[ksbms]

(07-13-2018 06:28 AM)Ice Wrote:  

What is value tapping and vibe tapping?

These a bit nebulous concepts so don't take my definitions for granted.

Value - real or perceived qualities desirable in the sexual market place or in general.

Vibe - short- or long-term predisposition towards people and things.

Tapping - extracting/injecting certain properties from one person to another in a social context. Can be positive or negative.

[Ice]

Thanks - I know what value and vibe is though.

Do you have an example what vibe tapping / value tapping means in practical terms?

(07-13-2018 06:52 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 06:28 AM)Ice Wrote:  

What is value tapping and vibe tapping?

These a bit nebulous concepts so don't take my definitions for granted.

Value - real or perceived qualities desirable in the sexual market place or in general.

Vibe - short- or long-term predisposition towards people and things.

Tapping - extracting/injecting certain properties from one person to another in a social context. Can be positive or negative.

[NoMoreTO]

(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)Ice Wrote:  

Thanks - I know what value and vibe is though.

Do you have an example what vibe tapping / value tapping means in practical terms?

(07-13-2018 06:52 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 06:28 AM)Ice Wrote:  

What is value tapping and vibe tapping?

These a bit nebulous concepts so don't take my definitions for granted.

Value - real or perceived qualities desirable in the sexual market place or in general.

Vibe - short- or long-term predisposition towards people and things.

Tapping - extracting/injecting certain properties from one person to another in a social context. Can be positive or negative.

Older Gen X Guy here, came up when you had to game, no cell phones, no tinder. Wanted to weigh in....

Came onto the game section, I couldn't believe how many threads based on last reply I had to go through before I found one about day game(or night game for that matter). I was listening to Rooshs' call in show today, he mentioned that so few men are developing real game and are depending on tinder, Instagram and such. With that in mind, I did well on day game today.

Went out to a local sporting event (auto race) with a buddy. Hot chick beside me, made initial eye contact, stayed in my frame , and enjoying my hanging out watching the race with my buddy (VALUE). Made a remark here and there to her, she lent me her suntan lotion (VIBE).

Then we just left our spot (no seats in this event), went and looked around a bit. Saw her in another spot, went up to her, asked her whats up, flirted a little...struck up a converstation.

Asked her what neighbourhood she is from (Good question for me, because I don't want to drive to far, plus opens up convo)

As we compared, she says her neighbourhood has best breakfast spots, I told her I make the best breakfast, we start talking about that.... she already has in her mind that breakfast comes the morning after -- sexual context VIBE

First she tells me to guess her age. I turn it into a full inspection, put my hand in her hair, take a look at her ass and put my hand on it. I guessed 26, which was a lie, always guess a little low guys. Then that pumped her up, made her feel sexy. VIBE

She is 29 , I am late 30s.

She told me she is going to be 30 next year with a grimace, I grimaced back even harder, which was actually a natural response, but done in the right way, it gave me VALUE. Teased her a little about her old age. Of course she liked it

Shes peruvian, I told her my friend is peruvian, got her to ask him, he obviously wasn't peruvian. It worked, and I liked telling her what to do, I think she did too. Bossed her around - VALUE.

Took off with my buddy and her number of course for a drink and some food. Shes a 7, but I was attracted to her, nice legs, some titties and she didn't have time to give me attitude, because I was teasing her just that little bit.

Guys, Day game is not science, its execution. Just move in on girls, make yourself interesting, make a moment, grab the number then go. Remember that she has to impress you too, to me this makes everything work VIBE- wise. By leaving, you are in short supply, scarcity creates VALUE.

Not so Nebulous , its all about practical execution. You just have to learn how to work in your environment. One thing is key, always make a move, win or lose you gotta make moves.

To me Day Game today seperates me from all the Tinder online crap. You become a guy with balls instead of a dumb online photot. She gets a good story of how she met you. That'll make her want to bang you. It also keeps things cell phone light if you don't over text (because you didn't meet texting) , which puts an emphasis on physical presence when you see her--- needed for time management and making her mind more excited for you.

[Perspicacity]

(07-13-2018 06:28 AM)Ice Wrote:  

What is value tapping and vibe tapping?

One can no better than to quote the first Gospel of that foremost expatiator, Pope John Bodi:

Death By A Thousand Sluts, Part 1, pp.242 Wrote:

The Club

Finally we headed out to the club. We hailed a cab but there were five of us and the driver was grumpy and surly. He wouldn't let four squash in the back so we opened the hatchback and Wideboy Adam got in. We helped push him and squeeze him between what looked like bags of guinea-pig sawdust, then shut the lid. Back in the car I saw he could only get half his head up out of the gap between the rear windscreen and the top of the back seat. As we drove he talked to us and it was very creepy: like we were driving him to the country side to murder him.

By the time we got to the club I was shitting myself about doing nightgame but doing a good job of hiding it. In the club Jimmy and Krauser agreed that we should run "RSG pre-value building", then rushed over to the bar and stood with their back to it, looking cool. They arranged myself, Lee and Wideboy Adam in front of them in a value-tapped horseshoe shape. "Now be really high energy and stuff, laugh at our jokes" Jimmy told us. "Of course" I thought, without hesitation, thinking it made perfect sense. Perfect sense for Jimmy and Krauser, because soon girls from all over the club were glancing at them. I knew it was making them look good, but I didn't care. I was still grateful that Jimmy'd invited me, a mere ex-bootcamp chode so I was determined to be a good asset.

At this point in game I still hadn't really understood the fundamental differences between men and women. Men's sexual strategy is far more internal and individual than women's as it simply relies on a woman being physically hot enough and not too annoying. Women's sexual strategy is far, far more complex. For cavewomen, a hot caveman was not enough: he had to be successful and he had to have resources. The higher his status in the tribe the better. Women care about a man's behaviour and they deeply care what other men and women feel about that man. Women's attraction is fluid: it can literally change from minute to minute (initially) depending on the man's behaviour.

I had no idea that the club functioned as a web of value. By acting like we were all having fun our value in the club rose, so we became more attractive. More insidiously, women could look and see Krauser and Jimmy in the higher status positions, with us three qualifying to them. It tapped our value and made them more attractive at our expense.

(
The Value Tap

To the best of my knowledge Krauser came up with this phrase to describe a certain social technique that Jimmy Jambone mastered to make himself more attractive at someone else's expense. The analogy is to hammer in a tap into the bottom of a keg of beer and slowly start draining it out. Value tapping is when a person you are with is draining value from you into them. It's incredibly common. Notice how a lot of friendships are the more cool, more sorted guy with the more geeky, more socially awkward guy. The assumption is that the cool guy has a kind heart and deigns to spend time with the awkward guy. Wrong. He's value-tapping him. It's pack-dynamics: simply having that awkward guy around makes him look better. Relativity is powerful. Imagine you're a bit chubby at twenty percent bodyfat. Hang around with fitness models and you're going to look and feel like an obese pig. Now hang around with a bunch of people are obese and over thirty percent bodyfat. You'll look like a Greek status and feel like an athlete. You actually see this phenomena all the time: the buff guy with the chubby friend, the hot girl with the fat, plain friend.

Now to confuse you let's consider the opposite. Sometimes the geek is actually value-tapping the cool person. Don't they say that you are the sum total of your five best friends? Imagine if someone weak in some way manages to bust into a circle of people in some way stronger than him. Sometimes the value drains the other way and the geek lowers the value of the other four to raise his own[1]. Most people have felt this at some point. Remember the geek you made friends with in the first week at college that you just couldn't shake? The one who turned up uninvited when you were at the bar with some girls then proceeded to hang around like a bad stink. Or maybe it's the daygame wing you have that's a bit too weasely and tries to trick you into making him approach. (Yes, this was me)

[1] like socialism

Value tapping can be far more subtle and insidious as well.

