease to start jerking off ... underneath the blanket

"I don't [buy drinks] anymore. I ran the numbers, and it just wasn't worth the cost. "Three drinks for her, plus seltzers for me, that's sixty bucks, times five times a day is $300..."

Anyway I left pretty quickly after that. ... So insatiable was his need last night that he actually donned his American Apparel jacket and left his apartment when I did, headed for some destination across town.

Paul Janka Did Not Rape Me Last Night

Emily, ... went on a date with him [because she] ... saw a Gawker post and ... wondered what it was like to hang out with a pile of shit. Paul doesn't even dispute her claim that he grabbed her, pinned her down, tried to fingerfuck her, and shoved his tongue in her mouth.

"I'd say going on a date under false pretenses is pretty underhanded, wouldn't you? I'm not interested in disputing her account, tit-for-tat. Suffice it to say she's spun it to serve her interests."
Paul Janka Brushes Off Attempted Date-Rape Charge

Even good looking guys like him have to put up with all the LMR and bullshit. Good finds Divorco.

Even if Janka was ugly, how much of his game do you think would have to change?

My opinion: He would get uglier girls, but his quantity would not go down.

One of the guys I learned game with was pretty average looking, and short to boot. He was a huge fan of Janka. He ran daygame all the time and actually did well on the subway.

He got laid often. However, the quality of the girls was a bit low.

This comes down to passive game vs. active game. Active game is what gets mostly determines your quantity of women. Passive game is what mostly determines your quality. Look up my RoK post "Passive vs. Active Game" if you want to read more.

Regardless people should drop the whole "Janka is a good looking guy that's why he gets so many women!"

Anytime someone says that, I immediately recognize their mentality is of a loser. Do you want to be a loser? Then don't think like one.

[w00t]

Yeah like I said the looks will determine the quality of girls you get. The huge numbers will get the quantity.
Every tom dick and Harry can get some if he approaches 100 girls a week, its pure statistics. You have to live in a big city though, I live in a place with 300.000 people, my city would be sarged out in no time if I approached that much. Even in a city with 1,2 Million I was hitting on the same girls after some time and I wasnt even approaching that much, maybe 20-30 a week.

[Fredster]

So how does a guy improve the quality of girls if he is 5'4-5'5 if you are not rich or famous?
Which is more important, good looks( good facial structure + muscular body) or being tall( 5'10 +)?

Quantity is fine, but you do want to proudly say " Yes, I banged a stunner" and have that as one of your notches.

[reino341]

(04-09-2013 05:55 AM)Fredster Wrote:  

So how does a guy improve the quality of girls if he is 5'4-5'5 if you are not rich or famous?

There's this thing called game you might've heard about.

[babababalot]

One overlooked factor: janka was horny all the time. He says in one of his videos that horniness gets you halfway there, you just man up and approach girls because your dick makes you rather than your brain/sense of ego

[soup]

(04-08-2013 08:29 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 04:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 09:11 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I want to give props to Janka because I emailed him a couple questions and he emailed me back answers pretty quick a year or two ago.

I asked something like

1) "Why isn't there a chick shortage in NYC ( Manhattan) when rents are about the highest anywhere?"
"Their dads subsidize the rent." ( specifically didn't say "parents", he said "dads.")

2) "How can you screen for kinky chicks so you don't waste time with vanillas?"
"Bold, sexual texts."

What did he write back?

The parts where he answered are in red.

Janka is right on the money with this. These days you screen with dick pic insidiousness.

[MrXY]

Quote:

Emily, ... went on a date with him [because she] ... saw a Gawker post and ... wondered what it was like to hang out with a pile of shit. Paul doesn't even dispute her claim that he grabbed her, pinned her down, tried to fingerfuck her, and shoved his tongue in her mouth.

So.....what's her point?.....haha

Quote:

Posted by w00t - Today 04:42 AM
Yeah like I said the looks will determine the quality of girls you get. The huge numbers will get the quantity.
Every tom dick and Harry can get some if he approaches 100 girls a week, its pure statistics. You have to live in a big city though, I live in a place with 300.000 people, my city would be sarged out in no time if I approached that much. Even in a city with 1,2 Million I was hitting on the same girls after some time and I wasnt even approaching that much, maybe 20-30 a week.

Yeah that's a major problem for me in the winter-there's only so many local bangable girls, so i rely a lot on online. That's why living in a beach resort town is great in the summer though-every week hundreds of new bangable girls show up ready to party. You'll never see them again and they can't cockblock you down the road so you can burn through them however you want. The next week there will be a fresh crop ripe for the picking.