You have a friend who knows more about you than topic X. You have an interest in topic X and ask him questions now and again about it and he lectures you. It's a value tap. Skill levels are incredibly important to men: it was in our evolutionary advantage to constantly rank each other on our skills in a variety of areas. Notice how most groups of men are intricately aware of the group's abilities across a wide range of skills. Packs of paleolithic men that didn't do this didn't survive as well as those that did. So every time your friend lectures you on X you are losing value, his status is literally rising above yours.

How about you're just a passive, easy going person. You don't mind which bar or restaurant you go to. This is fine with other easy going friends, but what about the domineering friend you have, the one always seeking to place his status about yours. Your easy-going nature in this scenario results in a value tap: he makes more decisions than you and you follow them. You follow him. Whether you like it or not he is now more attractive to observing women than you are. Sometimes the Tap can be the most innocuous things, like a friend that always insists on walking one pace in front of you. Watch a few episodes of Cesar Milan to see what this indicates.

Perhaps you and a few guys are on a night out. One friend is older and likes to lean back, not say much, and play Mr Cool. The others scamper about like dancing monkeys, bringing in girls and working the bar and then in very subtle ways this guy tricks you into qualifying to him. Even just by saying nothing at all he value taps by contrasting himself to you to project an air of mystery and thus status.

What about a friend who just talks a lot about themselves? Maybe the very fine ratio in asking about you and your concerns to talking about their concerns is a few percent off-kilter. Perhaps they relentlessly reframe any conversation in a solipsistic way to be about them and their concerns. Ask yourself: could they talk about themselves alone in a forest and still feel the benefit? No. Their narcissism needs a 'sink' and you are it. As they talk about themselves they're value tapping you.

Hang around with PUAs and learn about value-tapping and you'll see the masters at work. PUAs can sometimes be a terrible lot and in their desperate craving for newer, fresher pussy they will slit anyone's throat to get it.

19 ways to spot a PUA Value-Tap in a bar or club[1]

[1] Thanks to Jimmy and Krauser for teaching me everything there is to know about value-tapping. The hard way.

1. Not holding appropriate eye contact when meeting you.

2. Moving to place people around them with them as the locus, either standing, seated or lounging against the bar. For instance at the bar the king position is reclining with your back to the book looking outwards and with a horseshoe of people gathered in front of you looking inwards. Very high status.

3. Cutting you off mid sentence

4. Asking you questions: it puts you at a lower status and tricks you into qualifying to them.

5. Picking which bars to go to and when to leave

6. Leading you round the bar

7. Stealing your targets, obviously

8. Turning their back to you in a group set

9. Slapping your back or shoulders a little too hard or jiggling your arms in pretend affection

10. Poking you to get your attention (do they do this normally?) or carelessly tapping your shoulders to get your attention. This is a micro-signal of physical dominance.

11. Engaging you in conversation and being animated in their facial gestures to lure you into acting high-energy. As you talk they slyly de-animate their facial gestures, perhaps just murmuring grunts of encouragement to keep you talking. The result? Anyone looking can see you animatedly talking to someone stone faced, thus they have higher status than you.

12. As you talk to them they do one of:
-Angle their body so you are to their side and you are 'on their twelve'
-Cross their arms slightly and lean back
-Gesture and make you look at something

13. (Assuming a loud club) Leaning in to engage you in conversation and then subtly start talking quieter then moving their body back. Without realising it you lean forward to hear what they're saying. The result? You 'peck' in to them as they stand upright with a straight back. You are displaying super-low physical status compared to them. A bent back is physically weak and in martial arts puts you at a distinct disadvantage (think of The Plom in muay thai clinching). Any time you have a bent back or 'broken' posture and your wing does not: he's value tapping you.

14. Asking you something in front of girls to get you to qualify to them, thus raising their status e.g. interrupting when you are talking to your target and saying "John, remind me again where that place we had steak was?" It throws you off center.

15. Leading the conversation or during the conversation deciding a topic of discussion.

16. Joking about you

17. Talking louder than you

18. Claiming that every girl that looks over or walks past is IOI'ing him. (He's probably solipsistic so probably actually believes it's true and can't conceive that they'd be IOI'ing someone else)

19. Bigging up his targets and subtly diminishing yours e.g. "you can do a lot better than her, mate"

It gets even worse when you come to PUA instructors. A lot of instructors thrive on value tapping their students. Just being a student alone puts you at a lower status and it's incredibly difficult to surmount this. Instructors sometimes ask students out with them to bars or clubs "for real" (i.e. not paid tuition" and the students are ecstatic, they get to hang around and touch the elbows of a guy that actually has sex with girls. The instructor is feeding off them. These students subcommunicate supplication through every power of their body. Women are wired to pick up on this shit: it's like men can tell the quality of an ass from four hundred metres. If an instructor has a couple of students in a nightclub every woman will feel the vibe and the instructor's attractiveness will rise.

This is the great fraud of PUA night-game instruction. The very nature of the student/teacher relationship value-taps the students and gets the instructor more IOIs and more pussy, when this is exactly what the student, not the teacher, is paying for! But some students like it, for exactly the same reason as karate gyms are full of gammas enjoying having to do finger tip pushups in agony in front of a middle aged fat man they call "Sensei" and secretly worship. There are as many people who like to follow as there are to load. It's co-dependent.
)

Jimmy and Krauser overplayed it. They got drunk with status and delighted in blowing out any girls that approached or stood nearby. Eventually they all gave up and we started to look odd, a bunch of foreign weirdos in a little circle shrieking and shouting.

Also related to the old-school notion of 'AMOGing'.

Perspicacity

[Pointer]

What do you guys think about Tom Torero ?

Daygame must be super easy if this guy is getting the kind of talent I see in his videos. I mean the guy looks like a bus ran over his face. I heard some of them are fake and they certainly look like that (especially one approach he did in Poland, the girl was acting was acting very different compared to the average Polish girl) but he gives some very good advice in his podcasts and books. Or maybe those women have a fetish for the British accent.

[Perspicacity]

People say Krauser and Torero are ugly.

They're not ugly.

They have features that are often associated with specific ugly archetypes, but which do not necessarily make one ugly.

E.g. Krauser is bald, and many stereotypically ugly guys are bald. But being bald does not make a person ugly. (Some highly attractive archetypes rely on baldness.)

Torero looks like someone took a frying pan to his face, and he has a giant baby head. But his hit-by-a-bus-ness is quintessentially British in a way that a lot of girls (especially girls wet for an Englishman -- probably a good portion of the sets he opens) will dig. Partly due to his efforts in hairstyle, not being high body fat, and maybe training facial expressions/muscles, his face (in motion, rather than in pictures) is not unattractive (at least to all girls).

Torero is tall. A lot like my old wing: 6'3", white, similar clothing, though my wing had more conventionally attractive (though 'less interesting') facial aesthetics. Definitely a type that gets good reactions, even with (as in Torero's case) a caved face.

Krauser has been variously (and accurately) described as bald, as pale, as Gollum-like, and as a Rumplestiltskinesque foetus.

But his bald, pale, doughy look is again a quintessential look -- Northern 'ardman. Very r-selected, and again plays well with his targets (girls looking for badboy adventure sex), especially in conjunction with his voice, frame, and vibe. (Northern voice, being somewhat unintelligible, and the correlated casualness plays well with girls -- few are willing to admit this.)

Anyways:

Take all in-fields with a heap of salt. Even if they're not faked, they may be subject to extremely heavy selection: even the real in-fields are often cherry-picked as the top 0.1% of approaches over a period of weeks or months.

On the other hand, even if all his videos are fake (which I strongly doubt), his advice still might be good.

On the other other hand: When you say he gives good advice, what do you mean? There's tons of good-sounding advice out there. Some of the good-sounding advice completely contradicts other bits of good-sounding advice.

Professional PUA coaches are incentivised to say stuff that sounds plausible and makes you think you've had an epiphany, moreso than they are incentivised to give advice that actually works. (In fact, it's more like that what's good advice for one guy is bad advice for another, so it's extremely hard to give non-obvious, non-meta advice.)

Unless you've extensively experimented with a given bit of advice, it remains merely plausible-sounding (which it was probably constructed to be), rather than verified.

[Teedub]

I don't think Krauser is ugly, facially... I do think there's a case to say Torero is though (maybe not to foreign girls for the reasons you said). People who have met both in person almost always confirm this. He is tall though, which is a plus point.

Good post, and good post re: Bodi. Such a good book that. I'm still reading the second one, funny seeing bojangles get a couple of mentions — it's like you're part of a secret little society of oddballs when you see friends pop up in these books.

[KiwiTheGermanShepherd]

In my opinion, daygame is much more effective for me than nightgame, just because during night game, these women are approached 20x a night and during the day you have more time to be more effective if you are pulling. You can see form a far whether the girl has things to do (logistics) or is just wandering by their body language, this is why prospecting is very important before approaching cause lets face it, no one wants to get blown out.

[ksbms]

(07-19-2018 06:46 PM)KiwiTheGermanShepherd Wrote:  

In my opinion, daygame is much more effective for me than nightgame, just because during night game, these women are approached 20x a night and during the day you have more time to be more effective if you are pulling. You can see form a far whether the girl has things to do (logistics) or is just wandering by their body language, this is why prospecting is very important before approaching cause lets face it, no one wants to get blown out.

Not sure if we can effectively transplant Prospect Theory of Behavioural Economics to the milieu of sexual market place but I think it's a provoking idea nonetheless.

[Pointer]

If Tom Torero is 6'3" that explains a lot. I've seen a lot of tall guys with no game doing well with women. You definitely get a pass if you're taller than average. I need to buy a pair of boots
His advice sounds good because it's a lot like Mystery method. Seems that your approaches during the day have to be short, just enough to build attraction without going into too much comfort. Ideally you end up on an instant date but it seems that's not so common. He's focusing on what and when to say things instead of talking a lot about abstract psychological bullshit.
This approach works at night albeit I'm expecting much better results during the day because the girl will not be approached by 50 other dudes and she will probably be impressed by a guy who has the balls to do cold approach.
Anyway, this is just mental masturbation at this point. I'm still studying day game and trying to build at least 10 minutes of material before I actually go and start approaching.

[Skank_Hunt]

Your initial first impression is more important.

For me this consists of my looks (can't change much of that), my clothes, my accessories. And the ethereal concept of "Vibe". With a well selected target and a good look and vibe, you don't have to run in front of a girl all the time to "front stop" her. You can do anything, Krauser likes to stand still at a high footfall area and make animal noises. This sounds retarded but can work because his vibe can be such that enough women are drawn to it.

You can even technically walk behind a girl like a stalker and just prod her lightly on her right shoulder, and ask if she speaks english. In the Anglosphere that might carry a risk of being arrested so I wouldn't recommend it in the west, but just making the point that "Technically shit daygame" + Vibe can still lead to winning.

Torero's greatest strength is his endurance. He can grind out huge number of approaches. He has lost his ego or if he hasn't he has some kind of mental disorder that actually helps him be way above average in that department. Because out of every 100 approaches he does, he will only bang 1 or 2 of them. And when you see what 100 approaches looks like for the average man, then you will see one of the main difficulties of day game.

[robhay]

All come down to preferences and comfort level. Though inefficient time-wise I find i can bang more women doing daygame far more than nightgame. Also from a lifestyle perspective i have to wake up 6:30am every morning to trade the stock market so I really can't up until 2-3am every night. That and the fact i can day game alone and on my own schedule. Friends of mine give me alot shit because I do spend alot of time on the street and there is alot of inactivity which discourages alot of guys. It does seem like a huge waste of time to most but I do have plenty of time on my hands and it suits my lifestyle the best.

In the last 10 days on Hollywood Blvd i've hooked up with 4 girls. Not that I do it much but I haven't hooked up with 4 girls all year in nightgame :/

[N°6]

How many of you here mean 'street game during daylight' instead of daygame?

[456]

^-- how do you distinguish those two phrases?

[docbel123]

I think daygame is a great way to meet women, it just takes a lot more patience and balls. For me I have AA and that is amplified during the day where I often have to wait 30+secs to approach just to catch up with a girl. With that being said, I find it more rewarding as Im able to build better connections and not have to deal with the nightlife career crushing after effects

[Nater]

Lol the title is funny. Daygame is by far my favorite way to meet women especially in summer..

Last Tuesday I went to a park with a friend of mine there was a bit of music in the background and some stands selling alcohol. As we sat down in a bench, I saw this blonde momma wearing a nice black dress and hoops. I ask my friend if he wants to go speak to her, he says no. I go up and walk close to her to light my cigarette. I make a comment about her earphone kit and tease her. Then, we talked a bit and she tells me that she's waiting for a friend. I switch back the conversation and we talk some more, I start touching her in the arm and she responds well. A few minutes later, her friend shows up, he's not in great shape and geeky. I take her number and text her later. The day after, I text her to come to my flat. At 10pm, she's at my place we're drinking rosee and dancing reggaetton. An hour later, I'm pulling her hair and spanking her ass, she enjoys it and oddly I feel the same...

[WannaBang]

Is daygame a low return on investment? For me it 100% is which is why I am right on the verge of sacking it in.

Let’s look at my online dating vs. cold approach results. Results I’ve been recording since I got into game properly in 2015:

Cold approach
Approaches: 1615
Dates: 66 (4% of approaches)
Lays: 8 (12% of dates) (0.5% approx. of approaches)

Online
Swipes: a lot (mostly multitasking e.g. sitting on crapper). For sure the effort cannot be compared at all to the cold approaching.
Dates: 65
Lays: 25 (38%)

Social Circle/Night game:
Effort in both: a LOT and more far more years than the above 2
Dates: a small handful
Lays: 0

For some reason or other dates from cold approach failed considerably more often than tinder dates. Why is this? Some thoughts:

1)I may have come across as more chad-like during approaches but was unable to maintain that image during dates where there was far more face time. The opposite was probably true in many cases too, especially during the first few 100 approaches. This may have been the number 1 problem. Lack of calibration.
2)Similarly, my online profiles leaned toward being douchey/physique sporting/screening for fast sex. Therefore, the girls who agreed to meet were far more likely to be sexually available/DTF. So, my image of being a chad-like in my profile was more congruent when they met me.
3)Girls on tinder were actively looking for a guy. Girls from daygame may not have been thinking they were going on a date in probably several cases (bad game) especially at the beginning where many approaches were indirect.
4)Sleeping with or meeting some guy during the day is far less socially acceptable than online dating. It took many years but I believe now something like 20-25% of people meet their partner online (can’t recall where I read this) with the rest being mostly from social circle. This may be ESPECIALLY true in Central/Eastern Europe where the majority of my gaming/approaching took place
5)Almost 1/3 of my tinder lays were 1 date lays in South America. The rest were in Europe where a LOT more swiping and time spent on dating platforms was needed.
6)In South America I did not do much daygame (specifically Brazil – only 65 approaches but this resulted in 2 bangs including one SDL from a girl who warm approached me. So, if you removed those from my day-game stats, really its’ more like 0.4% as if that difference mattered haha.
7)My looks are a 6 at best and that is after maximising my looks (I was more like a 4 at the beginning) using surgery, several thousand bucks on dress and body-building. Unless you have EXCELLENT game guys who are 6s will very rarely bang any girls 7+. Many of the girls I approached were 7+s sooo.
8)I used to be an incel before I finally started improving myself. This is why there is a ‘0’ beside social circle/night game. So that is almost 2 decades of omega/beta mindsets and latent sub-communications despite copious efforts to remove them to this day. Women might be fooled during approaches but during dates which can last hours it is inevitable they will pick something up which turns them off. Good insight from a friend from this community.