[Giovonny]

(04-09-2013 05:55 AM)Fredster Wrote:  

So how does a guy improve the quality of girls if he is 5'4-5'5 if you are not rich or famous?

Approach more 8's, 9's, and 10's.

You will find good looking girls who are insecure, good looking girls with daddy issues, good looking girls with bad taste, good looking girls who like to date down, good looking girls who don't know their own value, drug whores, etc.

The more 8's and 9's you approach, the better you will get at dealing with good looking girls. You will eventually get one.

Also, wear heeled shoes so you look taller, make more money, generate some fame, and improve your game.

[Giovonny]

I like the efficiency of Jankas method. Quick day approaches - quick number close - mass text - screen for dtf - no dates - straight to the apartment -bang.

I am adjusting my strategy based on his model. I will become more efficient and lower my cost per notch.

[soup]

If you screen well, you only need to shell out for like one drink and run first date bang recipe. That's what I do. It's usually obvious that the girl wants it. Only the girls that are on the fence need a lot of booze to give in to their carnality.

[MrXY]

(04-09-2013 12:36 PM)soup Wrote:  

If you screen well, you only need to shell out for like one drink and run first date bang recipe. That's what I do. It's usually obvious that the girl wants it. Only the girls that are on the fence need a lot of booze to give in to their carnality.

How do you screen online? I'm good at screening in person but suck at it online. Basically, the only screening I do is see if she will meet me alone (no friends lurking around) and at a bar (no nondrinkers).

I'm reluctant to get sexual beyond light flirting because it puts them off so easily online

But maybe I should get sexual to screen out the ones who aren't DTF right away. But then that would scare off the ones who I could bang on the 2-3 date. It's a dilemma.

Any other ways to screen other than getting sexual?

[soup]

(04-09-2013 12:53 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

(04-09-2013 12:36 PM)soup Wrote:  

If you screen well, you only need to shell out for like one drink and run first date bang recipe. That's what I do. It's usually obvious that the girl wants it. Only the girls that are on the fence need a lot of booze to give in to their carnality.

How do you screen online? I'm good at screening in person but suck at it online. Basically, the only screening I do is see if she will meet me alone (no friends lurking around) and at a bar (no nondrinkers).

I'm reluctant to get sexual beyond light flirting because it puts them off so easily online

But maybe I should get sexual to screen out the ones who aren't DTF right away. But then that would scare off the ones who I could bang on the 2-3 date. It's a dilemma.

Any other ways to screen other than getting sexual?

There are ways to do it. Get a conversation going where you can bait her into asking you personal questions. Like today, a got a girl to ask me what my three best qualities are. I listed three of the top qualities that Neil Strauss said women are looking for, but I also added that I'm well-endowed. In the next sentence, I completely changed the subject to talking about the great weather.

She could have freaked out at the sexualization, but she actually just went along with my change in conversation. So, we've essentially had a conversation about my dick after like two or three short messages. What does that tell you about about a girl?

[French Translator]

(04-06-2013 02:37 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

For the record, Roosh is also pretty tall. At least 6'2" I think 6'3".

Roosh is 5"11 which is averadge plus. Roosh's asset is not his physique but his motivation.

Paul Janka gets laid because he is an 8 who goes for 6s and 7s.
Personally, I am a 6 - potentially a 7. When I go for 4s or 5s, I usually seal the deal.
If you wanna get laid without making efforts, go for girls who are slightly lower than you.
If you want top notches, go to poor countries where your status will put you over the roof.

[The_CEO]

Is it really that mystifying? A well dressed, good looking guy, "pipelining" in Manhattan, who puts a sh-t ton of energy into "game" and moreover makes it his professional practice has impressive results?

On the other hand, I think the biggest take away here, period, is that he put the work in.
Like Roosh does.
Like Gio does.

I would not get hung up on the looks part of it. Opportunity and taking shots yes.

A good looking guy who doesn't approach, or hardly approaches is pathetic and will not have good results. In fact a good looking guy without game is regarded as weak by women and invites their derision.

[The_CEO]

Damn.. this thread is sort of a dupe?
I just realized i posted on both....

[The Beast1]

Jenka's like Roosh. No day job, small location independent side business, excellent logistics, good clothes, and hours of time learning how to seduce women. He must be making decent coin though to be able to live in New York.

I liked his book. It made a lot of sense. Regardless, when he mentioned that getting girls/dates/laid is pretty much a numbers game that was when I realized that game is more about putting yourself in more situations where the girl who would be into you would consider it. You still can't create attraction when there wasn't any.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(12-22-2014 11:26 PM)French Translator Wrote:  

Roosh is 5"11 which is averadge plus. Roosh's asset is not his physique but his motivation.