Note: I use the term ‘chad’ jokingly as I realise I am not a chad or even a chad-lite. It was merely meant to describe the directness both in terms of dress and approach I utilised during the interactions.

Daygame is not something to be sniffed at. It WORKS! Even I, a former incel managed to do it because I put the work in. That work by the way was a part-time job (probably more). These days I don’t consider that a good ROI, I consider it a negative ROI. Especially when I am not improving my stats even after video footage auditing by pro day game instructors. My tolerance for the grind, especially with the knowledge of my empirical 'evidence' is far lower when I compare the effort to the reward.

I am not going to completely dismiss it because I know several guys who do very well. What they have in common is 1) they are good looking (7+) and 2) they have good social skills which is the foundation of good game anyway. Problem is poor genetics + maxing yourself out only take you so far. If you get warm approached often and you approach those girls I imagine that would dramatically improve your odds. Never happens to me in Europe (though to be fair I am not very good at spotting IOIs in general whereas in South America they are hard to miss).

So better to keep using tinder right? Well the only problem is tinder has become almost useless for me during the last year. And that is even after upping my photo game with professional photography and an even better body with tanning to boot. Online at least as it appears for me is for true ‘chads’ only. Maybe I could go back to South America again but by the time I get there the dream could quite easily be over there too.

I would even say the average guy who maxes himself out will do better than me. It is taken for granted that a 1/100 lay to approach ratio is like a beginner stat for an average well balanced guy and advanced level for a guy with less potential. 1/500 for a recovering incel might easily be as good as he could expect.

Now it looks like the remaining way of success may be Instagram. But it would be hard to argue that it would be a better ROI on something as difficult as day game.

[Skank_Hunt]

@WB Your effort has been top class. I know that comes across like a teacher trying to encourage a below average student's efforts rather than his results, but you have done all you can. I know you're jacked, and that you maxed out your style, so if on top of that you got tanned, and a professional photographer, and still got nothing...you'd expect at least something... apparently not. Just confirmation of having to be in the real top few % in terms of looks online. In that vain your candor and your insight into why certain things happen or indeed do not happen is on point. I think the journey has made you wiser as well as perhaps preventing you from going down a very dark, twisted path. You're right about incels. But through your sheer determination and massive action you have banged 3x what the average man expects to bang in his entire lifetime. Someone with what you report as your starting position could easily have ended up as a high school shooter. One of Roosh's ideas for the title of his new book on Game was "How Not To Be A Highschool Shooter". You are the embodiment of that and should be proud. Of course girls will not recognize that but in this case fuck them. Allow yourself at least some solid self-talk and permanent confidence for what you have achieved. Again, whether girls recognize this self-confidence or see it as sufficient to continue talking to you -- again fuck them.

You've proven that you can do day game on hard mode, as a former incel, despite the low conversion rates. Whether you can do it in the future as you report day game and online is decreasing in yield, is out of your control if you put in your full efforts. But I'm not sure you'd want to or should expect yourself to when you know already that conversions are going to be low. The stat that jumps out at me is your online results, of which 1/3 was in Mexico; this shows you that location change is something to consider, even if it's not to Mexico per se.

Instagram may be a way for a while, but another app could easily come out and take its place over time. No one knows what's going to happen with the internet 3.0. You have to constantly have to look out for and keep up with the smartphone trends among hot girls, which I've always found annoying and distinctly "feminine", but it seems like the "cool" guys, as well as the orbiters, just go with the flow and become good on whatever app is hot at the time.

[Trent W.]

One thing I want to note here when comparing DG to NG or online is that the comparison is not on fair ground.

Dating apps exist for one purpose, that's getting people on dates. NG takes place in venues where people also are expected to meet others. Approaching during the day however is as cold and random as it can get. Girls are out for every other reason than to meet someone, at least they do not have that as a primary intent. That may make some of them more reluctant to the approach which in turn will affect your results.

[ksbms]

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

Is daygame a low return on investment? For me it 100% is which is why I am right on the verge of sacking it in.

Let’s look at my online dating vs. cold approach results. Results I’ve been recording since I got into game properly in 2015:

Cold approach
Approaches: 1615
Dates: 66 (4% of approaches)
Lays: 8 (12% of dates) (0.5% approx. of approaches)

Online
Swipes: a lot (mostly multitasking e.g. sitting on crapper). For sure the effort cannot be compared at all to the cold approaching.
Dates: 65
Lays: 25 (38%)

Social Circle/Night game:
Effort in both: a LOT and more far more years than the above 2
Dates: a small handful
Lays: 0

Duh. I think that the expected value counted by lays only doesn't tell the whole story. You've made yourself a better man who succeeded in the face of adversity. You've learnt a lot about yourself, improved social skills as well as mastered women's psyche and the sexual market dynamics. You had some experiences that can happen only in daygame and will have great memories of (sexual) encounters that you've created out of nothing! The part of the journey is the self-discovery. Thanks to sheer work and determination you can proudly stroll down the street of any city knowing you're the best man you could possibly be. And as Skank Hunt points out, you've proven to yourself what might have been and if girls don't recognize it - then fuck them, it's their problem, not yours. Give yourself a proper pat on the back.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

For some reason or other dates from cold approach failed considerably more often than tinder dates. Why is this? Some thoughts:
1)I may have come across as more chad-like during approaches but was unable to maintain that image during dates where there was far more face time. The opposite was probably true in many cases too, especially during the first few 100 approaches. This may have been the number 1 problem. Lack of calibration.

Nothing to worry about, then - learning any domain takes time and effort.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

2)Similarly, my online profiles leaned toward being douchey/physique sporting/screening for fast sex. Therefore, the girls who agreed to meet were far more likely to be sexually available/DTF. So, my image of being a chad-like in my profile was more congruent when they met me.

The girls that replied, came out on a date and banged heavily self-selected themselves to do so. Daygame is more random, that's why superior body language skills are so important to approach girls open to solicitation.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

3)Girls on tinder were actively looking for a guy. Girls from daygame may not have been thinking they were going on a date in probably several cases (bad game) especially at the beginning where many approaches were indirect.

4)Sleeping with or meeting some guy during the day is far less socially acceptable than online dating. It took many years but I believe now something like 20-25% of people meet their partner online (can’t recall where I read this) with the rest being mostly from social circle. This may be ESPECIALLY true in Central/Eastern Europe where the majority of my gaming/approaching took place

5)Almost 1/3 of my tinder lays were 1 date lays in South America. The rest were in Europe where a LOT more swiping and time spent on dating platforms was needed.

I guess you've self-selected yourself there or, in other words, were shiny.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

6)In South America I did not do much daygame (specifically Brazil – only 65 approaches but this resulted in 2 bangs including one SDL from a girl who warm approached me. So, if you removed those from my day-game stats, really its’ more like 0.4% as if that difference mattered haha.

Worth considering moving in there or some other, safer country, like Mexico (kinda 'safer', I know...)?

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

7)My looks are a 6 at best and that is after maximising my looks (I was more like a 4 at the beginning) using surgery, several thousand bucks on dress and body-building. Unless you have EXCELLENT game guys who are 6s will very rarely bang any girls 7+. Many of the girls I approached were 7+s sooo.

Some men are bound to a wheelchair or incarcerated for life or married to a woman they hate. Now it doesn't look so bad, does it?

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

8)I used to be an incel before I finally started improving myself. This is why there is a ‘0’ beside social circle/night game. So that is almost 2 decades of omega/beta mindsets and latent sub-communications despite copious efforts to remove them to this day. Women might be fooled during approaches but during dates which can last hours it is inevitable they will pick something up which turns them off. Good insight from a friend from this community.

Well, you said you targeted mostly 7+, central European girls who are on the conservative, on average, side of the spectrum. The good thing it's something you can improve upon as you become more and more experienced.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

Note: I use the term ‘chad’ jokingly as I realise I am not a chad or even a chad-lite. It was merely meant to describe the directness both in terms of dress and approach I utilised during the interactions.

Daygame is not something to be sniffed at. It WORKS! Even I, a former incel managed to do it because I put the work in. That work by the way was a part-time job (probably more). These days I don’t consider that a good ROI, I consider it a negative ROI. Especially when I am not improving my stats even after video footage auditing by pro day game instructors. My tolerance for the grind, especially with the knowledge of my empirical 'evidence' is far lower when I compare the effort to the reward.

I am not going to completely dismiss it because I know several guys who do very well. What they have in common is 1) they are good looking (7+) and 2) they have good social skills which is the foundation of good game anyway. Problem is poor genetics + maxing yourself out only take you so far. If you get warm approached often and you approach those girls I imagine that would dramatically improve your odds. Never happens to me in Europe (though to be fair I am not very good at spotting IOIs in general whereas in South America they are hard to miss).

So better to keep using tinder right? Well the only problem is tinder has become almost useless for me during the last year. And that is even after upping my photo game with professional photography and an even better body with tanning to boot. Online at least as it appears for me is for true ‘chads’ only. Maybe I could go back to South America again but by the time I get there the dream could quite easily be over there too.

I would even say the average guy who maxes himself out will do better than me. It is taken for granted that a 1/100 lay to approach ratio is like a beginner stat for an average well balanced guy and advanced level for a guy with less potential. 1/500 for a recovering incel might easily be as good as he could expect.

Now it looks like the remaining way of success may be Instagram. But it would be hard to argue that it would be a better ROI on something as difficult as day game.

Whatever you decide to do, don't look through the prism of approach-to-lay ratio only. Every man will hit the ceiling but to each man it's at different height, that's true - what matters, you've succeeded and learnt, experienced, and met new people which is enormous added value. Let's not forget it.

[Heightcel]

Think I did around 1k daygame approaches. something like 50 dates im estimating. I got 6 lays. but many many close calls where I fucked up.

[WannaBang]

(08-01-2018 02:35 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  

@WB Your effort has been top class. I know that comes across like a teacher trying to encourage a below average student's efforts rather than his results, but you have done all you can. I know you're jacked, and that you maxed out your style, so if on top of that you got tanned, and a professional photographer, and still got nothing...you'd expect at least something... apparently not. Just confirmation of having to be in the real top few % in terms of looks online. In that vain your candor and your insight into why certain things happen or indeed do not happen is on point. I think the journey has made you wiser as well as perhaps preventing you from going down a very dark, twisted path. You're right about incels. But through your sheer determination and massive action you have banged 3x what the average man expects to bang in his entire lifetime. Someone with what you report as your starting position could easily have ended up as a high school shooter. One of Roosh's ideas for the title of his new book on Game was "How Not To Be A Highschool Shooter". You are the embodiment of that and should be proud. Of course girls will not recognize that but in this case fuck them. Allow yourself at least some solid self-talk and permanent confidence for what you have achieved. Again, whether girls recognize this self-confidence or see it as sufficient to continue talking to you -- again fuck them.

You've proven that you can do day game on hard mode, as a former incel, despite the low conversion rates. Whether you can do it in the future as you report day game and online is decreasing in yield, is out of your control if you put in your full efforts. But I'm not sure you'd want to or should expect yourself to when you know already that conversions are going to be low. The stat that jumps out at me is your online results, of which 1/3 was in Mexico; this shows you that location change is something to consider, even if it's not to Mexico per se.

Instagram may be a way for a while, but another app could easily come out and take its place over time. No one knows what's going to happen with the internet 3.0. You have to constantly have to look out for and keep up with the smartphone trends among hot girls, which I've always found annoying and distinctly "feminine", but it seems like the "cool" guys, as well as the orbiters, just go with the flow and become good on whatever app is hot at the time.

Thank you for those kind words and insights Skankhunt! I think I still have a little further to go before I can say I am fully maxed out. Still need to lower my bodyfat % even further so my facial aesthetics (or lack of) are as good as they can and so on.

I should add there is definitely a spectrum of incels. On the left you have the 'true' incels who are wheelchair bound, scarred and burned etc. Also guys with severe autism/aspergers etc. Probably also the exceptional mentally ill ones incapable of empathy like Elliot Rodger/or that Toronto guy who were capable of being driven to homicide. On the right you have guys who are more like 'vol-cels' who know if they put in a grand Herculean effort they could probably get something but don't see it was worth the effort. Most incels are probably somewhere on the right or in the middle (and I am sure there are a LOT of them) don't post misogynistic comments on reddit boards or contemplate murderous actions even if they think it occasionally (who doesn't anyway right?). They are just trapped inside a mental prison of the making of both their upbringing/ unlucky experiences and themselves. Most are never going to hurt anyone except maybe themselves.

A good junk of them (most?) could become SLIGHTLY above average (like a 6) or at least average if they seriously put the effort in. If they 'looksmaxed.' They would be capable of getting 1/500 girls from cold approach. Maybe better maybe worse. Lack of social skills, extreme neuroticism and introversion would tax their success rates even if they managed to get their looks to an acceptable level.

The point I am trying to make is the majority of 'incels' could succeed with day game as I have done if they tried. But how many of them would try if they knew it took 1/200 approaches to get results? Especially when the truth is it would likely be worse for them (after all I was more on the right side of the spectrum with less awful social skills etc., no mental disorders etc.).

I am glad Roosh didn't name his book that title even if it was meant to be tongue in cheek. lol if you took the media caricature of the average incel, he is completely entitled and thinks he deserves pussy just because he exists. That the universe owes them an Emily Clark on demand. Complete utter narcissism and delusion. They would likely have a nervous breakdown if you tried to explain to them that to get pussy you need to put in a significant amount of effort.

I guess I am going off on tangents here but the point I want to make is for guys who are not above average (in looks/style, game etc.) day game will be indescribably challenging such that only the most dedicated and passionate pursuers will get (poor) results. It primarily attracts guys who hate night game or who hate the idea of relying on social circles to get women they desire in their lives. Even above average guys will bust their ass at first. For guys who are below average however, no type of game is going to help them before they help themselves and become attractive.

I (and many other 'day-gamers') am grateful for the character development and confidence it has bestowed. However, I care foremost about getting laid with cute girls. I am not doing it for the thrill of the hunt like Krauser/Torero. I see it simply as a means to an end and we can use Mexico as an example. Tinder at the time was so good for me that there was literally no need for approaching at all. As long as you are getting matches (and responses obviously) it is the easiest way ever to get laid. Ridiculously easy. Like ordering a pizza. There is no way I would have tangoed with this whole day game thing if tinder has been as good in Central/Eastern Europe. But of course I gained a lot by it not being so easy.

(08-02-2018 10:18 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

Is daygame a low return on investment? For me it 100% is which is why I am right on the verge of sacking it in.