Not true at all. I've met him. Roosh is at least 6'3" - I'm about 6'1" and it was obvious that he was taller than me.

But yeah, going back to the point of the thread - if you have the time, the logistics and (most importantly) the work effort, your output will be insane.

HSLD

[Aenema]

Even from a straight male's perspective, Paul Janka is beyond an 8. An 8 would be your typical hot girl, probably hot to 80% of guys. A male 8 would be similar(probably hot to a less percentage, but still). I would go off on a limb and say 95% of women would probably find Paul Janka attractive, putting him atleast at a 9.5 on the scale, a number most people(male or female) can't even attain by maximizing their potential with gym/style/surgery even.
I think on this forum we often forget what AVERAGE, everyday common Americans look like. In fact, most of you who are claiming to not have looks on their side could possibly be too hard on themselves. Remember, the average is what you see on the street daily. To me that is: balding men, men and women who lack any sort of jaw structure/definition (the fade* my friend calls it, jawline fades into neck), women 10-20 lbs overweight, men 5-10 lbs overweight, men averaging around 5'8 or 5'9, women around 5'3 or 5'4. These people don't even try to maximize their potential and by doing so, you are already more attractive than them regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Seeing as Paul Janka is a 9.5, he can obviously swoop MOST women assuming he put even more effort into game, but he is trying to maximize quantity which is understandable. A lot of 8-9 level girls may hesitate to jump into bed with a random good looking guy, there's no doubt they'd have sex with him but they probably want more attention beforehand. A 7 and below won't hesitate because she is seldom approached by this kind of guy, she will become overly excited.
But my point is similar to what some other posters have already said. Attaining the quantity of girls Paul Janka does is easy if you:
a) put in slightly more effort for every point you are below him on the looks scale
b) aiming for lower quality girls

Just like Paul would probably have to work for girls at his level(to a degree), you may have to work for girls at your level, but there are still millions of girls that you can have if you tried.

[tugofpeace]

(12-23-2014 12:19 PM)Aenema Wrote:  

Even from a straight male's perspective, Paul Janka is beyond an 8. An 8 would be your typical hot girl, probably hot to 80% of guys. A male 8 would be similar(probably hot to a less percentage, but still). I would go off on a limb and say 95% of women would probably find Paul Janka attractive, putting him atleast at a 9.5 on the scale, a number most people(male or female) can't even attain by maximizing their potential with gym/style/surgery even.
I think on this forum we often forget what AVERAGE, everyday common Americans look like. In fact, most of you who are claiming to not have looks on their side could possibly be too hard on themselves. Remember, the average is what you see on the street daily. To me that is: balding men, men and women who lack any sort of jaw structure/definition (the fade* my friend calls it, jawline fades into neck), women 10-20 lbs overweight, men 5-10 lbs overweight, men averaging around 5'8 or 5'9, women around 5'3 or 5'4. These people don't even try to maximize their potential and by doing so, you are already more attractive than them regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Seeing as Paul Janka is a 9.5, he can obviously swoop MOST women assuming he put even more effort into game, but he is trying to maximize quantity which is understandable. A lot of 8-9 level girls may hesitate to jump into bed with a random good looking guy, there's no doubt they'd have sex with him but they probably want more attention beforehand. A 7 and below won't hesitate because she is seldom approached by this kind of guy, she will become overly excited.
But my point is similar to what some other posters have already said. Attaining the quantity of girls Paul Janka does is easy if you:
a) put in slightly more effort for every point you are below him on the looks scale
b) aiming for lower quality girls

Just like Paul would probably have to work for girls at his level(to a degree), you may have to work for girls at your level, but there are still millions of girls that you can have if you tried.

Funny, I was just about to log in to comment about how Janka is way higher than an 8, then saw your post.

He is 6'1
He is well dressed
He has a razor sharp jawline, gaunt cheeks, low eyebrows, facial hair, and a perfect hairline

Not to mention his calm/stoic demeanor and lack of cringey PUA style game, and his high IQ, his results don't surprise me a single bit. No hesitation when approaching, and quick witted and unapologetic. He has all the characteristics of a guy who slays.

He is literally 9.5+/10, and any girl on the market who he approached (who is available) would probably sleep with him.


That being said, his looks are definitely a massive factor in his success, but at the same time, I think anyone less attractive who runs the numbers game like he does can have success, albeit not as much as him, and probably of lower quality.