Let’s look at my online dating vs. cold approach results. Results I’ve been recording since I got into game properly in 2015:

Cold approach
Approaches: 1615
Dates: 66 (4% of approaches)
Lays: 8 (12% of dates) (0.5% approx. of approaches)

Online
Swipes: a lot (mostly multitasking e.g. sitting on crapper). For sure the effort cannot be compared at all to the cold approaching.
Dates: 65
Lays: 25 (38%)

Social Circle/Night game:
Effort in both: a LOT and more far more years than the above 2
Dates: a small handful
Lays: 0

Duh. I think that the expected value counted by lays only doesn't tell the whole story. You've made yourself a better man who succeeded in the face of adversity. You've learnt a lot about yourself, improved social skills as well as mastered women's psyche and the sexual market dynamics. You had some experiences that can happen only in daygame and will have great memories of (sexual) encounters that you've created out of nothing! The part of the journey is the self-discovery. Thanks to sheer work and determination you can proudly stroll down the street of any city knowing you're the best man you could possibly be. And as Skank Hunt points out, you've proven to yourself what might have been and if girls don't recognize it - then fuck them, it's their problem, not yours. Give yourself a proper pat on the back.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

For some reason or other dates from cold approach failed considerably more often than tinder dates. Why is this? Some thoughts:
1)I may have come across as more chad-like during approaches but was unable to maintain that image during dates where there was far more face time. The opposite was probably true in many cases too, especially during the first few 100 approaches. This may have been the number 1 problem. Lack of calibration.

Nothing to worry about, then - learning any domain takes time and effort.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

2)Similarly, my online profiles leaned toward being douchey/physique sporting/screening for fast sex. Therefore, the girls who agreed to meet were far more likely to be sexually available/DTF. So, my image of being a chad-like in my profile was more congruent when they met me.

The girls that replied, came out on a date and banged heavily self-selected themselves to do so. Daygame is more random, that's why superior body language skills are so important to approach girls open to solicitation.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

3)Girls on tinder were actively looking for a guy. Girls from daygame may not have been thinking they were going on a date in probably several cases (bad game) especially at the beginning where many approaches were indirect.

4)Sleeping with or meeting some guy during the day is far less socially acceptable than online dating. It took many years but I believe now something like 20-25% of people meet their partner online (can’t recall where I read this) with the rest being mostly from social circle. This may be ESPECIALLY true in Central/Eastern Europe where the majority of my gaming/approaching took place

5)Almost 1/3 of my tinder lays were 1 date lays in South America. The rest were in Europe where a LOT more swiping and time spent on dating platforms was needed.

I guess you've self-selected yourself there or, in other words, were shiny.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

6)In South America I did not do much daygame (specifically Brazil – only 65 approaches but this resulted in 2 bangs including one SDL from a girl who warm approached me. So, if you removed those from my day-game stats, really its’ more like 0.4% as if that difference mattered haha.

Worth considering moving in there or some other, safer country, like Mexico (kinda 'safer', I know...)?

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

7)My looks are a 6 at best and that is after maximising my looks (I was more like a 4 at the beginning) using surgery, several thousand bucks on dress and body-building. Unless you have EXCELLENT game guys who are 6s will very rarely bang any girls 7+. Many of the girls I approached were 7+s sooo.

Some men are bound to a wheelchair or incarcerated for life or married to a woman they hate. Now it doesn't look so bad, does it?

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

8)I used to be an incel before I finally started improving myself. This is why there is a ‘0’ beside social circle/night game. So that is almost 2 decades of omega/beta mindsets and latent sub-communications despite copious efforts to remove them to this day. Women might be fooled during approaches but during dates which can last hours it is inevitable they will pick something up which turns them off. Good insight from a friend from this community.

Well, you said you targeted mostly 7+, central European girls who are on the conservative, on average, side of the spectrum. The good thing it's something you can improve upon as you become more and more experienced.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

Note: I use the term ‘chad’ jokingly as I realise I am not a chad or even a chad-lite. It was merely meant to describe the directness both in terms of dress and approach I utilised during the interactions.

Daygame is not something to be sniffed at. It WORKS! Even I, a former incel managed to do it because I put the work in. That work by the way was a part-time job (probably more). These days I don’t consider that a good ROI, I consider it a negative ROI. Especially when I am not improving my stats even after video footage auditing by pro day game instructors. My tolerance for the grind, especially with the knowledge of my empirical 'evidence' is far lower when I compare the effort to the reward.

I am not going to completely dismiss it because I know several guys who do very well. What they have in common is 1) they are good looking (7+) and 2) they have good social skills which is the foundation of good game anyway. Problem is poor genetics + maxing yourself out only take you so far. If you get warm approached often and you approach those girls I imagine that would dramatically improve your odds. Never happens to me in Europe (though to be fair I am not very good at spotting IOIs in general whereas in South America they are hard to miss).

So better to keep using tinder right? Well the only problem is tinder has become almost useless for me during the last year. And that is even after upping my photo game with professional photography and an even better body with tanning to boot. Online at least as it appears for me is for true ‘chads’ only. Maybe I could go back to South America again but by the time I get there the dream could quite easily be over there too.

I would even say the average guy who maxes himself out will do better than me. It is taken for granted that a 1/100 lay to approach ratio is like a beginner stat for an average well balanced guy and advanced level for a guy with less potential. 1/500 for a recovering incel might easily be as good as he could expect.

Now it looks like the remaining way of success may be Instagram. But it would be hard to argue that it would be a better ROI on something as difficult as day game.

Whatever you decide to do, don't look through the prism of approach-to-lay ratio only. Every man will hit the ceiling but to each man it's at different height, that's true - what matters, you've succeeded and learnt, experienced, and met new people which is enormous added value. Let's not forget it.

All very good points! I've nothing really to add. I've more or less given up on day game for the moment. I would say it is sheer boredom more than anything else. I am bored of all the 'I have a boyfriends' and blow-offs. Of the numbers that don't respond. Of the girls who flake and don't suggest alternative meetings. Of there being almost no 'yes girls.' I have a fb who is very likely to become my gf before long. I know it is important not to look through the prism of a approach-lay ratio but the data does not lie. Its like that inner elephant analogy Bodi used in his book about convincing yourself to do something uncomfortable for the greater reward. It no longer feels worth it. Maybe some day that will change and this will just be a passing break.

(08-03-2018 04:26 PM)Heightcel Wrote:  

Think I did around 1k daygame approaches. something like 50 dates im estimating. I got 6 lays. but many many close calls where I fucked up.

Good stuff man! I feel your pain about the fuck ups. There were SEVERAL of those in my case. Mostly due to doing retarded shit mostly due to lack of calibration or being a pussy. Major respect to anyone who has done over 1k approaches no matter what his final results were.

[Alpha_Ambitionz]

(08-06-2018 12:04 PM)WannaBang Wrote:  

[quote] (08-01-2018 02:35 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  

@WB Your effort has been top class. I know that comes across like a teacher trying to encourage a below average student's efforts rather than his results, but you have done all you can. I know you're jacked, and that you maxed out your style, so if on top of that you got tanned, and a professional photographer, and still got nothing...you'd expect at least something... apparently not. Just confirmation of having to be in the real top few % in terms of looks online. In that vain your candor and your insight into why certain things happen or indeed do not happen is on point. I think the journey has made you wiser as well as perhaps preventing you from going down a very dark, twisted path. You're right about incels. But through your sheer determination and massive action you have banged 3x what the average man expects to bang in his entire lifetime. Someone with what you report as your starting position could easily have ended up as a high school shooter. One of Roosh's ideas for the title of his new book on Game was "How Not To Be A Highschool Shooter". You are the embodiment of that and should be proud. Of course girls will not recognize that but in this case fuck them. Allow yourself at least some solid self-talk and permanent confidence for what you have achieved. Again, whether girls recognize this self-confidence or see it as sufficient to continue talking to you -- again fuck them.

You've proven that you can do day game on hard mode, as a former incel, despite the low conversion rates. Whether you can do it in the future as you report day game and online is decreasing in yield, is out of your control if you put in your full efforts. But I'm not sure you'd want to or should expect yourself to when you know already that conversions are going to be low. The stat that jumps out at me is your online results, of which 1/3 was in Mexico; this shows you that location change is something to consider, even if it's not to Mexico per se.

Instagram may be a way for a while, but another app could easily come out and take its place over time. No one knows what's going to happen with the internet 3.0. You have to constantly have to look out for and keep up with the smartphone trends among hot girls, which I've always found annoying and distinctly "feminine", but it seems like the "cool" guys, as well as the orbiters, just go with the flow and become good on whatever app is hot at the time.

Thank you for those kind words and insights Skankhunt! I think I still have a little further to go before I can say I am fully maxed out. Still need to lower my bodyfat % even further so my facial aesthetics (or lack of) are as good as they can and so on.

I should add there is definitely a spectrum of incels. On the left you have the 'true' incels who are wheelchair bound, scarred and burned etc. Also guys with severe autism/aspergers etc. Probably also the exceptional mentally ill ones incapable of empathy like Elliot Rodger/or that Toronto guy who were capable of being driven to homicide. On the right you have guys who are more like 'vol-cels' who know if they put in a grand Herculean effort they could probably get something but don't see it was worth the effort. Most incels are probably somewhere on the right or in the middle (and I am sure there are a LOT of them) don't post misogynistic comments on reddit boards or contemplate murderous actions even if they think it occasionally (who doesn't anyway right?). They are just trapped inside a mental prison of the making of both their upbringing/ unlucky experiences and themselves. Most are never going to hurt anyone except maybe themselves.

A good junk of them (most?) could become SLIGHTLY above average (like a 6) or at least average if they seriously put the effort in. If they 'looksmaxed.' They would be capable of getting 1/500 girls from cold approach. Maybe better maybe worse. Lack of social skills, extreme neuroticism and introversion would tax their success rates even if they managed to get their looks to an acceptable level.

The point I am trying to make is the majority of 'incels' could succeed with day game as I have done if they tried. But how many of them would try if they knew it took 1/200 approaches to get results? Especially when the truth is it would likely be worse for them (after all I was more on the right side of the spectrum with less awful social skills etc., no mental disorders etc.).

I am glad Roosh didn't name his book that title even if it was meant to be tongue in cheek. lol if you took the media caricature of the average incel, he is completely entitled and thinks he deserves pussy just because he exists. That the universe owes them an Emily Clark on demand. Complete utter narcissism and delusion. They would likely have a nervous breakdown if you tried to explain to them that to get pussy you need to put in a significant amount of effort.

I guess I am going off on tangents here but the point I want to make is for guys who are not above average (in looks/style, game etc.) day game will be indescribably challenging such that only the most dedicated and passionate pursuers will get (poor) results. It primarily attracts guys who hate night game or who hate the idea of relying on social circles to get women they desire in their lives. Even above average guys will bust their ass at first. For guys who are below average however, no type of game is going to help them before they help themselves and become attractive.

I (and many other 'day-gamers') am grateful for the character development and confidence it has bestowed. However, I care foremost about getting laid with cute girls. I am not doing it for the thrill of the hunt like Krauser/Torero. I see it simply as a means to an end and we can use Mexico as an example. Tinder at the time was so good for me that there was literally no need for approaching at all. As long as you are getting matches (and responses obviously) it is the easiest way ever to get laid. Ridiculously easy. Like ordering a pizza. There is no way I would have tangoed with this whole day game thing if tinder has been as good in Central/Eastern Europe. But of course I gained a lot by it not being so easy.

(08-02-2018 10:18 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

Is daygame a low return on investment? For me it 100% is which is why I am right on the verge of sacking it in.

Let’s look at my online dating vs. cold approach results. Results I’ve been recording since I got into game properly in 2015:

Cold approach
Approaches: 1615
Dates: 66 (4% of approaches)
Lays: 8 (12% of dates) (0.5% approx. of approaches)

Online
Swipes: a lot (mostly multitasking e.g. sitting on crapper). For sure the effort cannot be compared at all to the cold approaching.
Dates: 65
Lays: 25 (38%)

Social Circle/Night game:
Effort in both: a LOT and more far more years than the above 2
Dates: a small handful
Lays: 0

Duh. I think that the expected value counted by lays only doesn't tell the whole story. You've made yourself a better man who succeeded in the face of adversity. You've learnt a lot about yourself, improved social skills as well as mastered women's psyche and the sexual market dynamics. You had some experiences that can happen only in daygame and will have great memories of (sexual) encounters that you've created out of nothing! The part of the journey is the self-discovery. Thanks to sheer work and determination you can proudly stroll down the street of any city knowing you're the best man you could possibly be. And as Skank Hunt points out, you've proven to yourself what might have been and if girls don't recognize it - then fuck them, it's their problem, not yours. Give yourself a proper pat on the back.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

For some reason or other dates from cold approach failed considerably more often than tinder dates. Why is this? Some thoughts:
1)I may have come across as more chad-like during approaches but was unable to maintain that image during dates where there was far more face time. The opposite was probably true in many cases too, especially during the first few 100 approaches. This may have been the number 1 problem. Lack of calibration.

Nothing to worry about, then - learning any domain takes time and effort.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

2)Similarly, my online profiles leaned toward being douchey/physique sporting/screening for fast sex. Therefore, the girls who agreed to meet were far more likely to be sexually available/DTF. So, my image of being a chad-like in my profile was more congruent when they met me.

The girls that replied, came out on a date and banged heavily self-selected themselves to do so. Daygame is more random, that's why superior body language skills are so important to approach girls open to solicitation.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

3)Girls on tinder were actively looking for a guy. Girls from daygame may not have been thinking they were going on a date in probably several cases (bad game) especially at the beginning where many approaches were indirect.

4)Sleeping with or meeting some guy during the day is far less socially acceptable than online dating. It took many years but I believe now something like 20-25% of people meet their partner online (can’t recall where I read this) with the rest being mostly from social circle. This may be ESPECIALLY true in Central/Eastern Europe where the majority of my gaming/approaching took place

5)Almost 1/3 of my tinder lays were 1 date lays in South America. The rest were in Europe where a LOT more swiping and time spent on dating platforms was needed.

I guess you've self-selected yourself there or, in other words, were shiny.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

6)In South America I did not do much daygame (specifically Brazil – only 65 approaches but this resulted in 2 bangs including one SDL from a girl who warm approached me. So, if you removed those from my day-game stats, really its’ more like 0.4% as if that difference mattered haha.

Worth considering moving in there or some other, safer country, like Mexico (kinda 'safer', I know...)?

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

7)My looks are a 6 at best and that is after maximising my looks (I was more like a 4 at the beginning) using surgery, several thousand bucks on dress and body-building. Unless you have EXCELLENT game guys who are 6s will very rarely bang any girls 7+. Many of the girls I approached were 7+s sooo.

Some men are bound to a wheelchair or incarcerated for life or married to a woman they hate. Now it doesn't look so bad, does it?

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

8)I used to be an incel before I finally started improving myself. This is why there is a ‘0’ beside social circle/night game. So that is almost 2 decades of omega/beta mindsets and latent sub-communications despite copious efforts to remove them to this day. Women might be fooled during approaches but during dates which can last hours it is inevitable they will pick something up which turns them off. Good insight from a friend from this community.

Well, you said you targeted mostly 7+, central European girls who are on the conservative, on average, side of the spectrum. The good thing it's something you can improve upon as you become more and more experienced.

(08-01-2018 09:47 AM)WannaBang Wrote:  

Note: I use the term ‘chad’ jokingly as I realise I am not a chad or even a chad-lite. It was merely meant to describe the directness both in terms of dress and approach I utilised during the interactions.

Daygame is not something to be sniffed at. It WORKS! Even I, a former incel managed to do it because I put the work in. That work by the way was a part-time job (probably more). These days I don’t consider that a good ROI, I consider it a negative ROI. Especially when I am not improving my stats even after video footage auditing by pro day game instructors. My tolerance for the grind, especially with the knowledge of my empirical 'evidence' is far lower when I compare the effort to the reward.

I am not going to completely dismiss it because I know several guys who do very well. What they have in common is 1) they are good looking (7+) and 2) they have good social skills which is the foundation of good game anyway. Problem is poor genetics + maxing yourself out only take you so far. If you get warm approached often and you approach those girls I imagine that would dramatically improve your odds. Never happens to me in Europe (though to be fair I am not very good at spotting IOIs in general whereas in South America they are hard to miss).

So better to keep using tinder right? Well the only problem is tinder has become almost useless for me during the last year. And that is even after upping my photo game with professional photography and an even better body with tanning to boot. Online at least as it appears for me is for true ‘chads’ only. Maybe I could go back to South America again but by the time I get there the dream could quite easily be over there too.

I would even say the average guy who maxes himself out will do better than me. It is taken for granted that a 1/100 lay to approach ratio is like a beginner stat for an average well balanced guy and advanced level for a guy with less potential. 1/500 for a recovering incel might easily be as good as he could expect.

Now it looks like the remaining way of success may be Instagram. But it would be hard to argue that it would be a better ROI on something as difficult as day game.

WB, your post really resonated with me.

I'm more or less in the same boat as you.

The difference?

While I've done over 1000 daygame approaches in the last 5 years, I still have 0 bangs to show for (and only like 6 dates).

That's why now, I'm focusing most of my energy on maxing out my looks.

When you can step up confidently to girls, but most of them they reject you right off the opener, you know that it's your looks that need improvement.

First impressions are formed in under a second, and in the eyes of these girls, I feel like I'm a "no." Not a "yes" or a "maybe," but a solid "no" just based on looks alone.

I'll walk down the street and I'll notice absolutely no IOI's. Sometimes, it feels like I'm invisible.

When girls don't find you physically attractive, it doesn't matter how much game you have, because girls won't give you the chance to spit.

Game without looks is almost as useless as looks without game (you can compensate with social status, but for us introverted daygamers, building a solid social circle and getting into online game is even more challenging than cold approaching 1000 girls).

So how good looking do you have to be, exactly?

Good Looking Loser says B+ is good enough. In other words, you got to be at least 6/10, or above-average.

So this is my current plan for improving my looks:

Body: After working with several physiotherapists over the last 3 years, I've finally discovered the real reason for my shoulder dyskinesis and glute imbalance. I'm currently working with an osteopath to fix these problems so that I can get back into weightlifting. He said that it should only be another month or so before I can start squatting and benching again. I'm hoping that when I do start lifting, I can get my body from 5'9, 130 lbs -> 5'9 160 lbs in under a year.

Skin: I have a few pimples on my nose that just won't seem to go away. I've been talking to my family doctor about it, but he seems to just keep prescribing me stronger doses of benzoyl peroxide + retin-A. I've been also trying to improve my diet (e.g., lots of veggies, no dairy, no sugar, no processed foods), while making sure to cleanse my skin daily and exfoliate weekly.

Clothes: Probably the most expensive to work on. For example, I just blew $300 on a new summer outfit: beige linen pants, blue linen shirt, and white sneakers. I'm trying to implement the fashion knowledge that I've acquired from reading the Kinowear Bible. I'm aiming for more of a rugged, edgy look, rather than a smart and elegant appearance.

Haircut: I'm a baby-faced Asian, so I've been trying to make my hair look more edgy and bad-ass. Maybe later I'll post in the Asian Guy Travel Thread some hairstyles that I've been trying to achieve.

Voice: When I listen to voice recordings of myself, I get very self-conscious because I have a very "nasally" voice. It's not deep and masculine like some guys. In the Rooshv voice thread, someone posted a good course by voice dynamics which I intend to take.

For incels like myself with below-average genetics, we're always going to be fighting an uphill battle.

The difference is that I'm willing to put in the work.

In fact, I've already shed a lot of blood and tears, but I know that there's still much more work to be done.

And that's why I'm here.

I hope one day I'll be able to reap the rewards of my hard work.

Until then, Ima keep hustlin.

[WannaBang]

Alpha_Ambitionz probably best to pm me. We don't want to take this thread too much off topic.

You seem familiar with Good looking loser. I actually consider him the very best that there is for guys no matter how inexperienced or disadvantaged when it comes to taking action. Krauser and the more refined 'day game' is advanced stuff imo for guys who have already maxed out their sexual market value and are now filtering just on 'yes girls who are DTF' using basic/nervous guy game but who want to convert 'maybe girls into yes girls' (which is basically what day game is). Walk before you can run however.

All I can say is something is very wrong if you aren't even getting dates. Are you getting many numbers (even if most of them obviously didn't lead to anything)? My main weakness was the dates themselves, not getting those dates implying my physical appearance was NOT the limiting factor but rather my inner game and former residual incel attitudes, mindsets and internalisations bleeding through the mask so to speak - which put the girl off even if my initial approach was decent (special thanks to Skankhunt for helping me come to that conclusion).

In your case, unless there is something really weird going on with your approaches, it could be a looks issue quite easily. Could be you are punching above your (current) weight - girls who are 1+ points higher than you. The sad truth is when you are an incel the only girls who are in your league are 4s and below.

Anyway sounds like you know what you are doing in that list. Get on top of all of those things. Become a '6.' I have more advice but as I said before, pm me.

[Skank_Hunt]

@WannaBang -- I was wrong to paint all "incels" with the same brush. There is a spectrum as you said and the majority don't have the internal predisposition to acts of violence. Even if an incel has a violent thought once in a while due to anger, as many normal people have but never act on, there is a whole other step up from actually going through with something like that. I didn't mean that you have the predisposition to do anything like that, in fact I know from our correspondence it's anything but. What I have respected in fact is your ability to not dwell on things that have been unfair to you, including external factors which in my opinion you have a right to be aggrieved about. For example there is endless talk on this forum and elsewhere (increasingly as more men realize something crazy is going on with "prices") about the "SMP" and the "great decline" of the "SMP" in the west and spreading further east through globalization and smartphones. What I'm saying is I think you're a decent guy. You have risen to the top 1% of former incels easily, reached many of your goals, and shown that it can be done, that being extremely neurotic, introverted, negative, bitter, mentally ill (severe cases excluded) or whatever internal handicap that "lighter" end of the spectrum of incels have... can be overcome with hard work. For a lot of that hard work, blind grinding was required, so in a way, you had to let go of a lot of common sense for a time period, in your acceptance of doing 1000+ day time approaches, in the sense that, while it was apparently yielding nothing so most men would have cut their losses, you continued to invest your time/effort/money into improving your day game results including massive "off field" improvements (your "SMV"). However, at the end of this "chapter" in your life, so to speak, you have the insight and pragmatism to conclude that your daygame, however much it has added to you up to now, would be insufficiently rewarding for you to continue. You base your decision not on emotions but on concrete numbers which you yourself have painstakingly gathered. You didn't just read these numbers online and decide "Oh, I'd better not try that." There are so many variables that each man has to try it for himself and decide whether it is worth it to him or not. You note as a matter of fact that you could and did at least a few years ago get such an easy run on Tinder in Mexico, and this is a good comparison to demonstrate how difficult day game can be. I think once you've "got" them, polish girls can be great for a LTR, so maybe enjoying that and riding that (far more pleasant) wave until the end might be a more healthy and rewarding option for you so congratulations on that and good luck. A significant silver lining to your day game conversion rates, definitely.